tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 23, 2016 10:05pm-12:01am EST
earlier today a tweet from the chief of staff who indicated that right now we have a situation at the prison at guantanamo bay that it's not possible for some individuals to ctually just plead guilty. that's an indication that we need to fix our broken system and right now, again, as john pointed out, all we have seen is congress throwing up obstacles. what we would like to see is congress engage in this plan so that we can act in the best interests of taxpayers and our national security and then we don't end up in a situation where this unwieldy problem ends up on the plate of the next president, whoever that person may be. reporter: people on the hill are calling this dead on arrival. is there a plan b? mr. earnest: the plan was put forward a couple of hours ago.
it sounds like it is pretty inconsistent. you have to ask congress if they were disingenuous. sounds like they didn't take it ery seriously. and again, i actually think that reinforces a pretty significant problem that congress has. anybody who is paying attention it's hard to figure out what hey are doing. they're certainly not doing their job. they are ruling out consideration of the president's nominee to the supreme court and refused to take tangible action against isil and won't engage in a hearing with the president's budget director in the same way that every congress in the last 40 years has. so i don't know what's happening in congress right now. what we are focused on right now is doing the job of the american people and making sure we are being good stewards and i think in each of those stances, what you have is the administration trying to move the country
forward and put politics aside and act. on the part of congress, you see nothing. reporter: what you are describing is that the white house is trying to work with congress and dependent on congress to get this prison closed. but in the face of that opposition, is the president willing to leave office with guantanamo bay still open? mr. earnest: that is not his reference. remember standing -- sitting in that chair over there and i believe january 22, 2009, where the president put forward his plans. we have been talking about this for more than seven years. this has been a top priority. and each turn we have been stymied by congress and that's frustrating. but that pales in comparison to
how irresponsible it is to treat taxpayer dollars and our national security in that way. reporter: are you going to let the clock keep ticking and time is of the essence. mr. earnest: congress is going to let the clock tick. we put forward a very specific plan for ensuring that doesn't appen. and we are hopeful that somebody in congress somewhere will actually take a serious look at this and be willing to put the national security of the united states and the importance of efficient use of taxpayer dollars ahead of their own personal political considerations. that may be a bold consideration to make in washington, d.c., these days particularly in an election year but it's what the american people expect and what the constitution requires. reporter: the president talked about this scary idea for people moving terrorists closer to the
u.s. mainland and some ways to their own back yard. given there are among these 91 people here, still about 46 who can't be cleared out, there isn't enough evidence against them but too much worry to release them. moving those people to the u.s. mainland, isn't that shifting the same problem to another zip code so that the next president faces the exact same problem of indefinite detention of detainees with no clear sign of avoiding what has become what he white house says is the rallying point for terrorists? mr. earnest: you raised several important questions. the first thing as the president referenced in his statement in the roosevelt room is there are hardened, dangerous terrorists who right now, even as we speak,
dozens of them, who are serving time in american prisons on american soil, right now. that doesn't make the united states more vulnerable. it makes us safer. they have gone through a criminal justice process where they have been convicted and serving time and they are being held where they cannot pose a threat to the american people. reporter: in terms of the evidence and the trial and that is one of the problems along these many years with closing a facility and how do you get around all that? mr. earnest: there are a group of people that it doesn't apply. where we should be able to find a justice process of up with form or another that will allow he justice to be served. what's also true there is a process that was put in place on january 22, 2009 that initiated a formal review of the files of these individuals who are detained to determine how and
where they could be safely transferred and we are going to continue to implement that process to determine if there are more individuals based on updated intelligence assessments and updated conversations with our partners could be transferred somewhere else in a way that is consistent with our national security interests. i wouldn't rule out that more people from the group of 46 or 6 here that we have here, that they could be move into the category for transfer and that is a testament to the success of the process that the administration put in place on the president's second ull day in office. but look, the final thing is the option is, the other option that right now, congress is nudging us in a direction of, is one that only serves to exacerbate our national security
vulnerabilities and allows extremist organizations to continue to use the operation of the prison at guantanamo bay as a recruiting tool. we know they do that and why we give them that weapon to use against us is beyond me. what's also true is that the dollars and cents here just don't add to a logical republican congressional strategy. there are democrats who are omplicit in this, too. members of congress are suggesting that we continue to operate the prison at guantanamo bay after we have transferred all those individuals eligible for transfer doesn't add up. the per inmate cost is only going to continue to skyrocket and when you look at the longer term cost implications, even in the short-term it doesn't make sense. in short-term we could recoupe the costs in three to five years but be in a situation where we re saving taxpayers 85 million
