MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. Please accept my apologies for the late start today. Let me do one thing at the top, and then we'll get to your questions and we can get going here.
The President received an update today from his Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco about the forecast for Hurricane Joaquin. He received additional details about the preparations that are underway at FEMA in advance of the storm.
A couple of those points: FEMA has increased its staffing at our 24-hour watch center in Washington, D.C. to provide additional reporting and monitoring of the situation. FEMA incident management assistance teams and other lead elements have either deployed or are preparing to deploy to potentially affected areas to support response activities and ensure there are no unmet needs. FEMA staff have been activated to prepare for the establishment of potential incident support bases, which pre-position supplies like water, meals, blankets, and other resources closer to potentially affected areas. And of course, FEMA maintains significant stockpiles of commodities including millions of liters of water, meals, blankets, and other resources like that at distribution centers across the country.
The final thing I'll say here is that, particularly at this point, we encourage all Americans that live in areas that could potentially be affected by Hurricane Joaquin to monitor local radio, television, and official social media accounts for updated emergency information, and as always, to follow the instructions of state, local and tribal officials.
So this obviously is something that the President and his team are closely monitoring here, and I anticipate we'll be doing that through the weekend.
So, with that, Kevin, we can go to your questions.
Q Thank you, Josh. The President, in New York, had high praise for the Secret Service in recent days for the work they did last week. But what is the White House reaction to the reports that agents widely accessed a committee chairman's personnel file and that aspects of that file eventually became public? Are apologies enough in this case?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Kevin, as you point out, the Director of the Secret Service and the Secretary of Homeland Security both called Congressman Chaffetz personally to offer an apology on behalf of the agency. Both men, both Director Clancy and Secretary Johnson, indicated a commitment to holding accountable those who may have improperly handled information.
Obviously an agency like the Secret Service takes very seriously the responsibility that they have to properly handle sensitive information, and the report that was released does raise significant concerns about whether or not all those procedures were followed -- or at least whether those procedures were followed properly. So I do think we -- the President certainly has confidence that the appropriate steps will be taken to hold accountable those who didn't follow those procedures.
I would be remiss if I didn't restate something that I mentioned yesterday, which is that we did see a significant mobilization under the command of the Secret Service over the last week to professionally and effectively provide security for the visiting dignitaries to the United States. That included President Xi who made a high-profile visit to the United States, including his visit here to the White House; obviously, Pope Francis; as well as more than 100 dignitaries in New York for the United Nations General Assembly.
The Secret Service wasn't just responsible for providing for the security of each of those individuals; particularly when it comes to the Pope, there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans over the course of his visit who made an effort to try to see him, and the Secret Service was responsible not just for his security, but also for the security of those Americans who participated in those events.
And so I think the results of that visit and the security that was provided is a testament to the tremendous professionalism and competence of the men and women in the Secret Service. And when there are mistakes that are made, we've seen the Director do the right thing, which is step up and take responsibility for them, offer an apology where it's appropriate, but also assure not just Congressman Chaffetz but also the President and the American people that there will be accountability. And I think we can have confidence that that will happen.
Q Has the President lost confidence in leadership over there to address this appropriately?
MR. EARNEST: Not at all. And, in fact, I think their initial response to this report I think is a strong indication that there is effective leadership in place at the Secret Service, to say nothing of the effective completion of the very difficult but core mission that the Secret Service carried out over the last week or so in the midst of a series of high-profile visits.
Q One more. Russia's foreign minister says his country and the U.S. coalition see eye-to-eye on targets of their fight against terrorism in Syria. Is that accurate? And does that reflect the activity over the past 48 hours, as the U.S. sees it?
MR. EARNEST: Well, as the Secretary of Defense acknowledged yesterday in his news conference, the early indications from the Russian military operations is that despite their claims that they're focused on ISIL, they're actually carrying out military operations where there are few, if any, ISIL forces operating. So it certainly calls into question that declaration. And it raises the concerns that you've heard us state previously about how -- if Russia is genuinely focused on fighting ISIL, then they will make the kind of constructive contribution to the 65-member anti-ISIL coalition that the United States is leading.
We have put forward a strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, and we are working with 65 other countries to implement that strategy. And we would welcome the constructive contribution of Russia to that effort.
Q Josh, following up on that, does President Obama feel that President Putin broke his word after their meeting this week with regard to their intentions in Syria?
MR. EARNEST: Well, the conversation that the two Presidents had focused on a range of things -- about the shared interest that we have in stopping the spread of ISIL extremists, and certainly to counter the safe haven that they're trying to establish for themselves inside of Syria. There was also a shared view when it came to the need for a political transition inside of Syria.
We have long made the case that the root of Syria's problems is the political turmoil inside of Syria, and the only way to address whether it's the spread of ISIL or the significant humanitarian crisis that started in Syria is to address the fundamental political problem there. And the case that we have made, and the case that generally Russia has acknowledged, is the need for a political transition.
Now, there are important differences of opinion about what that political transition ultimately looks like, but there was agreement about the need for some kind of political transition inside of Syria.
Q I'm referring more to the airstrikes, though.
MR. EARNEST: And so when it comes to the airstrikes, we've indicated that we would welcome a constructive contribution from Russia to the anti-ISIL coalition. And we haven't seen them be prepared to do that.
Q But you also agreed that there would be talks to de-conflict the operations. These Russian airstrikes today happened before those talks. Does that indicate that the talks are even worth having?
MR. EARNEST: They are worth having, Jeff, and they continue to be both a priority for President Obama and for President Putin. And, in fact, I can tell you that there was a call that was hosted today by U.S. defense officials and some of their Russian counterparts. This is a telephone call that lasted about an hour today; it took place via video teleconference. It was led by Elissa Slotkin over at the Pentagon. She is the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. The discussion focused on ways the United States and Russia can communicate and effectively de-conflict our operations inside of Syria.
And in some cases, these were actually some basic aspects of our operations that we want to try to agree to, to avoid unintended consequences here. So there was a discussion about ensuring that military aircraft inside of Syria are operating consistent with international rules and safety regulations. There was a discussion about ensuring that military personnel operating inside of Syria are communicating on internationally recognized channels. And all of this is an effort to de-conflict our ongoing operations there.
This was the first discussion of what I anticipate will be a series of additional discussions about de-conflicting our efforts. And in the context of that call, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that, once again, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, Elissa Slotkin, underscored the importance of focusing our efforts on our shared objective, which is degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL. And she pointed out that the Russian military operations that we've seen so far raise some concerns because Russia is targeting areas where there are few, if any, ISIL forces operating.
Q Is there anything that the United States is doing or can do to protect the Syrian opposition from these Russian airstrikes?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Jeff, I think the challenge here is one -- well, let me say it this way. I think the burden here is on Russia. And the fact is, carrying out indiscriminate military operations against the Syrian opposition is dangerous for Russia. And the reason I say that is that it is only going to prolong the sectarian conflict inside of Syria, if not make that conflict indefinite, and it also risks Russia being drawn even more deeply into that conflict.
We've already seen -- and I say this, knowing that Russia has already acknowledged that there's no military solution inside of Syria -- that ultimately a political transition will be required. And Russia, as I mentioned yesterday, will be no more successful in imposing a military solution on Syria than the United States was in imposing a military solution on Iraq, or than the Soviet Union was in imposing a military solution on Afghanistan.
The way that Russia has carried out these indiscriminate strikes against the Syrian opposition has also further isolated Russia. We've seen statements of concern from members of the U.S.-led anti-ISIL coalition, statements from Turkey and Jordan, and other leaders in the region, but also around the world, raising concerns about Russia's activities. And I think, most tellingly, we saw statements from both Iran and Saudi Arabia on this matter. And those who understand the nature of this sectarian conflict will not be surprised to hear that Iran's response to Russia's military activities was one that was filled with words of praise, while the statement from Saudi Arabia was filled with words of criticism. And I think that highlights the risk that Russia is running here.
And I guess the two last things I'll point out here is that the effect of these kinds of indiscriminate airstrikes essentially drives what would otherwise be moderate elements of the Sunni opposition to Assad into the arms of extremists, creating an extremist problem -- or I guess I should say exacerbating an extremist problem -- for Russia inside of Syria, but also exacerbating the extremist problem that Russia has inside of Russia.
So that's why you heard me say when there were initial reports about Russia moving military equipment to Syria that it would be counterproductive for Russia to double down on the support of President Assad, this is exactly what I was talking about. And this is going to have consequences for the efforts of everybody, including Russia, to counter extremism in the region and around the world. And the fact is, these grave consequences for Russia are more dangerous than any diplomatic response that could be imposed on Russia by the international community.
Q Is the President happy with what Russia is doing?
MR. EARNEST: Obviously we would prefer Russia to make a constructive contribution to our ongoing anti-ISIL effort, and it certainly is not in the interest of the United States for Russia to exacerbate this sectarian conflict. But ultimately it's the Russians that will pay the highest price for that.
Q Josh, the Russians seem to be particularly targeting groups funded and armed by the CIA. How will the President respond? And this is a renewal of the Cold War-like war of proxies?
MR. EARNEST: -- airstrikes. Well, I think it is indiscriminate, because -- and let me explain why. Because Russia, in justifying these actions, suggests that they are carrying out operations against opponents to the Assad regime. The fact is there are extremist, ideologically-driven, essentially terrorists who are opponents of the Assad regime -- these are groups like ISIL and Nusra -- that have been the focus of our operations. There are also elements of the Syrian opposition that could more accurately be described as moderate elements of the Syrian opposition that are simply arming themselves to try to defend their communities, their homes, and themselves.
The Assad regime has been carrying out terrible acts of violence against these civilians. And so that's the kind of indiscriminate activity that we've seen Russia engaged in. And the danger associated with that kind of indiscriminate military action is that it distracts from the organizations that should be the focal point of these kinds of activities -- namely ISIL -- and serves to drive away the kind of moderate opposition that ultimately the international community, including Russia, is going to be counting on to be a part of the political transition that's long overdue inside of Syria.
Q But, Josh, the reason I'm pushing back on the "indiscriminate" is your own military analysts are saying that these attacks are actually very well thought out. They're going after the people that now are the greatest threat to the Assad regime and also are closest to Russian military facilities. Those people also happen to be the people who are being funded by the CIA sort of on our side, so that it's not -- they're not doing this willy-nilly. They are going after the people who represent the worst threat to the Assad regime and their own position in Syria.
MR. EARNEST: Well, let me just issue a clear disclaimer once again, which is that I'm not going to engage in a specific discussion of any activities that the CIA may be involved in or may not be involved in inside of Syria. What I will say as a general matter, though, is that there -- and this is something that I've said before, which is that there are opposition groups inside of Syria that have benefitted from U.S. support, and there is a variety of ways in which that support has been provided. It includes the training-and-equipping operation that we've talked about in here that hasn't yielded the kind of results that we'd like to see. But it also includes support in the form of things like medical equipment, rations and other supplies that are useful to fighting forces in a difficult environment.
There are also moderate Syrian opposition groups with whom we have no relationship. The fact is these kinds of groups that are operating against the Assad regime are pretty fluid. And the fact that these kinds of alliances are so fluid actually underscores the risk that Russia is taking; that by taking strikes against these moderate Syrian opposition groups, they only make it more likely that these -- what could currently be described as moderate Syrian opposition groups seek to align themselves with the extremist ideologues that Russia claims to be fighting.
So that's the concern that we have. And that is the risk that Russia is running when they wade knee-deep into this sectarian conflict.
Q What's your view -- I mean, you're talking about all these risks that Putin seems to be taking on. He's not an idiot. What is the White House view of what Putin is trying to achieve here?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I certainly wouldn't use that word to describe President Putin, that's correct. But I think for weeks now we have indicated a lack of clarity about what Russia's true intentions are inside of Syria, and that is to say -- that is not to leave anybody with the impression that the United States was somehow surprised that Russia was actually using that military equipment that they moved into Syria in the last few weeks, but rather to describe the choice that President Putin faces about how to protect Russia's diminishing influence inside of Syria.
