{"id":4454,"date":"2015-05-22T15:55:26","date_gmt":"2015-05-22T22:55:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/69.46.6.243\/?p=4454"},"modified":"2015-05-22T15:55:26","modified_gmt":"2015-05-22T22:55:26","slug":"state-department-update-including-clinton-email-update","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/?p=4454","title":{"rendered":"State Department Update Including Clinton Email Update"},"content":{"rendered":"

Washington, DC…Below is the press briefing from today which included many questions about the Clinton email issue. The full text is enclosed…<\/p>\n

<\/object><\/p>\n

2:15 p.m. EDT<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Good afternoon. Welcome to the daily briefing.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Thank you. Happy —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> You\u2019re welcome.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — Memorial Day to you.<\/p>\n

<\/a>MS HARF:<\/b> Happy Memorial Day weekend. I just have one item at the top, and then I\u2019m happy, Matt, to turn it over to you. As you all know, today the State Department made publicly available online 296 emails from former Secretary Clinton, which were previously provided to the Select Committee on Benghazi on February 13th, 2015. We used Freedom of Information Act standards for this public release, as we have always said we would. The State Department provided these emails to the select committee three months ago. They were provided with significantly fewer redactions under an agreement that the committee would not make any information public that is sensitive and inappropriate for release.<\/p>\n

Regarding Benghazi, these 296 emails, some of which hopefully some of you have been able to see despite some of the website issues, do not change the essential facts that have been known since the independent Accountability Review Board report came out almost two and a half years ago. They do not change our understanding of what happened before, during, or after the attack. And just to remind people, in the spirit of cooperation we have consistently engaged with and been responsive to the select committee. Since the select committee\u2019s formation less than a year ago, the Department has provided seven briefings, witnesses at each of the committee\u2019s three hearings, 21 witness interviews since February, and provided over 45,000 pages of documents to the committee as well.<\/p>\n

Now that the front row has filled out, including with two Fox reporters, I\u2019m happy to start the briefing off. Matt.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Yeah, so let\u2019s —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Happy Friday.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Thank you. Happy Friday to you, too. On the emails —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Mm-hmm.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — I want to talk about the redactions generally.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Okay.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But first, specifically, the one redaction that appears to have been made because it involves classified or what has now been determined to be classified information.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Mm-hmm.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Can you explain to us what exactly this is?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Yeah. So first, the email and the information in this email you\u2019re referring to was not classified at the time it was sent. And I would remind people it was sent to Secretary Clinton. This very small portion of information, less than two sentences, was subsequently upgraded today at the request of the FBI. It is routine to upgrade information to classified status during the FOIA process. This happens frequently about several times every month. This is part of the process.<\/p>\n

Executive Order 13526, which governs classification, provides that information that was previously unclassified such as this can be reviewed to determine whether its classification should be upgraded prior to public release under the FOIA. Again, this information was sent to her in 2012. There are a variety of reasons, in general \u2013 I\u2019m not going to speak specifically to why the FBI requested this redaction \u2013 but that information could be upgraded to classified prior to its public release. I\u2019m just going to outline a few so people have a general sense for how the process works.<\/p>\n

First, it\u2019s possible that the degree of sensitivity of certain information could have evolved over time due to changing world events or national security interests. It\u2019s also possible the details of our cooperation with other countries would be upgraded if their public disclosure could negatively impact U.S. foreign relations, and it\u2019s possible that a candid exchange of views among officials, if publicly released, could have a negative impact on foreign relations. Those are general. I\u2019m not referring specifically to this sentence and a half that was upgraded today. But there are a variety of reasons in the regular FOIA process that this can happen.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But that all refers to being upgraded from unclassified to some form of classification \u2013 some level of classification —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Correct.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — for candid exchanges between officials included?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> If it could impact \u2013 if there\u2019s a judgment made by FOIA experts that it could negatively impact foreign relations, yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Can you tell us what it was upgraded to, these —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It was upgraded to secret.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay, which is the lowest of the \u2013<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> That\u2019s \u2013 well, there\u2019s confidential, which is lower.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay. Now, more generally, there are a lot of other redactions.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Correct. And we tried to set expectations that there would be.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you \u2013 right. Do you have \u2013 are you able to tell us what the majority of those redactions were for? Did they \u2013 what was the reason —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I don\u2019t have a breakdown. Next to each redaction there is a code for the FOIA exemption that\u2019s specifically cited, and on our FOIA website you can take a look at all those codes. I don\u2019t know them all by heart, and I haven\u2019t done a numerical breakdown of how many apply where. But as I noted, these were provided with very few redactions to the committee. When this one email that we\u2019ve referenced that has now been upgraded was provided to the committee, it was provided un-redacted and unclassified.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And so the committee has —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Because there are different standards for public release —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> The committee has —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> — under FOIA.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> The committee has the un-redacted version?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Correct.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay. And they have un-redacted versions of all of this, or was there stuff that was sent to them that was redacted?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> There were very small \u2013 there were some redactions, but they were very, very limited. This was an agreement we made with the committee that we would provide them in that form and they would not release them publicly.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Despite the fact that this information was not, as you say, classified at the time —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Correct.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — it was sent to her —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Correct.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — is it at all troubling or problematic for the Department that this kind of information, which is clearly sensitive, even if it wasn\u2019t classified at the time, was being passed around on a private server?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, I think we\u2019ve spoken more broadly to this issue in the past, in terms of the fact that there was no prohibition from using private email as a public official. We\u2019ve spoken about this in the past. I don\u2019t have much more to add than that. I would again note that this information was not classified at the time.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Was it \u2013 what was it considered at the time? Do you know?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Unclassified.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But not even, like, sensitive but unclassified?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It had no markings on it.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> It had no —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> And again, when it got sent to the Hill, it also went in an unclassified form. This \u2013 again, as part of the FOIA process, this happens about several times a month on average where, for a variety of reasons under the FOIA law, something that has been previously unclassified is for public release deemed to be classified.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Last one from me on this. When did \u2013 when was it that the FBI asked for this to be upgraded?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, there\u2019s been an ongoing interagency process. Every agency that has equities in these emails has at some point in the review process \u2013 is part of it, as will be the case with the 55,000.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> So some time in —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> So there\u2019s been an ongoing discussion with the other agencies throughout the last several weeks that we\u2019ve been doing this.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But is that since they were turned over to the committee, or since it became public knowledge that there was the \u2013 that this private server existed?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Right. So there \u2013 when they \u2013 they went through an interagency process when they went to the committee as well, but using the standards of going to members of Congress who have clearances, not using FOIA standards. So when we made the decision to release these publicly under FOIA standards, a new interagency process started. So we can work backwards; I\u2019m sorry, I don\u2019t remember the date. But when we decided to release all of them publicly, we started the new FOIA process, which is a separate process with different standards for public release. They went back to the interagency then, and that\u2019s when all of these discussions took place.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> All right. Then just remind me: Did you guys decide to make all of these public \u2013 it was only after it became public knowledge \u2013 of the private server became public knowledge —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> No.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — that you decided to release them all, right?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It was when \u2013 well, I can go back and look at the chronology. It\u2019s \u2013 when she turned them all over to us, I think we very quickly said \u2013 even before the server issue was discussed, if I remember correctly \u2013 that we would undertake using FOIA standards review to release these publicly. On Tuesday we\u2019ll be making a court filing, following up on ours last week, I think, on the 55,000, outlining a \u2013 how we will be undertaking rolling production \u2013 so periodic production of the remaining 55,000. And that\u2019s something we\u2019re committed to.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And just one last question. Just \u2013 and you may have said this already, and forgive me, but —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It\u2019s okay.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — to be clear, because the email and the contents of it was not classified at the time it was sent to her —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Correct.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — it\u2019s the State Department\u2019s opinion that she did not violate any policy. Is that correct?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> What kind of \u2013 I mean, what policy are you referring to?<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, like something within the FAM or something that would suggest she should not be —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> That anyone mishandled classified information?<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Correct.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It wasn\u2019t classified at the time, and the —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Therefore —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> — occurrence of a subsequent upgrade does not mean that anyone did anything wrong, just to be very clear here.<\/p>\n

Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> On that point, is there in the FBI\u2019s request that this now be classified, embedded within that request, the suggestion that it should have been classified on the date in which it was sent?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I have not heard of that. I mean, I don\u2019t \u2013 the answer is I don\u2019t know. I haven\u2019t heard that in any of the discussions. As I said, this happens pretty regularly that something is —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But you would concede —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> — this process happens pretty regularly.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> You would concede as part of that regular occurrence it\u2019s quite plausible that in some instances something is upgraded in its classification from unclassified to some measure of classification because it should have been at the time and was not \u2013 correct?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> That\u2019s not —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> That happens, yes?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> That has happened. But in this case, what we\u2019re talking about is something not \u2013 I don\u2019t think that\u2019s what we\u2019re talking about here. We\u2019re talking about something that, again, when it went to the Hill was sent unclassified; it went through an interagency review process then when technically it also could have been upgraded. It\u2019s my understanding that this was purely using the FOIA standards for public release that the FBI \u2013 and again, I don\u2019t want to speak for them, but that the request was made. And ultimately the State Department writes the upgrade memo and signs off on it. So that decision ultimately lies here to do that. But it was at this request, so we decide to do this using the FOIA standards, that for public release this is permissible.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Is it the working supposition of the Department right now that it was from source associated with the Benghazi committee that The New York Times<\/i> obtained the large trove of emails that it put online?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Honestly \u2013 I said this the other day \u2013 I\u2019ve given up guessing where leaks like this come from. As I said, the Department certainly didn\u2019t provide the emails that were alleged to be part of that trove, which I\u2019m still not going to confirm are actually a part of it. But we certainly didn\u2019t, and I\u2019m just not going to guess about that.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you know whether —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It\u2019s a game, I think, that gets you nowhere.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you know whether there is an investigation underway to determine how those documents came into the possession of The New York Times<\/i>?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I do not know. I\u2019m happy to check, but I don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you happen to know whether if we were to compare specific documents that appear to be the same ones from the New York Times<\/i> trove to those that were officially released today, we would observe different redactions because one was sent to the committee and the other was redacted under the FOIA process, as you\u2019re making clear?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, without commenting on the specific documents that were posted on The New York Times<\/i> website, if people had in their possession \u2013 which they shouldn\u2019t \u2013 documents that were sent to the committee \u2013 and I\u2019m not saying that those are they, okay? I\u2019m not. But the documents that went to the committee would look different than the ones that were released under FOIA because we use different standards. In order to be as transparent as we possibly could with the committee, we agreed to do very minimal redactions so they could see as much information as possible. FOIA standards are more restrictive for public release.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> One of the documents released today included an exchange of emails between Cheryl Mills and Matt Olsen, who at the time was the head of the National Counterterrorism Center.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Of NCTC.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And it was in the fall of 2012, and Mr. Olsen was reporting confidentially to Ms. Mills on how he thought congressional hearings about Benghazi were going at that time \u2013 \u201cFine,\u201d he said, from his perspective; and also reporting on his debriefing or his interrogation by the ARB, the Accountability Review Board, saying that it was an excellent session; and lastly, telling Ms. Mills that the intelligence community, or at least the NCTC, is continuing to fend off questions about the unclassified talking points.<\/p>\n