-- $85 million each year by moving these individuals to u.s. soil. over the long-term, the cost savings are even more significant. when you consider the dollars here and fiscal conservative and making sure that government is smaller and taxpayer dollars are efficiently used, that we are looking to cut wasteful spending, $85 million a year, that seems like a pretty sizeable amount. reporter: follow up on another. seems like this plan was delayed for many months as you tried to get the cost squared away. it sounds like you're going to have 30 to 60 individuals and saving $85 million, hundreds of millions, over $200 million for 30 to 60 individuals and i'm wondering if that cost is something that the spth
comfortable with? it costs several million dollars. is that something the president is comfortable with? will you try to get that number down more? and try to hunker down more and is that the reason? mr. earnest: i think what is true, once we have the opportunity to take a closer look more specifically at the way that a u.s. facility could be used, i wouldn't rule out there would be additional cost savings. but we can't do that important with til congress works us to see if that is even possible. i guess in the same way that it costs money to run prisons in the united states, it's going to cost money to detain these individuals even if we bring them to the united states. releasing them is not an option. so shouldn't we just find the most cost-effective way to do it? isn't irresponsible to suggest we should $85 million a year to keep these individuals at uantanamo bay, that terrorists
use as a recruiting tool? it's not the best way to look out for our national security or a good way to be a taxpayer of the taxpayers' dollar. people who are strong on national security and fiscal conservatives and people willing to listen to the advice of our military commanders, like a republican trying to make a foreign policy decision. so let's start living up to our rhetoric and do the right thing for the american people. reporter: call for the administration to put out a specific name of a facility or facilities. i know you said that the law kind of restricts you from doing the research that you need to do. but it doesn't restrict you in naming facilities that you're looking at. doesn't restrict you from
narrowing them, the pocket down to just a few facilities that you're actually considering. i'm wondering why the administration didn't do that. >> it was to inform our development of pro toetype facilities to look at how this would be done. but we are prohibited by law from developing the kind of specifics and details around a specific facility. so, look, this is exactly part of what congressional engagement should be. we should have a discussion about where this facility will e located. so if there are republicans that what trong ideas about would be a good place. we are happy to have that discussion and take a close look whether that would meet our requirements and bring about the kind of tax savings we would envision. we would welcome that
discussion, but right now congress has passed a law that prevents that conversation from taking place. it's not consistent with what it eans to do your job. reporter: one more on apple and f.b.i. there have been several district attorneys who said they are also looking to get a back door into phones and if this case does go forward and apple does comply, hey have several phones. you made it sound like it is going to be this one. is there a threat that other district attorneys across the country will be able to use this case as a way to get into phones or other types of cases that are not terrorist related? mr. earnest: i'm not aware of other cases that may be out there. so i'll let prosecutors -- if
they have cases comparable to this make their own case. i have been asked about this very specific request ta the epartment of justice and independent investigators have made to a judge. they haven't south to do it on their own to obtain access to a phone that was used by a terrorist that is no longer iving that was actually in the property and owned by the local government in california. so i have limited my comments to this specific request. i can't speak to other requests that may be out there. if there are additional requests that have to be made, they have to go before a judge. and it's the case we have been making. i have not stood up here and suggest that the f.b.i. should be able to decide whether or not they get access. and it shouldn't be apple who decides to get access. here is a court of law and
procedure in place to determine and to weigh the merits of the arguments that are made by both side. the judge has come down on the independent investigators at the department of justice and given the way the president has made this investigation a priority because information that was yielded in the investigation could be relevant to protect the american people, that's why we are hopeful that the f.b.i. will continue to do its important ork. reporter: is it your understanding that the n.s.a. is ollecting bulk metadata? why wouldn't the f.b.i. go to them to get the information they claim they need from this particular device. mr. earnest: congress passed legislation to reform this program to ensure that the ntelligence community would no longer be in the business of collecting that bulk metadata
that was included in section 215 of the patriot act. so that is no longer taking place. reporter: no selection to your understanding of bulk phone records? mr. earnest: based on the law that was passed by congress last year with bipartisan support, it made critical reforms that put telephone companies in a osition to collect that data and with a court order, law enforcement officials could conduct the kind of searches that are critical to our national security. ut it would not be a situation where the u.s. government was in a position of holding that data ourselves. reporter: i was asking you about and broader question about detainees. considering there is ongoing theaters all over the globe involving terrorists, where are they being held?