The fact is, Syria has been the client state of Russia in the Middle East for years. And Russia has made a significant investment in that client state, and over the last five years, Russia has seen that client state essentially unravel. And it has risked the significant investment that they have in that country, and this significant military deployment is aimed at shoring it up. And the question that President Putin faces is how exactly to shore that up. And continuing down a path of carrying out military operations in an indiscriminate fashion against the Syrian opposition is actually going to run counter to the stated goals of Russia because it only will prolong the sectarian conflict that has torn that country apart.
MR. EARNEST: I've heard that before.
Q Yes, exactly. Is there -- you just have to sort of wait out that view? I mean, there's this sense of this sort of playground battle that he seems to be getting the best of the President on. How do you fight that, or can you not? Or do you just leave that aside?
MR. EARNEST: Well, let me take that on in a couple of different ways. I think the first is that if you examine the interests of other countries in the region, that is not at all what's happening. The fact is, Russia is responding to a situation inside the Middle East from a position of weakness. Their influence in that region of the world is waning.
I've seen some of the media reports that pointed out that the military base that Russia operates inside of Syria is actually the last military base that Russia operates outside of the former Soviet Union. And that base is located in the country that over the last five years has been torn apart, and where the security situation there is highly unstable at best. And Russia is responding to that urgent situation trying to shore up their investment. So this has not been a long-term benefit from Russia. This is Russia trying to salvage what's left of a deteriorating situation inside of Syria.
Now, the second thing is a careful consideration of U.S. interests. The President has been very clear from the beginning that the prolonged commitment of U.S. military personnel on the ground inside of Syria is not something the President was willing to consider. And instead, we have implemented a strategy that has put the safety and security of the American people at the top of the list.
And I walked through yesterday some of the military actions that the United States has taken inside of Syria to take extremists off the battlefield there, and this includes operations against individuals like Abu Sayyaf, who was killed in a U.S. military raid inside of Syria over the summer; and ISIL operative named Junaid Hussain, who was actually a British national, who was recruiting Western targets for lone-wolf attacks. And this includes also an ISIL leader and foreign fighter recruiter named Tariq al-Harzi; to say nothing of the strike that was taken against David Drugeon, who was a French national but an extremist operating inside of Syria -- not affiliated with ISIL, but yet very focused on planning significant attacks against Western targets including the United States.
So the President has worked aggressively to safeguard our interests in that without making the kind of commitment that draws the United States into another land war in the Middle East. That is something that the President does not believe serves our interests well. And again, I made reference to the fact that that's exactly what Russia is getting drawn into and will have to pay the significant price for it.
Q You said earlier that you and Russia have a shared objective, which is to degrade and destroy ISIL. Are you confident that that is actually Russia's objective?
MR. EARNEST: I do believe that Russia is being forthright when they say that they are quite concerned about the threat that is posed by ISIL and are prepared to take military action to try to destroy ISIL.
Q But that's not exactly what they're doing right now.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think that's how we started this briefing, which is that they are taking strikes in the country where there are few, if any, ISIL operatives in place.
MR. EARNEST: I think what I was walking through in response to Jeff's question are some of our shared priorities. That is clearly a priority of the United States. It's a stated priority of the Russians, and I wouldn't have any reason to dispute that that is one of their priorities. I certainly have ample reason to dispute that they're taking the actions that are going to accomplish that goal. In fact, I think they're actually taking actions that are counterproductive to that goal.
Q First off, I was just wondering if you could give us a tick-tock of what the President has been up to for the last couple days on this -- whether he's had conversations with Secretary Kerry, the CIA Director, meetings in the Situation Room -- just how he's been briefed and updated on this.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I don't have a lot of detail to share with you. The President has been briefed by his national security team about events on the ground inside of Syria and the President has had conversations with members of his national security team about it. But I don't have any specific meetings to tell you about.
But, look, Russia has been a fluid -- Syria has been a fluid situation for quite some time, so it's not unusual for the President to get updates on the conditions on the ground when things are changing rapidly. And that certainly has been the case over the last 24 to 36 hours.
Q I'm wondering if President Putin's latest actions have led the President to reconsider either what the U.S. is going to put into Syria, or what the U.S. might do in other regions where we're in some sort of conflict with Russia, including Ukraine. Obviously, arming Ukraine has been kind of an issue that's dangling out there. And so I'm just wondering if any of those things is under new reconsideration after what's been going on.
MR. EARNEST: No. And I made this point yesterday. I would not -- at this point, we haven't seen the kind of change that would prompt a significant, broad reevaluation of our policy either with regard to Syria or with Ukraine.
Let me just stipulate that I frequently convey to all of you that the President and his team are always reviewing our strategy in Syria and looking for areas where we might be enjoying a little bit more success and sort of refining and reforming our strategy as necessary. That's part of an ongoing policy process. But this has not caused a broad-scale -- or a broad reevaluation of our strategy inside of Syria.
When it comes to Ukraine, the situation there I think is pretty cut and dried, which is we continue to see Russia interfering in eastern Ukraine; we continue to see them destabilizing and violating the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation; and as a result, Russia has sustained serious and worsening economic consequences. And so we've talked before about the decline in the value of their currency, the downgraded economic growth projections for Russia, the expectations that their economy will shrink by 3 percent to 4 percent this year and will remain in recession new year. They're now the world's 15th largest economy, one step behind Spain, and declining.
So the situation in Ukraine, unfortunately, hasn't changed. The kind of change we'd like to see is for Russia to begin implementing their side of the bargain when it comes to the Minsk agreements. And once they start doing that that is how Russia can start to reintegrate into the international community.
Q Our friends at Reuters have reported that there's hundreds of Iranian troops that are now entering into Syria to bolster the Assad regime. I'm wondering if you can confirm that, say if it's going to need any steps from the U.S., and also if you've heard from our regional allies? I know that you mentioned statements from the Saudis earlier -- but the Saudis, the Turks -- if the Iranian intervention there is going to lead them to either bring more troops, more military equipment, whatever, into the situation.
MR. EARNEST: Well, Justin, I think you've actually highlighted what may be the most important piece of evidence to indicate how Russia's military activity is worsening the sectarian conflict inside of Syria. I have seen those reports; we're aware of those reports and we're taking a look at them. I cannot independently confirm them, but if true -- and the reports are coming from a variety of sources -- it would be a rather apt and even powerful illustration of how Russia's military intervention inside of Syria, focused on an indiscriminate bombing of Syrian opposition targets, has worsened the sectarian conflict there; that you see, at least according to these reports, Iranians racing to Syria to take up arms and join the fight.
That is not good news for the Russians. And that is consistent with a worsening sectarian conflict that only puts off a political solution -- a political solution that the Russians themselves have made a priority and said would be necessary to solving the problems inside of Syria.
Q And the last one -- just on the conversation you had with Gardiner -- I know that you can't confirm whether the CIA has backed any of rebel groups that were targets of this bombing, but do you know if any of the targets received U.S. backing of some sort, any sort of assistance? And if so, or even if not, what your message to rebel groups that might want to work with the U.S. would be who are worried about that not providing them any protection against the Russians?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I'll just restate again that I will not be in a position to discuss any activities that the CIA may or may not be responsible for inside of Syria. But for a more specific analysis of the targets that were hit by Russia yesterday I'd refer you to the Department of Defense. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that there may be some opposition groups in that part of Syria that have received support in one form or another from the United States. And again, it reflects the risk that Russia is taking by carrying out these kinds of indiscriminate operations.
By failing to discriminate between ideologically driven extremists like ISIL and Nusra and moderate Syrian opposition elements that have a political concern with President Bashar al-Assad's leadership and have taken up arms solely to defend their families and their communities is going to lead to bad outcomes for Russia. It's only going to deepen the sectarian conflict. It's only going to further inflame sectarian tensions inside of Syria that results in more Sunnis directing their ire at Russia, both inside of Syria and back home in Russia. That is the risk that Russia is running right now. And it has significant consequences for the national security of Russia.
Q Real last one. (Laughter.) I know that you said that you weren't surprised that Russia used its military equipment that they were bringing in. Were you surprised by the targets that they had chosen in this mission?
MR. EARNEST: There had not been a discussion between the Presidents in their meeting in New York on Monday that included operational details. So there was not advance notice that was provided other than the notification that was provided to the United States by a Russian military official in Iraq.
Q The President spoke some time ago about what he wants to accomplish before he turns the keys over to the next President. I mean, it's clear Syria is going to be a mess at the end of the second term. I mean, what realistically at this point does he hope to accomplish?
MR. EARNEST: Well, at this point -- it's hard to sort of, on a day-to-day basis, draw conclusions about an environment that's so fluid. But I think it's clear that what the President's top priority has been all along is to prevent extremist organizations using the chaos inside of Syria to establish a safe haven that could then be used to attack U.S. interests or even the U.S. homeland. And that will continue to be the focus of our efforts there.
And so I guess what I would say in terms of over the next year, what kind of progress do we want to make, making progress in terms of applying pressure and even taking out leading ISIL figures operating inside of Syria and Iraq would be a priority; further strengthening and, where possible, expanding the international coalition that we have built to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.
We added three new members to the ISIL coalition just this week. That's an indication of sort of the further expansion of that coalition. We've also seen recent announcements from the British and the French about the possibility that they would take additional action inside of Syria. So that's an indication that the members of that coalition are becoming even more active in it.
And then the third thing -- and in some ways, this is the most difficult one -- is there's no -- for all this discussion of our military actions there, which are critical to the national security of the American people -- for all of that military action, we are going to ultimately need a political transition. There's no military solution that can be imposed on Syria. A political solution will be required.
And hopefully, over the next year or so, we can make more progress than we have so far in trying to at least build a mechanism for talks about a political transition to take place.
Q Didn't Putin have a point when he said at the U.N. that right now, the only force -- this is back to the military component -- the only forces on the ground that are battling extremist groups like ISIS are the forces of President Assad and Kurdish militias?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I'm not sure -- you can check with the Department of Defense on this, but I'm not sure that President Putin has a very strong case when he talks about Assad's forces fighting ISIL. The fact is, Assad's forces have predominantly been engaged in the areas where we saw Russia take strikes yesterday, and again, those are areas where there are few, if any, ISIL forces. So I'm not sure that his case is very strong there.
His case is stronger when he talks about the effectiveness of some Syrian Kurds and Syrian Arabs who have been taking the fight to ISIL on the ground. But those are precisely the opposition that the United States and our coalition partners have been actively supporting, both through airstrikes and supporting their efforts on the ground, but also in providing the kinds of equipment and material that are valuable in a fighting environment like that.
Q But then just this last question. So the President's resolve -- he has said consistently for some time now, that Assad must go -- remains. There's no -- you're adding the word "now," and you have for some time said "ultimately"-- "ultimately" a political transition. Is there any solution that would involve the Russians, as you've said, as necessary, that would continue Assad's role as the President of that country for some period of time?
MR. EARNEST: Well, let me explain the use of the world "ultimately." The reason I keep using that has less to do with Assad and more about explaining why -- if a political solution is required, why the United States continues to take robust military action to protect the country. And by saying this situation only ends with a political solution, I don't want anybody to be left with the impression that we're not going to do anything until we start to a political solution. So that's why I typically use the word "ultimately" there, that we're going to do these other things to protect our interests and to protect the country while we pursue a political solution.
But when it comes to Assad -- a legitimate question -- the things that Assad has done inside of Syria, perpetrating terrible acts of violence against innocent civilians, have caused him to lose the legitimacy to lead that country. And I'm referring to legitimacy in two different ways. The first is, he's lost the moral legitimacy to lead that country. No leader who's willing to use the military of that country to carry out heinous acts of violence against that country's citizens is fit to lead the country. So there is a simple moral case about what Bashar al-Assad has perpetrated on other human beings -- Syrian citizens.