Do you agree that I\u2019m correctly characterizing the correspondence?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I have read all the emails. I remember that one, broadly speaking.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I don\u2019t remember the last point about the talking points. I just don\u2019t remember seeing that in his email.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> It\u2019s in there.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I\u2019m happy to go back and check.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you have any thoughts as to the propriety of a senior intelligence official carrying on that kind of correspondence with the Secretary of State\u2019s chief of staff? What\u2019s the reason for it?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> When you say what kind of correspondence, what are you \u2013 how are you characterizing it?<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Reporting back to her on how he thinks congressional hearings are going, reporting back to her on how his ARB session went, telling her that he\u2019s continuing to fend off requests for information about the unclassified talking points?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> So on the third piece, I just honestly, James, don\u2019t remember that being in the email. I\u2019m happy to take a look at the email. I\u2019m sure you would walk it up here if you could; we\u2019re not going to do that. I\u2019m happy to take —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I\u2019m not going to pull a Lazio on you, but —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I\u2019m happy to take a look at it. (Laughter.) But I\u2019m not going to have you read it either. But in general, why would \u2013 why would sort of saying it went fine, why would that be inappropriate?<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I\u2019m just not clear on the necessity of a senior intelligence official communicating with the Secretary of State\u2019s chief of staff about these things. I don\u2019t understand why.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, I\u2019m not \u2013 I\u2019m not clear why you\u2019re suggesting there\u2019s impropriety, I guess.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I don\u2019t know why he\u2019s reporting to her on how his debriefing by the ARB went.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Maybe it was just a casual conversation. It went well. I\u2019m not sure what the harm in that is.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Again, I\u2019m not going to parse every single email or get into the head of what people were thinking at the time —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Two more.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> — and not having the email in front of me. But —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Two more questions.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I\u2019m not entirely sure what you\u2019re getting at here, but go ahead. Continue.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I think you have some rough idea of what I\u2019m getting at.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I actually sort of don\u2019t, but go ahead. Continue.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, let me ask it before you do your other two.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay. Certainly, Matt.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you \u2013 does the Department believe that there was any kind of impropriety in this exchange that he\u2019s talking about?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Again, I don\u2019t have the exchange in front of me. But I —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you believe that there is any impropriety evidenced in any of the emails —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I do not.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — that were sent?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I do not.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I do not.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> One of the emails appears to indicate that on the 15th of September 2012, Secretary Clinton was to receive the presidential daily brief at her home at 9:30 in the morning. And as the set of emails makes clear, including one from the Secretary to her aides, she says, she types at 10:43 a.m., \u201cI just woke up so I missed Dan,\u201d who was supposed to deliver the PDB.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Mm-hmm.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Putting aside the Secretary\u2019s sleeping habits —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> And yet you felt the need to raise them in the briefing.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> As you felt the need to begin the briefing by stating that there were two Fox reporters here today.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I thought I was being welcoming.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> My point to you is, aside from the fact that she slept through the PDB \u2013 (laughter).<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Putting aside that, go ahead.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Is it \u2013 was Secretary Clinton a regular consumer of the PDB?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, I didn\u2019t \u2013 I wasn\u2019t here when Secretary Clinton was here. I am happy to get more details for you. It is my understanding that she was a regular, intense consumer of intelligence in a variety of forms, one of which was the presidential daily briefing. There are other \u2013 many ways that secretaries of state have intelligence information at their fingertips as well. It is certainly my understanding that she was \u2013 used intelligence quite a bit and very much valued it as one of her sources of information.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Last question. This is somewhat toward the personal side of things. But I wonder if it\u2019s \u2013 I wonder if it\u2019s been a concern for you and your other colleagues who do these press briefings at the podium that in having to answer for Secretary of State Clinton\u2019s conduct with respect to her private emails and the disposition of those emails, the deletion of some of those emails, that you and you colleagues are, in effect, being forced to serve as surrogate spokespeople for the Clinton campaign. Is that a concern for you?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I certainly don\u2019t feel that way, James. We take it very seriously here, that we defend former secretaries of state, their policies, certainly. That is completely independent from any political campaign that may or may not be going on. As I\u2019ve often said, I am happy in this job to not have to worry about political campaigns. That\u2019s why when we talk about these things we are very factual. We talk about the \u2013 what this Department has done, did do in the past to our \u2013 to the extent that we can, and quite frankly stay out of all the politics, as much as some of you try to drag us into it.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, you defend all former secretaries of state? On Tuesday I\u2019ll ask you to defend Seward.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Former secretaries of state in the administration in which we serve. And their —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> When what they do is defensible.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> And when they\u2019re \u2013 well, look, when we talk about the policies of this Administration, that includes policies under Secretary Kerry and under Secretary Clinton. But we keep it in a very nonpartisan and nonpolitical lane. We, including myself, feel very strongly about that \u2013 incredibly strongly about that, that this podium is a nonpartisan and a nonpolitical one. And yes, she is running for president, and that is a fact. But that\u2019s why when you ask me questions about her, I keep it based on the facts. We keep it based on what the Department does as a whole, what Secretary Kerry\u2019s doing today in terms of all of these issues, whether it\u2019s FOIA or getting things released.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you defend her sleeping through the PDB?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I think I\u2019m going to move on.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> All right.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Any more on this?<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Oh, I just would like to ask, when\u2019s the next batch coming?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> So I think when we make the court filing on Tuesday, I expect that we may hopefully be indicating when the first rolling production will be. Secretary Kerry is very focused, as are all of us, on doing this as quickly as possible, and that\u2019s certainly a goal. We\u2019re going to be expediting more resources to both the congressional production side, because we have a number of outstanding congressional production document requests, but also to reviewing the 55,000 emails for public release. So this is a huge undertaking, certainly, but we are working as quickly as we can. And hopefully we\u2019ll be able to say soon when the first rolling production will be.<\/p>\n

Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> (Inaudible.)<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And how many would those be?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> We\u2019re trying to determine that right now. It may not be the same every time. We\u2019re just \u2013 as many as we can get done, basically by that date. And given \u2013 some of these emails won\u2019t have other agency equities involved, so those will probably be done a little quicker. But when you have all these other agencies, it\u2019s just a process that takes a little longer.<\/p>\n

Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Yeah. Going back to the change in the classification level of the redacted \u2013 the upgrade.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> The upgrade. It wasn\u2019t classified to begin with. Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> You had said that this is a fairly regular thing or a routine process.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It happens about several times a month in FOIA requests.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Would the fact that this is as routine as that kind of highlight the flaw in the policy of allowing people to send emails on personal servers, if there\u2019s routinely information that is then upgraded in classification a little bit?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, but you\u2019re, I think, assuming something about the reason for upgrade. And oftentimes the reason for upgrade is because it\u2019s not appropriate to be released publicly under FOIA. That\u2019s different than it being unclassified and being sent around on an unclassified email.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Sure.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> So those are just different standards. So I think you\u2019re just making an underlying assumption about why things are necessarily upgraded, which is not necessarily the case.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But private servers \u2013 probably almost in every instance are probably less secure than government servers. And if there\u2019s information that\u2019s routinely upgraded in classification because it\u2019s determined that it\u2019s actually not something that you want released —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> But those \u2013 well, go ahead. Sorry, you can finish and then I\u2019ll let you continue.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, in that case wouldn\u2019t \u2013 doesn\u2019t that highlight a potential security threat with the way that information is handled or has been handled in the past in this building?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I mean, I think you\u2019re making a broad statement. There\u2019s a variety of reasons that things can be upgraded.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Mm-hmm. But if one of those reasons is that that information is too sensitive to be seen in the public.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> But that doesn\u2019t mean that if it wasn\u2019t being released publicly it would\u2019ve been upgraded. Do you see what I\u2019m saying? Independent of public release that doesn\u2019t mean it would\u2019ve been classified.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> You said —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But there are other ways it could get out, especially if it\u2019s on a private server.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I understand the question, but I think I\u2019ve answered it.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> When you say \u2013 talking about these retroactive —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It\u2019s not retroactive. It doesn\u2019t go back. It just starts going forward.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> All right, okay. Wrong word. Sorry. When you\u2019re talking about —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It\u2019s okay. Just a key point.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — changing the classification or making —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Upgrading.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — something classified, you say it happens often several times a month.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Mm-hmm.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But does it happen several times a month with people\u2019s private emails, or are these within the state.gov emails?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It happens \u2013 I mean, it happens several times a month in FOIA requests. I don\u2019t have more details than that.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But normally, FOIA requests cover just state.gov emails, right?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> That\u2019s true. Yeah.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> So you have no way of knowing on private email server \u2013 on private email accounts how many times this has happened or how many times —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I just don\u2019t have those kinds of details.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay. Can I go back to the Blumenthal emails?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> You can.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Not the ones that were in the \u2013 that The New York Times<\/i> published yesterday, but the ones \u2013 and there are quite a few of them —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Mm-hmm. There are.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And I think that despite the fact that you don\u2019t want to confirm that the ones that were published yesterday are the ones here, it\u2019s pretty clear that they are.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, I\u2019m happy to talk about the ones we released today.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Right. So just confining ourselves to the ones that were released today, does the Department think it\u2019s appropriate for some kind of outside political \u2013 former political advisor to be sending the secretary this kind of stuff, and for the secretary then to be passing it on, even when such \u2013 even when the information is deemed by \u2013 occasionally deemed to be dubious or without merit?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, I think secretaries of state often hear from a variety of outside voices. They often get advice or information from a variety of places, and as I think people have now seen, hopefully, in the documents, sometimes the secretary passed these on; sometimes they made judgments that they didn\u2019t seem credible; didn\u2019t do much, it appears, beyond that. But again, this is \u2013 secretaries often get information from a variety of sources.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Many of these emails that were \u2013 that the secretary then passed on to Jake Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff, who then circulated them as he saw \u2013 are you aware of any \u2013 among people who are still in the building who were there, were there any senior officials who were kind of annoyed by the fact that they kept getting emails from Jake saying, \u201cA friend of HRC says this\u201d?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I don\u2019t know. I haven\u2019t heard that, Matt. I haven\u2019t heard that. But I would note most of the people on those emails, or many of them, I think \u2013 many of them aren\u2019t here anymore. But I haven\u2019t heard that.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, but they were sent to a variety of —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Some. Yeah, some are. I just —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — of career staffers.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I just haven\u2019t heard that. Again, we get \u2013 the number of emails that I get, that all of us get, from people on the outside who we know or have known for a long time or are friends with who have some information that they think is interesting to share happens quite a bit. It\u2019s certainly not unusual.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Sure, but not everyone has the secretary\u2019s private —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> That\u2019s true.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — personal email —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> That is true. That is very true.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — account. So you can say without a doubt that the information, or alleged information, that Mr. Blumenthal was sending to Secretary Clinton on a regular basis didn\u2019t get any more weight than did actual intelligence coming from the INR in this building or —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, I think she or her team \u2013 I think she or her team could probably speak \u2013 I just \u2013 I have \u2013 I can\u2019t speak to that.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> All right.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I wasn\u2019t here.<\/p>\n