mr. earnest: there is a process for this and again, we don't have to envision in our mind how this might work. we have time and time again demonstrated when it comes to terrorists who are apprehended in the united states, we have a process in place where we can make sure they are subject to robust interrogation and can use that information to enhance our national security, that we can get the information we need out of them to make sure to keep the american people safe and turn them over to law enforcement interrogators to put them through the justice system and any of them are actually serving time right now on american soil in american prison facilities no longer posing a threat to our national security. we have a system in place that works that keeps the american people safe and lives up to our values. reporter: what about the ones captured on the battlefield. they are not being transported back here. where are they held?
since we are engaged in an ongoing battle that may be pprehended on the battlefield, they have to be held somewhere. if they are going to be detained and the argument that some are making a facility like guantanamo is going to be important moving forward even beyond the 91 current detainees. r. earnest: that's wrong and over the last seven years we waged a counterterrorism campaign around the world and that has been in iraq, syria, afghanistan and that's been in a variety of other countries. not one prisoner has been transferred or added to the population at guantanamo bay since president obama has taken office. we are on a case by case basis evaluating the best way to bring these individuals to justice or at least make sure they cannot pose a threat to national ecurity.
let me give you one example. there is the woman who was the wife of the isil leader that was killed in a raid conducted by u.s. forces in syria, this was last year. and this woman was facing very serious charges related to sil's hostage taking activities. that individual has faced a couple of things. that individual is in the custody of kurdish officials and going through the kurdish criminal justice system and has been indicted by the u.s. department system for hostage taking activities. given her terrorist back gound and she is in custody and no longer a threat to u.s. national ecurity. that is one textbook example how we can make sure we take actions that puts the safety and security of the american people t the top of the list.
and security of the american people at the top of the list, but reporter: so essentially what you're saying is because these facilities exist, would it not then be possible to take some of the detainees that are currently housed at guantanamo and move them to some of these other facilities? ultimately emptying out the prison in cuba? mr. earnest: what we would have to do is evaluate the security measures in place at those other facilities and get the agreement -- reporter: -- -- if they're housing terrorists -- mr. earnest: first of all, we're talking in some cases about terrorists. who may pose a significant threat. so we need to make sure that we've got the security errs -- measures in place to keep them safe. this goes back to the core problem at the prison in guantanamo bay. why would another country want to take them? why would they want to take on that problem? members of the united states
congress certainly don't want to take on that problem and that was a problem that was created by the united states government, so this is why it's so important for us to resolve this situation before the next president takes office. because it ends up being a sticking point in our relationships with friends and allies and partners with whom we have other important business to onduct. and this lingering issue is one that only serves to cloud the agenda that already has a lot of high profile and high priority national security items on it. reporter: last one on the high court. is it your concern that if what's happening now or what appears to be happening now, which is it's become political, and it may not -- this particular nominee may not get an up or down vote or even a hearing, that when the tables are turned and eventually the democrats are in control, that will this will happen again? this will cloud the process? in the future? mr. earnest: there is no denying that what republicans are threatening to do in the context of this supreme court nominee is unprecedented.