But there's also a more practical argument to be made about how Assad has lost legitimacy to lead that country, which is that there are -- that depending on sort of how you draw the lines, probably 80 percent of the Syrian population no longer views him as a legitimate leader of Syria. He no longer exercises authority in the areas where they live. They no longer view him as a legitimate leader of Syria.
So if we're going to try to unify that country again -- something that Secretary Kerry has said that Foreign Minister Lavrov told him is a priority of the Russians -- that just as a practical matter, just doing the math, if 80 percent of the country is not controlled by or is viewed by [views] Assad as a legitimate leader, it's not possible for him to continue to lead that country -- which is why we need the kind of political transition that includes a moderate Syrian opposition.
This is the inherent tension in the case that the Russians continue to make. They say, well, we need a political solution inside of Syria and that's why we're supporting Assad. It is not possible to have a political transition inside of Syria that results in Assad continuing to lead the country because he's not supported by the vast majority of those country's citizens.
Q Josh, you used the word "indiscriminate" many times today, and I want to try to see if you and the administration are arguing that it is indiscriminate because it's an accident, or it's indiscriminate because it's intentional. Because there's a big difference between the two, and it goes to the likely U.S. response should this behavior continue.
MR. EARNEST: Let me try to say it more clearly, which is that we believe it is important -- and this is clear in the operations that the United States and our coalition partners have carried out -- it's important to discriminate between the targets that you're considering.
The United States and our coalition partners have discriminated in those targets. We have focused on hitting ISIL targets, predominantly. There are other extremist organizations that we've obviously carried out strikes against. And we've avoided taking strikes against members of the moderate Syrian opposition. And it's Russia -- and the Assad regime, frankly -- that have essentially described the Syrian opposition as essentially one unit. And failing to discriminate between ideologically driven terrorists and Syrian citizens who are just trying to defend their homes and their communities and their families is a grave mistake that will lead Russia even deeper into a sectarian conflict.
Q Thank you for that. Is it an intentional mistake by Russia? Because there are some who look at it and say Russia doesn't really know the terrain that well, they're bombing lots of different things and are not really sure what they're doing. What I'm trying to get at is, do you believe and does this administration believe Russia, in fact, knows what it's doing -- it's a miscalculation, from your point of view, but it is, nevertheless, intentional?
MR. EARNEST: It is a grave miscalculation, and it is one that carries significant risks for Russia and for the broader region. But at this point, I don't have any reason to call into question their ability to hit the targets that they intend.
MR. EARNEST: I think they are hitting the targets that they intended to hit.
MR. EARNEST: Although I do believe that that is -- and it is the position of the United States and, I think, many observers that that is counterproductive.
Q Okay. So help me understand what you are saying today and what Ash Carter said yesterday. Ash Carter said many things, -- among them, the most colorful metaphor of the day, the prize goes to him for "pouring gasoline on a fire." What I hear you saying is, this is a gross miscalculation; we're more or less content with the Russians screwing this up in their own way, and are willing to sort of stand by and watch them inherit all the negative things we think are going to come from this. So which is it? A gross miscalculation they're going to come to rue, or pouring gasoline on a fire?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Major, I think Secretary Carter -- you can ask his spokesman, but based on what I saw on -- well, I read the transcript last night.
MR. EARNEST: We did. So the point that I think that he's trying to make is actually the same one that I am -- that by wading more deeply into the sectarian conflict, by carrying out military operations indiscriminately against the Syrian opposition, they're only fanning the flames of the sectarian conflict. And the point that I'm making is that Russia will have to pay the costs for that.
Now, let me also be clear that we don't view that in the U.S. interest either, because -- and the reason I make that point is -- I just sort of described to Jon that one of the sort of three things we hoped we could make progress on would include a political transition inside of Syria because that ultimately will be necessary to solve all of the problems plaguing Syria, including the ability of extremist organizations to create a safe haven inside of Syria, or to address this terrible humanitarian crisis that we've seen in terms of the refugee problem.
So the problem, though, is that by exacerbating the sectarian conflict, the Russians are essentially prolonging the sectarian conflict, and making a political resolution much more difficult to achieve. And the consequences will principally be borne by the Russians who will be inspiring the anger and violence of many Sunnis inside of Syria, including potentially some Sunnis that could previously be described as moderate.
So there's no satisfaction I take in conveying to you that Russia is making a grave error and miscalculation here, but it is a fact. And it, frankly, is why Secretary Kerry continues to engage in conversations with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Lavrov. It's why we're going to continue to engage in conversations through this operational military channel to ensure that our operations are properly de-conflicted. And it's why the United States is going to continue to lead an international coalition to pursue our strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.
Q Last question. So since you consider this an intentional act from Russia, do you believe that the targeting of the forces we are supplying and backing, by whatever means, is an act of aggression against the United States and its interests in Syria, and therefor ought to be subject to a formal diplomatic and strategic protest?
Q But you know they've been hit, you know that we're supportive of them, and you believe it to be generally intentional. I'm asking you, is that act of aggression against the United States and its interests worthy of a protest to the Soviet -- to the Russian government? Forgive me.
MR. EARNEST: What I've made clear -- and Mark and I had this conversation yesterday -- that certainly Russian military activities against opposition groups that are genuinely fighting ISIL do come into conflict with out counter-ISIL strategy. And we have made that point clear to the Russians. So I don't know if it has taken the form of a formal diplomatic rebuke of some kind, but there's no mistaking our perspective on this, and it's been conveyed to the Russians in a variety of channels.
Q Josh, thanks. I want to get a big-picture view of the administration's policy in this region in particular. Can you give me a grade at this stage, given all that's happening? It has been fluid, and I know that you said that there's always a constant and ongoing evaluation. But if you were grading right now, what grade would you give the administration?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I would hesitate to do the letter grade thing because the situation on the ground is fluid. But I think that we have been pretty forthright about our concern about the situation inside of Syria, and it's multifaceted. Certainly one principal area of concern is the unthinkably terrible humanitarian situation inside of Syria and in the region that has been caused by Syrians fleeing violence inside their country.
And it's heartbreaking to read some of the accounts of these otherwise innocent Syrian families who have been terrorized in their own homes, subjected to violence either by extremists like ISIL, or the Assad regime, and been forced to leave their homes and, in some cases, even leave their country. And that is something that, I think, as the President has described, is something that stirs our conscience.
What's also true is that there are extremists that are operating inside of Syria, and we see ISIL extremists trying to establish a safe haven inside of Syria that they could use to not just destabilize Iraq but also to inspire acts of violence in other places as well. So that's certainly a subject of some concern, too.
Q So barring a grade, would you say you're dissatisfied with the way things are going, broadly speaking?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I don't think that there's anybody who says that they're satisfied about the situation in Syria right now. What is true is that the United States has been effective in building and leading an international coalition of 65 countries to implement an integrated strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. And there have been important military actions that have been taken against leading ISIL targets. Those are strikes that have made the United States safer. We have made some progress in shutting off different lines of financing that ISIL has used to fund their reign of terror. We have also been ramping up and made some progress -- modest progress -- in countering ISIL's efforts to use social media to radicalize individuals around the world.
So that's not to say that there haven't -- and what's also true in Syria is that by backing some moderate Syrian opposition elements, they had been successful in driving ISIL out of about 17,000 square kilometers of territory inside of Syria. That is principally in northern and northeastern Syria where that progress has been made, but it has limited ISIL's access to the border with Turkey. And there is some active effort underway that includes our allies in Turkey to seal off entirely that 600-mile-long border.
So there are areas where we can point to some important progress, but I don't think there's anybody that would say they're satisfied with how things are going in Syria right now.
Q I want to switch gears for a second and ask you about Bibi Netanyahu's comments today at the U.N. He made a very powerful statement about the fact that he felt that not enough people in that body were coming to the defense of the people of Israel, and he criticized them for standing by -- deafening silence. Is he right about that?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I didn't have an opportunity to see his speech. Frankly, I was spending a lot of time preparing for the other questions we've been discussing today. What I will say is that when it comes to a nation that is ready and willing to come to Israel's defense, no one has been more loyal than the United States of America, including under the leadership of Barack Obama. And the President is proud of the strong relationship between our countries and the unshakeable bond when it comes to our commitment to Israel's security.
Q Thank you, Josh. Can you tell me, isn't Russia facing now the same legitimate question you faced when you were putting together the coalition to fight ISIL in Syria, which is, could you fight the extremists inside Syria without propping up Assad? Because the Russians would say, well, it took the United States a long time in the train-and-equip program to vet who is an extremist and who is a moderate opposition, and still you failed to really distinguish and ascertain the moderate opposition in Syria that's worth equipping and training.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I would acknowledge that it has taken some time to build the capacity of opposition forces on the ground inside of Syria who can take the fight to ISIL. They've made some important progress, but there's obviously a whole lot more to be done.
The problem is that progress that they have made is progress that they have made not because of the Assad regime, but actually in spite of it. The fact is, we've often seen the Assad regime carrying out military operations against moderate elements of the Syrian opposition, and we have not seen the Assad regime demonstrate either the willingness or the capacity to carry out military operations against ISIL.
So, again, I think that's the other tension in the argument that is being made by the Russians, is it's hard to make the case that you're supporting Assad because you want to fight ISIL when Assad doesn't appear to have either the desire or the capacity to fight ISIL. So it exposes a significant flaw in the logic of Russia's strategy here.
Q And you called on Congress to pass a budget that would reverse sequestration.
Q There are several other big fiscal issues, including highway funding that expires at the end of this month, and debt ceiling increase as well, along with tax extenders, potential tax cuts. Do you see that all as one package? Or do you think Congress should deal with these individually?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Cheryl, you've identified some of the -- some priorities that we have identified. Some of them -- I think all of them are important; some are even more important than others. I'm referring mostly to the debt limit.
But there are other economic priorities that you didn't mention that are also important to us. This would include reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and long-delayed action on cybersecurity legislation. This is legislation that's been sitting in the Senate for I don't know how long now, but too long. And yet, we actually see the Republican leadership holding votes on appropriations bills that they know won't pass -- these are appropriations bills that don't have any sort of bipartisan support -- while they neglect the kind of cybersecurity legislation that is critical to our economy, that is critical to our national security, and has bipartisan support in the United States Senate.
So I think it makes it difficult to explain exactly what Senator McConnell has in mind when it comes to following up on the promise that was included in his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal the day after the election -- "now we can get Congress moving again." If he were actually interested in doing that, he wouldn't be bringing to the floor pieces of legislation that he knows stand no chance of passing, and ignoring legislation that's critical to our economy and critical to our national security that probably would pass if they did the work that was necessary to get it done.
Q Senator McConnell has talked about a two-year budget plan, though, now, going forward. Do you have suggestions on the shape of that, what that should include?
MR. EARNEST: Well, obviously, we have an informed view on all of these things. And our priority has been on preventing a government shutdown, essentially reversing the sequester to ensure that our national security and economic priorities are adequately funded. That's been where our priorities have been.
Our view is that we can only accomplish those goals if Democrats and Republicans -- if Republicans are actually willing to work with Democrats to get that done. And the last time that Democrats and Republicans were able to work together on budget legislation, they actually did come to a two-year budget agreement. Whether that's appropriate this time or not remains to be seen. We'll see how things play out. But that certainly was something that Democrats and Republicans were able to accomplish together last time they were confronted with this challenge.