Yes, anything else on this issue? Go ahead.<\/p>\n

<\/a>QUESTION:<\/b> Cuba.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Cuba.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I just spent a week in Cuba and I talked with a lot of anti-LG \u2013 or LGBT rights advocates critical of the government, and one of them told me that the Cuban Government is out to, quote, \u201cdestroy them.\u201d So I wanted to ask you, Marie, if with the fourth round of talks about normalizing relations that just wrapped up today, did \u2013 and I haven\u2019t seen the readout or anything yet because it just happened \u2013 but have \u2013 was human rights at all part of this specifically? And if so, can you give a little sense of \u2013 because that\u2019s still, obviously, a huge concern.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It\u2019s still a huge issue.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Yeah.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> And just a little bit of a readout: We did make significant progress on a number of substantive issues in this round. This round of talks has \u2013 was a productive one. As you know and everyone knows, we\u2019ve met regularly, have been in constant communication. We will continue to discuss with the Cubans the practical conditions needed to implement this new policy that the President outlined. And I can find out some more if human rights was raised today. The answer is I actually don\u2019t know, but I do know that it is an issue we continually raise with the Cubans, that even while we are working to normalize relations and open an embassy and reestablish diplomatic relations, we know we will still have very serious concerns with what is happening on the human rights front, and that that \u2013 certainly, if we are \u2013 if and when we are able to reestablish relations, that certainly won\u2019t be unique to Cuba.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Right.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Many countries we have relations with, certainly, we raise concerns about human rights, so we\u2019ll keep raising those concerns. But let me find out if it was raised today.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Yeah. And just as a quick —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I just don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And as a quick follow-up to that, I just was made aware by my colleague at the White House, who said that \u2013 I\u2019m reading what Josh Earnest just told him \u2013 concern for human rights of LGBTQ humans is among reasons for policy change to reopen U.S.-Cuban relations.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Absolutely.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Is there any thought on that?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Absolutely. It\u2019s one of those areas where we believe that if there is more ability for Cubans to have access to the outside world and contact with Americans or others from the outside world, if there\u2019s more back-and-forth travel between America and Cuba or other countries and Cuba, if Cuba is more open to the world on all of these issues, including LGBT issues, we think that\u2019s a net positive because there will be more outlets to express some of these issues, to discuss them, to hopefully change them. And I think that certainly underpins a lot of the new policy.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And then my final question: Do you have any possible timeline as to when an announcement might \u2013 we might hear something —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — about embassies reopening —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — to allow further diplomats to travel outside Havana to meet with some of these folks who criticize the government?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Yeah. I really don\u2019t. I wish I could give you a timeline. I really \u2013 believe me, I wish I could, but I really don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> (Laughter.) Thank you very much.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> You\u2019re welcome.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Marie —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — can I ask a follow-up question?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Mm-hmm.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> In their comments earlier today, both Jacobson and Vidal referenced what they called the functioning of embassies as being one of the issues that was broadly discussed over the past two days. Is that an indication that one of the remaining sticking points is the level of freedom that diplomats would have to move around in Cuba or move around in the United States?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I think, generally speaking, it\u2019s \u2013 excuse me, these allergies. I think, generally speaking, those are ongoing issues of discussion, yes, but there\u2019s a number of issues.<\/p>\n

<\/a>QUESTION:<\/b> Saudi Arabia?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Sure.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you have any reaction to the explosion in Saudi Arabia today?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I do. We condemn today\u2019s attack on a mosque in Saudi Arabia that killed more than a dozen individuals and left dozens wounded. We have seen reports that ISIL has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but we cannot confirm those details. I know the Saudis are doing an investigation right now.<\/p>\n

What else?<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Also on Saudi Arabia?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Okay, go ahead.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> In the President\u2019s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg yesterday, he said that there was no indication that Saudi Arabia was looking to become a nuclear state. Is that the view of the State Department as well?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It is. Saudi Arabia\u2019s a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It\u2019s committed never to acquire nuclear weapons. This is something we attach great importance to, to their continued implementation of these commitments. As you know, we\u2019ve consulted regularly with them as we\u2019ve talked with the Iranians on the nuclear negotiations, so this is something I think we\u2019ll continue doing.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But there\u2019s no concern about recent meetings with Pakistani authorities talking to Saudi authorities, presumably about becoming a nuclear state?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, I\u2019m not sure I would presume that was the topic of discussion, and I don\u2019t think we have concern about it.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Marie —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — on the explosion, do you think that it would increase the tension between Sunni and Shia, especially that ISIL targeted a Shia mosque?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I think we\u2019re going to wait and see what some more of the facts are given we can\u2019t confirm that it was ISIL. Obviously, no matter who the perpetrators were, this is a very bad thing.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s go in the back. Yes.<\/p>\n