since 1875, a president's nominee has never been denied a hearing unless that president later withdrew that nomination. this would be an historic and unprecedented acceleration of politicizing a branch of government that's supposed to be nsulated from politics. and while, as the president has acknowledged, there are democrats and republicans who are responsible for contributing to that, there is no denying that what leader mcconnell and other republicans are proposing to do right now would turbo charge that process and may in some ways subject the upreme court to the kind of politics that they've been insulated from for more than two centuries. that would be a shame. and fortunately, i'm not the only person that's making that argument. we've seen statements from people like senator kirk, senator collins, even somebody like senator blunt, a republican from my home state of missouri, has indicated that he believes
that this nominee should get a hearing. again, in some ways, if i were sitting in your chair, the observation i would make is, there's actually not bipartisan support for blocking the president's nominee. in fact, there's actually bipartisan support for making sure this individual gets a hearing, a fair one, and gets a timely yes or no vote. hopefully that's what we'll get. michelle. reporter: today in spain, a former gitmo detainee was arrested as a suspected terrorist recruiting for isis. it was said he was a leader who was trained in weapons and explosives. does that matter? mr. earnest: it does matter. because of the changes that this administration put in place, again, back on january 22, 2009, the recidivism rate that we've seen from individuals who have
been transferred under the formula that was put in place by the obama administration, that recidivism rate is in the single digits. it's quite small. and it underscores how important it is for us to have in place the appropriate security arrangements when we transfer an individual to another country. we can do this safely, we know how to do this. and that's why the president believes it's both in our national security interest, but it also is much more cost effective than what's happening right now. reporter: this isn't just one or two of the 35 that are potentially going to be transferred, went back to fight for isis. this example today, this is omebody who is in europe while the united states is fighting isis. so, of this new batch, let's say the recidivism rate is in the single digits. in this period of time, when we are at war and isis is acting in other countries besides iraq and syria, isn't that a significant threat? mr. earnest: it's certainly a
threat that we're mindful of. again, according to your own reporting this individual has been apprehended by authorities. the other thing is that if we're at war with terrorist organizations that are seeking to radicalize populations around the globe and we know that the prison at guantanamo bay is a prominent recruiting tool that they use, why wouldn't we take that away from them? look, even the gorey videos that were released by isil a couple of summers evoked some of the themes and imagery from the prison at guantanamo bay. we know that they are seeking to capitalize on thatted a a propaganda victory and we should take that away from them. reporter: but taking the same guys and transferring them to prisons in the u.s., wouldn't that then just become the recruiting tool and wouldn't -- you know, as the argument has been, if there were to be some violent protests surrounding that, it would be on u.s. soil? i guess at the crux of it -- mr. earnest: i don't think that's a legitimate argument. i don't know that there are any huge protests that are taking place on cuban soil right now. reporter: just as a recruiting tool, your argument that gitmo is the recruiting tool, wouldn't that just then be transferred to having these guys still held indefinitely in the u.s.?
being the same thing? mr. earnest: their argument would be tougher because the detention we would have from place would be cleanly in line with american values. that we would ensure this is consistent with the way that american citizens are treated. that certainly is more consideration than these terrorists give to their adversaries, to say the least. but we would be on quite strong moral ground to say that these individuals are being treated humanely, that the conditions in which they are detained are safe and clean and reasonable. and we would be taking away an important propaganda tool that we know that extremist
organizations like isil capitalize on. brett was just standing here at this podium talking about how we're mindful of the threat that isil poses because of their ability to radicalize people around the globe. let's make that little harder for them. let's close the prison at guantanamo bay. reporter: in addition to what we heard the attorney general say ot too long ago, we just saw the joint chief send a letter to the hill reiterating that. that it would be illegal based on current law to transfer people to the u.s. so, given what we've heard now, several officials today surrounding the illegality of making a transfer like that, why are you not ruling out executive action to do something more -- mr. earnest: because i'm not going to take any of the president's actions off the -- options off the table. but that's not what our focus is right now. our focus right now is quite clear given that we have presented to congress exactly the plan that they asked for on exactly the time frame that they asked for. and what we're asking for is legitimate consideration be given to the plan.
we've got a very strong case to make about how the plan that we have put forward would save taxpayer dollars and make the american people safer. that's the essence of our plan and it's time for members of congress to put their own political considerations aside and actually consider what's in the interest of the national security of the united states. eporter: that's your focus but it's hard to ignore what so many have said surrounding what's legal an what's not, including the attorney general. so, how can you still say that executive action is possible? that would put a severe limit on what the president could do -- a severe limit on what the president could do. mr. earnest: we're acting on getting the congress to act on the plan that we have presented there today. if they do that, that would make any sort of discussion about the president's executive actions obsolete. and that's why we're going to go ahead and continue to put pressure on congress to do the ight thing.