Q Thanks, Josh. Going back to the Secret Service for a second, I was thinking back to some of the other problems the Secret Service has had, and the understandable -- maybe outrageous is overstating it, but certainly a great deal of unhappiness given that the safety and security of the President and his family at times seem to be at risk. And I realize that comparing what happened to Congressman Chaffetz isn't the same, but it doesn't seem like there's a lot of concern on your part. Is there concern on the part of the White House or the President that this was -- that this happened to somebody who was so vigorously investigating what was going on in the Secret Service?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Chris, it certainly is not routine for the Director of the Secret Service to personally call someone to offer an apology for the conduct of his agency. It certainly is extraordinary for the Secretary of Homeland Security to place the same telephone call. I think that should be a pretty clear indication to you just how seriously the administration takes this matter, and how seriously the Secret Service takes their responsibility to live up to the high standards that they've set for themselves at that agency. That includes the effective and proper handling of sensitive information.
So this is something that the administration, but, more importantly, that the agency takes quite seriously. And Director Clancy gave his word to Congressman Chaffetz that those who are responsible for mishandling of this information would be appropriately held accountable, and I have confidence that Director Clancy will do that.
Q Is it something the President takes quite seriously? Is he upset about this?
Q Let me ask you about -- a couple more questions, if I can, on Russia, particularly the teleconference that took place today. Is this strictly limited to the de-confliction area? Or will some of the conversations continue about targets, some of the kinds of conversations that were had between Secretary Kerry and Mr. Lavrov?
MR. EARNEST: Well, let me answer that in a couple of different ways. The first is, this is the first in what I anticipate will be a series of operational, tactical conversations to effectively de-conflict Russian and U.S. military operations in Syria. This is something that President Putin and President Obama discussed starting in their meeting on Monday. And on Thursday morning here in Washington, those conversations began.
Now, based on the readout of the call that I got, it is not clear to me that there was a discussion of some of the things that you described, including targets. The discussion focused -- at least when it came to the U.S. agenda -- on ensuring that aircraft are operating consistent with international rules and safety regulations, and ensuring that communications were being conducted on internationally recognized channels. So when you have military pilots that are flying aircraft at a high rate of speed, you want to make sure that these kinds of standards are observed by everyone who is operating there and that there is an ability to communicate, if necessary.
So those are the kinds of basics that were covered in the context of this call from the U.S. side. I'll let the Russians read out what they raised. But this is just the first in a series of calls, and I wouldn't at this point rule out that there might be a discussion of targets and some other things.
What I will say, however -- and this is something that was reiterated on the call by the United States directly to the Russians -- is that this call and these consultations do not at all represent a change in our policy of limiting military-to-military cooperation with the Russians as a result of their actions inside of Ukraine. That policy has not changed. And these conversations will not rise to that kind of broader strategic level. These kinds of consultations are important, but they will continue to focus on basic operational, tactical efforts to de-conflict our operations.
Q There have been multiple conversations over the last several days between Secretary Kerry and Sergei Lavrov, and at one point yesterday -- before I think that final meeting that went about an hour that was off his schedule -- he came up and said to the media, "Don't listen to the Pentagon." How do you read that statement?
MR. EARNEST: I didn't see that -- this is from Foreign Minister Lavrov?
MR. EARNEST: I'm not sure exactly what he was referring to.
Q You don't want to even venture a -- all right. (Laughter.) And this just happened and so it may not even be on your radar that apparently there's been a shooting at a community college in Oregon in which there may be some fatalities. And again, we don't know any of the details so I'm not going to -- I don't want to project. But I just wonder, as the President looks ahead -- and I know that, whether it's written or whether it's in his head, there's sort of this list of his priorities -- when you look at things like limiting access to guns and mental illness and the kinds of things that he spoke about so movingly in places like Newtown, is there a sense that a realistic analysis says that's not something that can be high on the priority list because it's not likely to get done? Or where does that sort of fall as he looks ahead to how he spends his next 15 months or so?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Chris, the issue of sensible steps that can be taken to protect our communities from gun violence continues to be a top priority of this administration. There are some common-sense steps -- things like closing the gun show loophole and others -- that have strong bipartisan support across the country. According to some polling data, there's even a majority of Republicans that support closing the gun show loophole.
We have not yet seen that kind of strong bipartisan support across the country translate into legislative support in the United States Congress that's sufficient to pass legislation that would, again, implement these kinds of common-sense solutions. That said, we've been pretty candid about the fact that there's no piece of legislation that can be passed into law by the Congress that would prevent every single incident of gun violence, but there are some common-sense things that we can do. And I think the vast majority of the American people share the President's view in wondering why Congress wouldn't take those kinds of common-sense steps.
And the President has been quite candid about how this is and has been a source of frustration for him. It has not at all been lowered on the priority scale, but at the same time, the President is quite realistic that we'll need to see a fundamental change in terms of the way the American people communicate this priority to Congress before we'll see a different outcome in the legislative process.
Q If Russia is hitting these targets -- and many now are saying that there's evidence that they are hitting U.S.-backed fighters -- how much of a setback do you see that to the coalition's work going forward? And if the goal is de-confliction with Russia and they're hitting people backed by the U.S. and destroying work that has been done, how is that not a confliction? And how could that not have been discussed in this initial contact today?
MR. EARNEST: I think I acknowledged yesterday that any sort of Russian effort to take strikes against moderate opposition fighters who are fighting ISIL does come into conflict with our counter-ISIL campaign and does run into conflict with our counter-ISIL strategy. And we've made that quite clear to the Russians.
And again, I can't speak to what additional conversations might take place in the series of consultations aimed at de-conflicting our military activities inside of Syria, but I certainly wouldn't rule out that there might be a discussion of targets in the future. But when it came to what the United States raised, we are focused on some more fundamental issues.
Q So do you see a warning coming out of this? And if they are hitting those targets, which many believe they are, what are the consequences for that? Are you thinking possibly some other form of sanctions?
MR. EARNEST: I think the consequence is that Russia is wading more deeply into what is potentially an indefinite sectarian conflict. This will serve to isolate Russia internationally. And we've seen significant statements of concern from countries like Turkey and Jordan and others who are part of our anti-ISIL coalition.
Russia certainly risks deepening and enflaming sectarian tensions in a way that forestalls any sort of political solution inside of Syria -- a political solution that the Russians themselves say will be necessary to accomplishing their goals, to say nothing of the fact that Russia risks driving elements of the moderate Syrian opposition into the arms of extremists that are operating inside of Syria, and enflaming members of the Sunni opposition such that they're prepared to carry out acts of violence against Russia inside of Syria or against Russia inside of Russia.
This is the risk that is freighted with Russia's strategic decisions here. And as I mentioned earlier, those consequences that I just outlined are far more grave than any sort of diplomatic consequences that could be imposed by the international community.
Q So are you saying that there's no way there would be international diplomatic consequences?
MR. EARNEST: I certainly wouldn't rule it out. But it certainly will not be as significant as the prospect of Russia being sucked into a years-long sectarian conflict that only makes them more vulnerable to extremist violence.
And again, just to clarify, there is no delight taken here in the United States in Russia's miscalculations. The fact is Russia's efforts forestall a political solution that we believe is necessary to stabilizing the situation inside of Syria, to prevent the worsening of the humanitarian disaster caused by the refugee crisis, and to prevent the efforts of extremist groups like ISIL from establishing a safe haven inside the chaos of Syria.
Q Does the U.S. not believe that Russia working -- okay, aside from what happens politically down the road, is it not possible that Russia working with the regime now could defeat ISIS?
MR. EARNEST: Well, again, Michelle, I think that's going to be pretty hard for them to do since neither the regime nor the Russians are actually taking strikes against ISIL.
MR. EARNEST: This highlights the fundamental contradiction in Russia's strategy. They're supporting a regime that is either unwilling or unable to carry out strikes against ISIL. And they're supporting that regime by taking strikes in areas where ISIL forces are not likely operating.
Q Do you still believe that fighting ISIS is one of their priorities?
MR. EARNEST: I do take them at their word that they are concerned about the true impact of extremist groups like ISIL continuing to succeed in recruiting foreign terrorist fighters, in radicalizing individuals through social media, and in destabilizing the broader Middle East. I think they are genuinely concerned about that. As President Putin would tell you, just looking at a globe, Russia is a whole lot closer to the Middle East than the United States is, so they are well aware of the risks that Russia faces from extremism continuing to propagate throughout the Middle East. So I do take them at their word that degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL is a goal of theirs. But there is a fundamental contradiction in their strategy for which they cannot account.
Q Do you see it as an impossibility that they could degrade ISIS to the point of not being able to function, and then whatever happens politically happens after that?
MR. EARNEST: I think it is extremely unlikely that Russia will be able to defeat ISIL if they continue to support a regime that doesn't take strikes against ISIL and further enflames the sectarian divide inside of Syria, and if they continue to pursue a military strategy that's predicated on taking on strikes not against ISIL but against elements of the Syrian opposition, including some elements of the Syrian opposition that are actually fighting ISIL -- or at least opposed to them.
And again, that is the fundamental contradiction on the Russian position that I think makes clear that they're operating from a position of weakness, and that they're pursuing the kind of strategy that is clearly not in the interests of the Russian people and will ultimately be counterproductive to Russia's efforts to make progress in the direction of their stated goals.
Q Hi, two domestic questions for you.
Q First in terms of EPA's new ozone standard to deal with smog -- this has been decried on both sides today. Both the environmentalists and public health advocates are upset.
Q There you go. (Laughter.) Could you talk about what balance you were trying to strike and why you decided to revise it? It didn't go nearly as far as many of your traditional allies had been calling for.
MR. EARNEST: Juliet, for the actual decision behind the formulation of this rule, I'd refer you to the EPA. They can give you a much more detailed and technical explanation for how they arrived at their decision. Let me just say as a general matter, particularly when it comes to our critics who suggest that these kinds of rules will be bad for the economy, let me just point out that the EPA for more than four decades has been working with state and local agencies to cut air pollution, and in that same period of time, they have succeeded in cutting air pollution by 70 percent, while our economy has tripled.
So I think it certainly calls into question the claims -- the dire claims of some of our critics that this kind of rulemaking is inconsistent with an economic strategy. In fact, the President would make a pretty strong case to you that there is a sound economic incentive for the United States and industries in the United States to be more focused on investments in renewable and clean energy.
Q And then, on John Boehner and the possibility of him being a working partner in the last few weeks he has here on Capitol Hill. Can you give us a sense of to what extent you've seen indications that there may be a possibility to work with him more closely on key priorities before he leaves office?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Juliet, there's an open line of communication between the White House and Capitol Hill. Speaker Boehner rather colorfully described his desire to "clean out the barn" before he leaves. I think that was viewed by many here in the White House, including myself, that that was a rather apt description of what needs to happen in Congress in the next few weeks. And if there is an opportunity for the Obama administration to support those efforts, then we'll certainly be a willing partner.
It will, however, require bipartisan cooperation; for any of this business to get taken care of, Republicans will not succeed in passing that legislation along party lines. They can't -- there simply is not support that they're able to muster in Congress sufficient to overcome the filibuster, to say nothing of the President's veto pen.
So if Republicans, including Speaker Boehner, in his last few weeks in office, does want to work in bipartisan fashion to "clean out the barn," then he'll find partners here at the White House ready to roll up our sleeves and pick up some mops and get to work.
Q Okay, I just wanted to ask you about what we're seeing over the past two days in Syria. Did the actions by Russia over the past two days make it difficult -- more difficult to recruit fighters to the opposition to the Assad government?
MR. EARNEST: Well, John, I think the way that I would answer your question is actually to remind you of how fluid the situation is on the ground. And I do think there is a significant risk that individuals who last week would be described by an informed but impartial analyst as a moderate opposition figure and a potential moderate opposition fighter and a potential moderate opposition political activist -- somebody who could participate in the political transition that's needed inside of Syria -- that as a result of Russia's actions inside of Syria that that individual essentially seeks the comfort and protection of extremists, and that they make common cause with extremists to fight Russia and to fight the Assad regime.
That seems like an entirely likely outcome to me, and it highlights why we take no special delight in Russia's miscalculation. But it also highlights, I think even more importantly, the grave consequences for Russia's inherently flawed strategy.
Q And as far as the de-confliction talks which took place today, what's next? Are there more talks? Were all the issues resolved today during that one-hour teleconference?
MR. EARNEST: No. There will be additional consultations as they work to de-conflict their efforts. So I would anticipate additional communications between Assistant Secretary Slotkin and some other members of the U.S. uniformed military and their Russian counterparts.