<\/a>QUESTION:<\/b> Can I return to ISIL?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> You can.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> We talked about it yesterday, Marie, and the —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> We did.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — U.S. strategy. Today the Iraqi deputy prime minister and the Iraqi deputy president have said it\u2019s time for a change in strategy, that what the U.S.-led coalition is doing simply isn\u2019t working. What\u2019s your view on that —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, I —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — and is it time for a rethink, even though you were very staunch in your defense of it yesterday?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> My answer hasn\u2019t changed in the last 24 hours, I promise, and I haven\u2019t seen those comments. I think we\u2019ve been clear the seriousness of the situation. We constantly look at our policy to determine the best path forward here, but we have a strategy in place that, to be fair, has only really been in place for about eight or nine months now. And if you think about \u2013 if you just think about, for some perspective here, how long it took to degrade AQI in Iraq when there were many American boots on the ground, when AQI was much less better equipped and trained and funded and capable than ISIL is \u2013 if you think about the years that took, it\u2019s just some perspective here that this is a long-term strategy. We have always said that, and I think it\u2019s a bit unrealistic to think in eight months that suddenly there shouldn\u2019t be tough days on the battlefield. So we believe we have the right strategy. We are constantly looking at it, evaluating it to determine the best path forward. But overall, we believe in the strategy we have, as much as I did yesterday.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And \u2013 but you would accept, though, that you don\u2019t stick to a strategy just because you\u2019ve committed yourself to a three-year strategy to defeat ISIL —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> No, but you —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — if there are very clear signs that the strategy isn\u2019t working —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> But you also don\u2019t —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — and people on the ground say it\u2019s not working \u2013 senior people on the ground say it\u2019s not working, then perhaps it\u2019s time for a revision.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> You also don\u2019t just abandon a strategy because you have a setback that, quite frankly \u2013 we knew there would be setbacks like this. So you don\u2019t just abandon it at the first setback. You stick with it, you keep looking at it, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Can I also just touch on the CENTCOM report that came out today, which said that two children had been killed —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — in the attack? First of all, can I get the official line from the State Department on that?<\/p>\n

And also, how can you be sure that only two children have been killed, given the numerous U.S.-led airstrikes in Iraq and Syria?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Mm-hmm. Well \u2013 and CENTCOM has put out a press release \u2013 we regret the unintentional loss of life and express our heartfelt sympathies to those affected. We take all reports of noncombatant casualties seriously. The Pentagon looks into every single one that is received or reported. Sometimes it\u2019s difficult to get information, but I can guarantee you they look into every single one. They did conclude that in this case the preponderance of evidence indicated that airstrikes conducted against facilities used by the Khorasan Group likely led to the deaths of two noncombatant children. The investigation was directed on January 8th and approved the findings on April 5th. So these investigations just take a little time; any report the Pentagon looks into.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Marie, on the ISIS issue, is the U.S. planning to do anything to protect the ruins in Palmyra and in general the people in Syria?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, this is a very tough challenge, as Matt pointed out yesterday. First and foremost, it is about the people, and the people in Palmyra are at great risk. They have been for some time. This city has been caught in the crossfire for some time. And of course the ruins \u2013 we\u2019ve seen ISIL destroying historical sites many other places, which is also just heartbreaking, I think, from a civilization point of view. It\u2019s a more challenging battlefield there given we don\u2019t have the same kind of local partners that we do elsewhere. It\u2019s just a more challenging environment. And so obviously it\u2019s a very serious one, but not much more to share on it than that.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And do you expect the UN Security Council will react to protect the ruins first and then the population or —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I\u2019d \u2013 you\u2019d have to ask the UN. I haven\u2019t heard of any possible Security Council action.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And any expectations from Paris meeting on Syria and Iraq?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I think we\u2019ll probably have more to say next week on that.<\/p>\n

Yes. Go ahead, Barbara.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Just to follow up on this rethinking or constantly looking at our policy —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Mm-hmm.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — as you said, which depends, of course, on partners on the ground, as you\u2019ve said —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Mm-hmm. That is true.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — and others many times, and the President in the interview mentioned that he had confidence in Abadi\u2019s commitment.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Correct. Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But there are questions about his ability from various quarters in Washington. Is that part of your constant relooking at the policy? Is there a plan B if the partners on the ground part of it just doesn\u2019t work out?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, first I\u2019d say the President and the Secretary and everyone who works on this issue has confidence in Prime Minister Abadi. He has done a number of things right in one of the toughest jobs in the world. And one of them when it comes to Ramadi, as we\u2019ve talked about a little bit in the past few days, is working with Anbari leaders with \u2013 in conjunction with other people in the central government to get the decision to use these PMF forces to try to help in conjunction with local Anbari leaders, then retake Ramadi. So he\u2019s reaching out to different sectarian groups, he\u2019s reaching out to different local leaders. He\u2019s reaching out across the proverbial aisle, so to speak, in the Iraqi context. And he has a very tough job. And we have full confidence in him. We continue to review developments, determine how to best sort of refine and carry out our strategy that we have in place, but he is certainly a key part of it.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Can I go back to the emails for \u2013<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Sorry. One more on Iraq.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Sure.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> How do you view Iraqi prime minister visit to Russia and asking or requesting arms from Moscow? Do you consider or do you think there is a lack of cooperation between the U.S. and Iraq? That\u2019s why he went to —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> No, and I addressed —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — Moscow?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> — this at length yesterday, so I\u2019d point you there.<\/p>\n