see different links and then click the download button, Many video file formats will appear, Now. Many users asking, Looking where can download videos and how to save it to their devices that's why our website was created it's all because for the user's who looking to us, We offers to download and store all latest, viral, trending videos. Download Mp4 Video, Music birthday party coupons for chuck e cheese Video, Full Movie, Video Full Songs, To Mp3 Songs, Video Photos Gallery, To 3Gp Video, Video Voice Lesson, Video Dance Moves, Download Mp3 Songs, Video Guitar Tutorial, To Mp4 Video, Video Piano Lesson, Download 3Gp Video. Crazy Boyfriend Lifetime Movies - New Movies - Based On A True Story 2017 HD » Crazy Boyfriend Lifetime Movies New Movies Based On A True Story 2017 HD Full Video, Was Uploaded When 22 December 2017 And Uploaded by: Darrell Henderson. Family, dance Tutorial, voice Lesson, documentary, anime. Cars Vehicles, imam Bukhari Movies Never Underestimate A Girl Gigi Nikki Bella Nip Title Full Video Nik Iqbal Qasoori Sabr E Ayyoub Winky D Sando Dzangu Gulshan Kumat Body Building Jav Saori Hara Full Movie 7 7 Tuner Loading. Step 2: All videos related to your search will appear in the page results, Then in the video results choose the video you want to download then click the download button.
Its never easy to say goodbye. Thank you for visiting FatWallet. With sadness, we must inform you that we have closed our operations, and our website is no longer active. WapSpot is the fastest and the best online converter and downloader site.
Publish Deals in Your Niche Deals and coupons are great for driving business to your website.
Trending Now: 43 Coupons, Promo Codes, Deals at AbeBooks Earn 7 Cash Back With Giving Assistant.
USD.99 Free Shipping, Wholesale Price, Original Xiaomi Mi Band 3 Smart Bracelet.78 oled Touch Screen 5ATM Water Resistant Sports Fitness Tracker Reject Phone Calls Notification Display Bluetooth.2 - Black.
OneSource, organics, purchases Seal It, green s Assets Seal.
You Want to Download Videos From? With sadness, we must inform you that we have closed our operations, and our website is no longer active. Step 1: In the search box put the artist name or the title of the video you want to download, After you place the name in the search box then click search. For FatWallet Cash Back members that still have a balance you can request your payment below. Comedy, science Technology, sports, gaming, education.


text:
Nottinghamshire bid for third successive T20 finals day
Dave Bracegirdle
Notts Outlaws will be bidding to reach their third consecutive Finals Day when they head to the south-west to face Somerset in the Vitality Blast quarter-final round on Sunday.
The defending champions will be breaking new ground as they look to become the first side to retain the trophy.
In the 16 years of our shortest domestic competition Notts have reached the knock-out stage for a 10th time but this season there is a difference. When they head to Taunton at the weekend it will be the first time they will have faced the prospect of a quarter-final match away from Trent Bridge.
Facing Somerset won't be a new experience though. This will be the fourth time that the two sides have locked horns in T20, with the Outlaws still licking their wounds from two painful defeats.
At Finals Day in 2010 Notts were on course to chase down Somerset's 182 for five. They were ahead on Duckworth-Lewis until the start of the 13th over when Kieron Pollard pulled off a sensational leaping boundary catch to dismiss Samit Patel. The calculations were flipped, the rain came – and Notts were out by the narrowest of margins.
One year later Notts were given their chance for revenge. They made 169 for five on their own patch.
Luke Fletcher dismissed Marcus Trescothick early on and when Darren Pattinson removed Craig Kieswetter it seemed as if the Outlaws were there.
Somerset, with half their side already out, still required 65 from 30 balls. That they didn't need five of them was down to an unbelievable display of shot-making from Pollard – downing the green and golds for a second straight year – and Jos Buttler. They blasted six fours and six sixes between them and the away dressing room was belting out their celebratory 'Blackbird' victory song in no time at all.
Last year was different. Third time lucky and all that – as the Outlaws gained a modicum of revenge at the quarter-final stage. Samit Patel, with two for 26 and a stylish 45 runs, claimed the individual honours in a largely one-sided contest.
So now the trilogy becomes a quadrilogy.
Somerset topped the South Group impressively, qualifying with 10 wins from their 14 matches. The Outlaws' record was less spectacular; seven wins and seven defeats – but, crucially, they finished strongly with three emphatic victories, all once Alex Hales had returned to the side.
So what does the Notts coaching staff make of the forthcoming fixture?
"Everybody knows that Somerset are a strong team," said Paul Franks. "We go to Taunton, where I'm sure it will be an excellent pitch and we are looking forward to it very much. We're happy that we've played really well in our last three games and hope that will have sent a message."
The Assistant Head Coach commented on Somerset's recent fast starts at the top of the order. "Johann Myburgh is somebody I know well," he revealed. "I played a lot of cricket against hm in our formative years, when he was based in South Africa.
"We know all about him; he likes to get his hands through the ball and get the innings up and running early but we'll have a plan to try and stop him doing that."
Notts were without both Tom Moores and Harry Gurney for this week's Specsavers County Championship match against Hampshire but the club's Head Coach, Peter Moores, confirmed that both would be available for the knock-out match.
"Both will be fit for the quarter," he said. "Tom's got a strain at the top of his thigh. We managed to get him through the last game and we'll get him through the quarter-final alright and then see how he is for the Surrey match next week.
"Harry was rested really. He's had a very good white ball season and he we left him behind at Trent Bridge this week to recharge the batteries and do some specific work ready for the quarter.
"Taunton is somewhere we know well. We've had some good scraps with them in the past and did well down there in the quarter-final of the Royal London One-Day Cup last year, when we just got over the line," said Moores.
"It will be a really tough game because Somerset are a good side. We'll have to play well but we'll go into it with some really good momentum behind us.
"We've just beaten Yorkshire twice and Worcestershire and it feels like we have found a good system, batting-wise, which has given us a little more consistency. All credit to Jake Libby, who has come into the top of the order, so we are confident that if we play well we'll have a great chance."
Caught on camera - Derbyshire police want to speak to these people
These are the top 10 burglary hotspots in the UK
Hundreds of jobs up for grabs at East Midlands Airport
Environment Agency team battles to prevent Derbyshire flooding again
New housing planned for Green Belt in Erewash area