Matt, go ahead.<\/p>\n

<\/a>QUESTION:<\/b> Yeah, just back on the emails. Some of the criticism that\u2019s coming from the Hill even now \u2013 well, particularly now, after the release \u2013 is that the State Department really has no way of knowing whether the emails that you released today constitute the entire universe of Benghazi-related emails that Secretary Clinton had on her private email server. Do you think that that\u2019s valid criticism?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> She has said she turned over every email she had that was a record to the State Department. Of those 55,000, we culled through them and pulled out the 296 that were \u2013 sorry, 55,000 pages, pulled out the 296 emails, which is about 900 pages, and provided those to the committee in February. So every email of hers that we had that was related to their request on Benghazi, we gave to them.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Right. But you are \u2013 you were forced to take her at her \u2013 take her or her office or her people —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> She has said she provided everything.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — at their word, though. You don\u2019t have a way of knowing 100 percent that all of the relevant emails were among the 55,000 pages that were turned out. Is that correct?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> The former Secretary has —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Wait \u2013 has assured us she turned over everything that was relevant as a record at the State Department, and she can speak more to how she did that.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Fair enough, and I\u2019m sure she\u2019ll probably be asked about that again and again, especially if she testifies. But the State Department itself is confident that it got all of the relevant emails it needed to be responsive to the committee\u2019s request from her or her people?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I don\u2019t have much more to say. She said them \u2013 she turned them all over. Of those that she turned over, we pulled out every single one that was responsive to their request and we submitted it. I would also note that the emails released today cover, I think, about a two-year period. The 55,000 pages covers the entirety of her time at the State Department. She\u2019ll have to speak further to this issue, though, Matt.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay. But the Department does not agree with the criticism that\u2019s coming from Representative Gowdy and others on the Hill that this \u2013 that what was turned over today is in essence self-selected?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Again, she said she turned everything over.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, I know. But she said, but you\u2019d —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> If they have a disagreement with her —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I\u2019m asking —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> — they can ask her, which I think they\u2019ll probably have a chance to do.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay. But I —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I mean —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But from the State Department\u2019s point of view —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Yeah.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — you believe that you \u2013 or you\u2019re confident that you got everything that you needed to get to be entirely responsive to their —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> From the State Department\u2019s point of view, a former secretary of state said she turned over everything. It\u2019s 55,000 pages covering the extent of her time at the State Department. I really just don\u2019t have much more to say than that.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Can I ask you another random email question?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> You changed seats, Justin.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I know. I had to go make a phone call.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It\u2019s okay. You\u2019re trying to mix me up here.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Sorry. This relates to one of the emails that was sent, but \u2013 and to some of the criticism that Secretary Clinton got during post-Benghazi attack, Secretary Kerry went and visited Walter Reed and visited some of the injured agents in that attack on his \u2013 one of his first days on the job. Do we know if, A, Clinton ever made a visit to any of the \u2013 those who were injured in the attack, and, B, if she ever made a phone call to any of them to check in on them?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I am happy to check. I\u2019m sorry, I wasn\u2019t here then and I just don\u2019t know. I\u2019m happy to check with her team.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Former Acting Director of the CIA Mike Morell in a recent interview said that he believes —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> A fellow Buckeye.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Right. He believes that the server at one point was probably hacked by a foreign service, a foreign government. Do you agree with that assessment?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Her staff has said there is no indication that her account was ever compromised in any way. I think for more questions about that, I\u2019d point them \u2013 you to them.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But why would a former acting director of the CIA \u2013 somebody who knows a thing or two about espionage \u2013 make such a claim?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I know. I\u2019m not sure if he has direct knowledge of her server or her email, though, and I\u2019m \u2013 I think her folks are best equipped to speak to that. They have spoken to that, and they\u2019re the best people to answer that question.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> You think he was just kind of winging that on a radio interview?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I have no idea. I didn\u2019t hear it.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Marie, do you have that readout of Kerry\u2019s discussion with Lavrov?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I do.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I actually have \u2013 I have one more on the email.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Okay.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And don\u2019t know if this has been published before, but do you have any reaction to the idea that the State Department reached out directly to the Google CEO, Larry Page, to get the anti-Islam video taken down? Is that \u2013 does that demonstrate perhaps some impropriety to be reaching out to a Google CEO, who ultimately did not comply, to take down that inflammatory video?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I\u2019m sorry. I quite frankly don\u2019t know what \u2013 I\u2019m not familiar with the \u2013 what you\u2019re referring to. I\u2019m happy to look into it.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And also, can I just clarify your comment earlier on impropriety? Were you talking about the specific emails that James raised, or were you talking about generally (inaudible)?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Overall, again, I have \u2013 I\u2019ve read most of them, I\u2019ve looked over them, and I haven\u2019t seen anything that I would consider to fall into that category.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Were you referring —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — you haven\u2019t seen it. Are you the arbiter of —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, no, but you asked me what my opinion was and I answered.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, no. But I wasn\u2019t —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> (Off-mike) all of them.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I was \u2013 I was \u2013 but I wasn\u2019t asking for your personal opinion. I was trying to \u2013 does the —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, no, my professional opinion.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Right.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> That\u2019s how you phrased it. You can look at the transcript.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And as \u2013 and Marie, I value your professional opinion as I do your personal opinion, but I was asking for the opinion of State Department lawyers, people who go through —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> That\u2019s not actually how you phrased the question, though.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, that\u2019s what I intended. I\u2019m sorry I was unclear. Is the State Department \u2013 not you personally or professionally \u2013 but the State Department as a bureaucracy satisfied that there\u2019s no indication or evidence of any kind of impropriety at all in these three \u2013 in these emails that were released today?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I haven\u2019t heard any talk of that at all. Again, I\u2019m not going to make sort of a blanket statement, but I haven\u2019t heard any talk of that.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> All right. So in other words, it was your personal opinion that you didn\u2019t see anything improper in —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, you said, \u201cDo you think there\u2019s anything improper in that?\u201d<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, but the \u201cyou,\u201d it was the royal \u201cyou.\u201d It wasn\u2019t just you. It was meant to be the whole building.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, sometimes, actually, you just are asking —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Well, I\u2019m not in this case because it\u2019s a little bit more important than what you —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I just answered \u2013 I just answered your question.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay, thank you.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I just answered your question. I have not heard anyone \u2013 I mean, if you look at these emails in general, a lot them are discussions about the political dynamics or the situation in Libya at the time, the security situation in Libya. Some of them are sort of mundane bureaucratic emails that say things like, \u201cPlease print for me,\u201d which is not at all unusual. Some of them, as you mentioned, are ones from a friend of hers, from Sid Blumenthal. There \u2013 many of them are to aides discussing a variety of issues. So I think you can all look at them for yourselves and make your own judgments, but I certainly feel like that\u2019s our position.<\/p>\n