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


In the wake of the ongoing high profile sexual harassment claims dominating the news and the #MeToo uprising, employers must examine what this means for the workplace.
Welcome to the Carmody@Work Blog!
Welcome to the Carmody@Work blog! This blog is designed to be your resource for labor and employment law, providing employers with news and insights on virtually every labor and employment law issue facing employers.


Sorry, you missed Parliament Funkadelic at Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre.
You missed Parliament Funkadelic at Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre.
We're generating custom event recommendations for you based on Parliament Funkadelic right now!


text:
layout: faqs
faqs_id: product workshop 2
name: product workshop 2
slug: how-long-workshops-take-place
question: How long will the workshops take place?
answer: It depends on the clients' needs and time resources. A usual workshop
  lasts from 1 to 3 days. Tell us how much time you have and we will prepare a
  proper agenda according to your needs.
published: true
---

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Can Someone Who is Not the Biological Father Sign the Birth Certificate?
In this article, we will answer the question, "can someone who is not the biological father sign the birth certificate of a minor child?" We will also explain what happens as a result of a non-biological father signing the birth certificate. We will answer the questions, "what is paternity fraud?" and "what can happen as a result of paternity fraud?" For some foundational information on paternity law generally, check out our article, Illinois Paternity Law Explained.
What is Paternity Fraud?
If someone who is not the biological father signs the birth certificate, it is considered paternity fraud. Paternity fraud commonly occurs from these instances:
a mother is unsure who the father is but tells a current or former partner he is the father,
the mother knows when a man isn't the father but tells him he is so he'll sign the birth certificate, or
both the man and mother know he is not the biological father but they agree he'll sign the birth certificate anyway. All of these instances amount to paternity fraud and are illegal, as the birth certificate is a legal document.
When a man signs the birth certificate, he is acknowledging he is the legal and biological father of the child. His signing indicates he's agreeing to paternity and the legal responsibility of being a father, meaning the obligation of paying child support. Therefore, regardless if the man is the biological father or not, he has legally established himself as the father.
In the case of paternity fraud, there can be a few victims:
the man who believes himself to be the biological father,
the actual biological father, and
the innocent child who is subject to all of it.
What Can Happen as a Result of Paternity Fraud?
If the man who signed the birth certificate because he believes he was the biological father of the child finds out that he is, in fact, not the biological father, he may have a case to terminate a paternity acknowledgment, in which case, he should contact an experienced family attorney immediately. A court may terminate a paternity acknowledgment and order an amendment to the birth certificate if the father can prove that the mother committed fraud.
It's important to note that proving a mother committed fraud is not the same as a mother who mistakenly names a father who's later revealed to not be the biological father. To have a case for paternity fraud, the man must prove the mother knew the man was not the father but told him that he was, and that he agreed to sign the birth certificate based on the mother's statement. Evidence of fraud could include the mother telling the man after he signed the birth certificate that he isn't the biological father either verbally or in writing, or telling the same to a third party who is willing to serve as a witness.
If a man's intent is proving the mother committed fraud, it's important that he also identifies and locates the biological father. A court will be concerned with the financial support of the child and may not invalidate a paternity acknowledgment if that leaves the child without the child support he or she needs. Although paternity fraud is illegal, typically the mother will not face any punishment as the court is primarily concerned as what is in the best interest of the child.
Other Options for a Man Who Wants to be the Father
If a man and woman are together and the woman is pregnant with another man's child, but the couple wants to raise the child as the family, they still should not have the man sign the birth certificate. For one, the biological father (if still living) could always learn the child is his and decides to file with a court to establish paternity. Second, the couple would be committing paternity fraud.
The proper legal course of action in this instance is for the man to file for adoption of the child once the child is born. The mother and potential adoptive father would have to find the biological father and notify him of their intent, and ask him to legally relinquish his paternity rights to the child.
If a man is uncertain whether he is the biological father of the child, he should not sign the birth certificate. Once he does sign the birth certificate and legally acknowledges he is the father of the child, it can be very difficult to invalidate his paternity acknowledge depending on the circumstances. In the case of paternity fraud, the child is the one who may end up suffering the worse emotionally as he or she may not have a relationship with their biological father.
Paternity Law
When Can Paternity Be Challenged as Part of a Divorce in Illinois?
Illinois Cause of Action for Paternity Fraud Explained
What Rights Does a Father Have if He is on the Birth Certificate?
Millennial Co-Parenting in a Platonic Relationship or After Divorce
Do I Have to Pay Child Support if I Don't Get to See My Child?
What Happens if the Father's Name is Not on the Birth Certificate?
What to Expect From a Deposition | Illinois Depositions Explained
How to Legally Change a Child's Name in Illinois | What if the Father Objects to a Minor's Name Change?
How to Change Parental Responsibilities | Illinois Child Custody Modification Explained
Family Law FAQ | Illinois Family Law Frequently Asked Questions
Which State Has Jurisdiction in Paternity Cases? | Where to File Your Paternity Case
Adoption When the Father is Unknown in Illinois
Mutually Beneficial Prenuptial Agreements in Illinois
Illinois Premarital Agreements | Antenuptial Agreements Illinois
Exclusive Possession of the Marital Residence During a Divorce in Illinois
Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions in Illinois Divorce
Temporary Child Support and Temporary Spousal Maintenance Orders in Illinois
Who Pays Attorney Fees in a Divorce in Illinois?
Marriage Annulment in Illinois Explained
What Happens if a Victim Invites a Violation of Protective Order in Illinois? | Can the Protected Party Violate an Order of Protection?
Child Custody and Parenting Rights of Unmarried Fathers in Illinois
False Allegations of Child Abuse in Illinois Child Custody Cases
The Primary Caretaker Presumption in Illinois Child Custody Cases Explained
Child Support and Remarriage in Illinois
Illinois DCFS Cases: Parents' Visitation Rights After Children Have Been Removed by the Court
What is the Definition of Child Abuse and Neglect in Illinois?
How to Remove a Child From the Parent's Custody | How to Report Child Abuse or Neglect to the DCFS
Illinois Temporary Child Custody Orders | Temporary Orders Allocating Parenting Time and Responsibility
Illinois Child Custody Appeals Explained | Appealing Allocation of Parenting Time and Responsibility
Illinois "Red Flag" Gun Law Explained | How to Petition to Remove Someone's Firearm
Illinois Child Custody Jurisdiction Explained | How to Determine Which Court Has Jurisdiction in Child Custody Cases
Illinois Divorce Jurisdiction Explained | How to Determine Divorce Jurisdiction and Venue
Timeline of Illinois Parenting Cases | How Long Do Child Custody Cases Take in Illinois?
Illinois Standby Guardianship Explained | What is a Standby Guardian?
Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity and Establishing Paternity By Agreement in Illinois
How to Add the Father to a Child's Birth Certificate in Illinois When the Mother Objects
What Happens if the Name I Use is Different from the Name on My Birth Certificate?


P. U. Leather hand Sewn ball.High quality backing material for high shape stability. ..
Ball Carrying Cage - Club made of steel tubes powder coated for durability & with top opening li..
Ball carrying cage made of steel tubes & heavy duty wire powder coated for durability. Available..
Shooting Ball Net - Cotton..


text:
Israel News | Business
U.S. Urges Lenovo to Remove Israeli Software, Fearing Cyberattacks
Department of Homeland Security says Superfish makes users vulnerable to a type of cyberattack known as SSL spoofing.
Computer.Credit: Dreamstime
The U.S. government on Friday advised Lenovo Group Ltd customers to remove a "Superfish," a program pre-installed on some Lenovo laptops, saying it makes users vulnerable to cyberattacks.
The Department of Homeland Security said in an alert that the program makes users vulnerable to a type of cyberattack known as SSL spoofing, in which remote attackers can read encrypted web traffic, redirect traffic from official websites to spoofs, and perform other attacks.
"Systems that came with the software already installed will continue to be vulnerable until corrective actions have been taken," the agency said.
Adi Pinhas, chief executive of Palo Alto, California-based Superfish, said in a statement that his company's software helps users achieve more relevant search results based on images of products viewed. He said the vulnerability was "inadvertently" introduced by Israel-based Komodia, which built the application described in the government notice.
Komodia CEO arak Weichselbaum declined comment on the vulnerability.
Komodia's website says it produces a "hijacker" that allows users to view data encrypted with SSL technology.
"The hijacker uses Komodia's redirector platform to allow you easy access to the data and the ability to modify, redirect, block, and record the data without triggering the target browser's certification warning," according to the site.
Marc Rogers, a researcher with CloudFlare, said that means companies which deploy Komodia technology can snoop on web traffic.
"These guys can do everything from just collect a little bit of marketing information, all the way to building a profile on you and spying on your banking connections," he said. "It's a very dangerous slope."
Rogers said that use of Komodia's technology in other products makes them vulnerable to the same types of attacks as Lenovo's Superfish.
He said other vulnerable products include two parental filters: One from Komodia known as KeepMyFamilySecure and another from Qustodio.
Komodia's Weichselbaum said his company was investigating reports of vulnerabilities in KeepMyFamilySecure.
Qustodio CEO Eduardo Cruz Chief Executive said his company's Windows parental filter was vulnerable and he hoped to push out a fix within a few days.
Lenovo did not disclose how many machines were affected, but said that only machines shipped from September to December of last year had been pre-loaded with the vulnerable software.
Affected Lenovo products include laptops in its Yoga, Flex and MiiX lines as well as its E, G, U, Y and Z series, according to the company's support website.
Norwegian Killer Gives Nazi Salute at Parole Hearing, Ten Years After Mass Murder