<\/a>QUESTION:<\/b> Okay. And then on the Lavrov —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — telephone —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> The Secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday to follow up on a number of issues that they discussed in Sochi, chief among them the need for Russia to make progress fully implementing its Minsk commitments in Ukraine. They also discussed the need for a genuine political solution in Syria, one where there is no future for Bashar al-Assad in Syria; the ongoing violence in Yemen; and the Arctic Council as well.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you know about \u2013 do you have independent confirmation that the Iranian cargo ship has actually docked?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I don\u2019t think I do. Let me check on that when I get off of the podium.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Marie, before we move off of this, can you be more specific in terms of Yemen? You mentioned the ongoing violence. Anything more than that from the meeting that you can share?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I don\u2019t have anything more to share from that call.<\/p>\n

<\/a>QUESTION:<\/b> And on Syria, are you getting on the same page with Russia regarding the future of President Assad?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, our position certainly hasn\u2019t changed, that there is no future for Bashar al-Assad. He has lost all legitimacy to lead. And the Russians have, as we\u2019ve always talked about, agreed to the Geneva communique framework for a political transition. So that\u2019s obviously what we\u2019re focused on.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> But they read —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I don\u2019t think I have much more on this.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — the communique differently than the U.S. does.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I just don\u2019t have much more for you on this.<\/p>\n

Go ahead.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> (Inaudible) Spratly Islands.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Yes.<\/p>\n

<\/a>QUESTION:<\/b> As you know, Colonel Warren yesterday mentioned that the next step would be for the United States military aircraft to fly within 12 nautical miles of reef. So did the U.S. Government determine this mission and policy to flyover that reef?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, U.S. military planes operate in accordance with international law in disputed areas of the South China Sea. This is an important principle. As we are aware and as we saw, I think, on some TV reports, China frequently issues warnings to these aircraft. It\u2019s unclear what basis they issue these warnings on. But the U.S. military has and will continue to operate consistent with the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea in the South China Sea. And I think DOD probably can speak more to it.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Even within 12 nautical miles?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> For those specifics, I\u2019d check with DOD.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay, one more. As you know, Chinese Government express a strong dissatisfaction and they say they will take necessary measures. Do you have something to say against this?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Well, again, we are sort of unclear on what basis it issued the warnings to the U.S. military plane that\u2019s been referenced in a lot of these reports. As I think you know, Secretary Kerry in Beijing raised the issue of China\u2019s land reclamation, the pace and scope of it, with Chinese leaders across the board, and our concerns about that and the possibility that this could lead to tensions in the region. So it\u2019s an issue we\u2019re very focused on.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Okay. Thank you.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Anything else?<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Yes.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Okay.<\/p>\n

<\/a>QUESTION:<\/b> Burundi. Has there been a change in the U.S. funding for Burundi? In particular, is the U.S. looking at cuts in funding that may impact its involvement in AMISOM?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> It\u2019s my understanding there hasn\u2019t been a cut to funding. We continue to support Burundian troops currently in Mogadishu under AMISOM, but due to security concerns inside Burundi, the U.S. has temporarily halted peacekeeping training activities such as the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program. Continued instability and violence in Burundi, and in particular the commission of human rights violations and abuses by security forces, could jeopardize Burundi\u2019s ability to continue to contribute to the AMISOM peacekeeping mission.<\/p>\n

We also, though, I would say, understand that members of the military have largely acted professionally and neutrally during the recent protest. We\u2019re aware of at least two press reports of soldiers being shot and killed while acting to protect civilians during skirmishes with the police, and we, for that, express our deepest condolences to the family and friends of those soldiers.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> So clarifying, you\u2019re saying the funding level is the same, it\u2019s just the training is —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Correct.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> — it\u2019s being —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Due to the security concerns inside Burundi, that\u2019s correct.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And can I follow up on that?<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And the peacekeeping —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Have you \u2013 did you suspend development aid to Burundi?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I don\u2019t \u2013 I haven\u2019t —<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> I think that some European countries have.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I haven\u2019t heard that we have. Let me triple-check on that.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> And the peacekeeping training, that\u2019s specifically for AMISOM?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Let me check on that. Part of it is the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program, but I\u2019m not sure exactly what that goes to, so I can check.<\/p>\n

Yes.<\/p>\n

<\/a>QUESTION:<\/b> The most recent issue causing tension between Japan and South Korea has been over whether the United Nations recognizes certain sites as historically significant. I guess, A, do you know what I\u2019m talking about? But, B, if you do, do you have any reaction to —<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I do, I do. It came up during some of our meetings there. Yes.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Do you know \u2013 do you have a statement on that?<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> I\u2019m not \u2013 I don\u2019t know if we have any response at the moment. Let me check with our team and see if we do.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Thank you.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Yes. But I am aware of the issue you\u2019re referring to with UNESCO.<\/p>\n

Anything else? Bless you. (Laughter.)<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> (Off-mike.)<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Okay.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/b> Happy Memorial Day. Thank you.<\/p>\n

MS HARF:<\/b> Everyone have a very good Memorial Day weekend, a happy and safe one. Remember the reason we have this holiday.<\/p>\n

(The briefing was concluded at 3:00 p.m.)<\/p>\n

DPB # 90<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Washington, DC…Below is the press briefing from today which included many questions about the Clinton email issue. The full text is enclosed… 2:15 p.m. EDT MS HARF: Good afternoon. Welcome to the daily briefing. QUESTION: Thank you. Happy — MS HARF: You\u2019re welcome. QUESTION: — Memorial Day to you. MS HARF: Happy Memorial Day weekend. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4450,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_cbd_carousel_blocks":"[]","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,5,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-government","category-news","last_archivepost"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/b10785ed-a310-485a-9564-a1ad1f342d3d.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4454"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4454\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4450"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}