text:
Posted on October 8, 2019 October 8, 2019 by Program Director
Criminal Investigation into the Conduct of a Former Minister
Vancouver, October 7, 2019 – The Premier of British Columbia, John Horgan, announced late Friday that he has accepted the resignation of the Minister of Citizens' Services, Jinny Sims, due to an ongoing RCMP investigation into her conduct. At this time, precise details into the nature criminal investigation of Minister Sims are unknown.
The former Minister of Citizens' Services oversaw the administration of the freedom of information laws that are contained within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the records management practices contained in the Information Management Act (IMA).
During their 2017 campaign, the NDP promised to make reforms to the FIPPA. These included the creation of a duty to document government decisions and the inclusion of this provision within the FIPPA. Instead, the government added this provision to the IMA, which places authority within the former Minister to ensure government accountability. If the provision were to be included in the FIPPA, independent oversight would be given to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of BC.
"This is a time for the government to move forward with a comprehensive reform of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act," says Sara Neuert, the Executive Director of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. "This is a necessary step in rebuilding trust with the public, it's what was promised, and it's the recommendation of the all-party special legislative committee that reviewed the FIPPA in 2016, former Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham, and current Commissioner Michael McEvoy."
The former Minister of Citizens' Services, Jinny Sims, issued a public apology in the spring of 2018 for conduct that contravened BC's freedom of information laws. In the spring of 2019, a former staff member made several new allegations, which included an accusation that the former Minister continues to break these laws. We will be following the RCMP investigation very closely.
Sara Neuert, Executive Director
Email: fipa (at) fipa.bc.ca
CategoriesAccess to Information Law, Democratic Rights (News), FOI, Law Reform, Press Releases and FIPA in the News TagsFIPPA reform, Jinny Sims, Ministry of Citizens' Services, NDP, RCMP Investigation
Previous PostPrevious The BC FOI News Story Index
Next PostNext Statement on Section 22 of Bill 35: FIPPA Reform


text:
star star star_half star_border star_border
Expense Management Software
Expensify represents a comprehensive solution to all of your small-business expense tracking and reporting needs. It has a number of features and integrations designed to make financial management easy and efficient.
The company has been in business since 2008 and also runs Expensify Ventures, which provides venture funding.
#1 The Neat Company chevron_right
#2 QuickBooks chevron_right
#3 Divvy chevron_right
Fastest Growing ERP
Integration Capabilities
Lauded as one of the fastest growing ERP software worldwide, Expensify is quickly becoming one of the most popular and user-friendly expense tracking softwares for small business. It has a lot going for it. In addition to handling over 160 major currencies, Expensify integrates easily with any bank or credit card account.
Additional features include a GPS-enabled mileage tracker that keeps travel expenses (bus, cab, air, etc.) accurate and organized, and the implementation of SmartScan technology, which not only allows users to upload photos of their receipts, but also extracts important information — merchant name, transaction date, transaction amount — and uploads it to your account in a digital format.
Expensify offers competitive pricing packages for a range of business sizes. Although the basic package is free, to access more you can pay for better plans, each being relatively cheap. These are the plans for individuals, sole proprietors, and small business owners:
Track Plan
The Track plan is free for the first five SmartScans a month. For more than five SmartScans, you will be charged $4.99 per month. This gives you access to all the individual features:
Unlimited receipt scans
Unlimited SmartScans
Indefinite storage
Automatic GPS mileage tracking
Tax tracking
Expensify app
Uber and Lyft integration
Submit Plan
The Submit plan has the same features as the track plan, but this plan is for those who want to send their expense reports to managers and accountants for reimbursement. The Submit plan is also free for the first five SmartScans, but it charges $4.99 per month for more.
If you want to have more than one user working through Expensify, the company offers two plans to help you manage your cash flow. You can try all plans on Expensify free, so it might be worth looking into these pricier options for your group.
Collect Plan
The Collect plan gives you all of the same features as an individual plan with added tools for managing accounting and bookkeeping. The Collect plan costs $10 per user per month if used pay-per-use. On a subscription, this price drops to $5 per user per month. It offers more options for expense management:
Admin capabilities
Auditor access
Expanded travel integration with TripActions, NexTravel, and TripCatcher
Accounting software integrations like QuickBooks and Xero
Human resource integrations like Gusto and Zenefits
Tax integrations with Global VaTax and Taxback InternationalEtc
Control Plan
The Control Plan is the most comprehensive plan from Expensify, and in addition to including everything from the Collect Plan, it includes a few more convenient features:
Corporate card reconciliation
Advanced approval workflows
Custom export options
On a pay-per-use basis, the Control plan is $18 per person per month. For a subscription, it's $9 per person per month.
All Expensify plans include integration with Uber and Lyft to track mileage, but these aren't the only companies that can integrate with Expensify. Expensify has a wide range of companies, from travel to expense reporting software, that can connect to its service.
Expensify boasts 256-SSL bank-level security and regular security scans by McAfee SECURE.
Expensify's mobile app allows for easy receipt scanning on the go and has an easy-to-use inbox showing you tasks that need your attention, such as report approval and expense violations. The app offers push notifications and an offline mode for remote sessions.
Not Comprehensive Accounting Software
While Expensify is a great EMS, companies that will also need accounting software for billing clients, budgeting, and tracking inventory might prefer a comprehensive software that offers all these features in one place. Expensify makes it easy to consolidate features with its integration into other accounting softwares, but depending which plans you pick for your accounting software, it might be more cost effective to go with a comprehensive service.
Overall, it is hard to find much that's lacking about Expensify's product; it is mobile optimized, less expensive than most other small-business expense tracking softwares, and its SmartScan technology for receipts truly sets it apart as an exceptional financial management tool.
View Best Expense Management Software Companies
Anne Sainsbury Payson, UT
Expensify is a great website and does exactly what it's supposed to do! Plus, their online "how to" guides are incredible! I was trying to connect Expensify and NetSuite and there was literally a step by step guide I was able to find! So great!
Aaron Hodges Denver, CO
Don't give Expensify your credit card. They will sign you up for services without your permission and charge you month after month. When confronted they will tell you that you mistakenly signed up for the service.
star star star star_border star_border
Tess L Provo, UT
This worked out pretty well for our work! We only used it for about one year, but as a worker it was easy enough for me to use!


text:
Miriam Lexmann (nascida em 2 de dezembro de 1972) é uma política eslovaca. Ela é membro do Parlamento Europeu desde fevereiro de 2020. Ela também é membro do Movimento Democrata Cristão.

Carreira política
Antes de se candidatar, Lexmann trabalhou para a organização política sem fins lucrativos International Republican Institute (IRI).

Lexmann concorreu pelo seu partido na eleição de 2019 para o Parlamento Europeu na Eslováquia, não conseguindo ganhar uma cadeira imediatamente, mas garantindo uma cadeira entre as cadeiras britânicas que foram redistribuídas depois de o Reino Unido ter deixado a União Europeia. Ela ocupou o seu assento no Parlamento Europeu após o Brexit.

Nascidos em 1972
Pessoas vivas
Políticos da Eslováquia

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The recent heat storm damaged many, many plants and trees in Hancock Park. In particularly, our parkway trees are really suffering. These trees need regular, deep watering particularly in the summer months. Be sure and water all your trees and especially your parkway trees once a week, a slow drip for a few hours. Your trees clean the air, cool the ground, adds value to your property and provide homes for birds and other wildlife.
· Check trees and make sure that they are healthy. If you are concerned that a limb might be brittle, have a licensed arborist check as soon as possible.
Keep yourself and your family safe by reporting any suspicious behavior to the LAPD, keep your doors and cars locked and, if you have an alarm, set it even if you're in the house. If you think someone is trying to break into your home call 911 immediately. DO NOT CONFRONT THE PERSON YOURSELF!
If you plan to change your landscaping or make changes to the exterior of your house please contact our City Planner, Suki Gershenhorn (suki.gershenhorn@lacity.org) before starting to make sure your plans comply with our Preservation Plan. The HPOZ Preservation Plan, which regulates our HPOZ can be found at http://www.preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/la/hancock-park There is also an online form you can fill out to help speed up the process (http://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/initial.screening.checklist). Report graffiti sightings by calling 311 or at the City's Anti-Graffiti Request System - http://anti-graffiti.lacity.org/welcome.cfm?CFID=1007&CFTOKEN=411CDB4F-0FC3-4EE1-89DE58DCCB435538 and by calling Hollywood Beautification, 323-463-5180.


If you have been using Kerberos.io before, you'll know that the installation is easy, but not easy enough for a regular user. Therefore Kerberos.io have been investigating to build a user-friendly GUI, which allows you to install Kerberos.io on your SD card with just a few clicks.
On our journey we found the people behind the start-up company Resin.io, which is specialized in deployment to IoT devices using Docker technology. Next to managing their eco-system, they also open-sourced a lot of their code. One of those open-source projects is called Etcher, it's a GUI developed with Electron and AngularJS which allows their users to burn any .img to a SD card.
Kerberos.io brainstormed together with the Resin.io team, and decided to fork the Etcher repository. We added some more functionality on top of the Etcher framework, and there it is, the new Kerberos.io installer!
The Kerberos.io installer will be available at the beginning of september for Windows, Linux and OSX. Stay tuned!
How do I specify a WPA2Enterprise network using this installer?