reporter: the president could till take executive action on gitmo, is that what you're saying? mr. earnest: what we're focused on right now is congress taking action and i'm not going to stand up here and unilaterally take any options off the table when it comes to the president's use of his executive authority. reporter: and lastly, speaking of action in congress, mcconnell now is saying that a hearing is not going to happen, it's now the consensus of those on the judiciary committee that it's not going to happen. so how does this change the white house's reach-out to the hill and your strategy in general? mr. earnest: i can tell you that since we last met here, that the president did make some additional calls to members of congress, including some republicans, including people who served on the judiciary committee. i don't have specific names at this point. but that outreach continues and it will continue. and i would just observe that while there may be -- while senator mcconnell may claim some unanimity of opinion among republicans on the judiciary committee, he cannot claim unanimity of opinion on when it comes to republicans in the united states senate. we've seen unambiguous
statements from people like senator kirk and senator collins that a hearing should take place. i certainly value their opinion. i think senator mcconnell does oo. but i think the opinion that we all value the most is what's equired by the united states constitution. and the institution of the united states senate has a duty to function and ensure that the supreme court of the united states has what's required to function as the founders intended. reporter: you still think there's a -- mr. earnest: founders intended. reporter: so you think there's still a chance of it? mr. earnest: absolutely. i think based on what senator kirk and collins and senator coates has also indicated that he believes that he said, if the president nominates someone, which is his choice, i think that person would deserve a hearing. senator blunt said, i certainly don't mind taking a vote on this issue.
neither said coates nor senator blunt represents a state that president obama won in the re-election of 2012. neither of them would describe themselves as a moderate. both of them are conservative republicans. but both of them are out there saying publicly that if the president nominates somebody, they're ready to vote on them. again, i guess it will make for an interesting caucus meeting hen senator mcconnell brings together the members of his senate, maybe they're having lunch right now. reporter: -- -- every member of the judiciary committee signed a letter saying no hearing. mr. earnest: i was in the meeting, obviously, i was standing right here. i'm not sure what senator kirk, senator collins, senator blunt or senator coates had to say about it. we'll do a couple more. hands in the back. jordan. reporter: thanks. back to gitmo. we were told earlier today that it was outreach torrell
advantage congressional parties on the white house's plan. i was wondering if you could expand on which members were warned about the plan before it was released and who did the outreach and whether the president has personally called members of congress about the plan? mr. earnest: let me check on that for you. i know there was extensive congressional consultation that occurred before the plan was ormally released. but let me see if i can get you some greater detail about how that took place. reporter: as you mentioned, you've given congress the plan that ask asked for, as you put it, and the administration is citing he broadband on spending money to, quote, to move detainees to the u.s. as why you can't give a specific site. but the same law, the ndaa, inspections have said in this report that you have given that congress asked for says that the report is supposed to include the specific facility or facilities that are intended to be used or modified to be used, etc. so, why -- how are you filling congress' request for that?
mr. earnest: i think what this highlights is that every year in the ndaa the congress writes in what language that specifically prohibits the administration from undertaking plans that would ay the groundwork for bringing individuals from the prison at guantanamo bay into the united states. so i think you have highlighted yet another example of congressional dysfunction that they've written the law that ncludes varying guidance. but the truth, is there's no reason we have to sort of go through all of. this why don't we have members of congress who actually are willing to put politics aside, focus on the best interests of the united states, and have a serious conversation with the administration about the most effective way for us to close the prison at guantanamo bay, save taxpayer dollars and remove a recruiting tool that we know isil is eager to use. reporter: senator mccain, when he ran against the president, said he also supported closing guantanamo bay. he's now the armed services committee chairman and he said that the report today is a vegas menu
of options -- vague menu of options, not a credible plan for closing began tan -- guantanamo, let alone a coherent policy to deal with it. is senator mccain just being political? mr. earnest: i think you'd have to ask him how he arrived at his conclusions. i think the facts here are pretty clear. we've made clear exactly how the american people can save money by closing the prison. we've made clear that this is something that can be done safely, consistent with our national security interests. in fact, we've made clear that it would enhance the national security of the united states, to pursue this approach. and again, it's going to be up to congress to decide whether or not they're willing to enjoy the benefits of the outline that we have put forward. are they going to put forward their own plan? there really hasn't been much of a discussion about that. i don't know if there's a congressional plan to try to achieve these goals. after all, we know there are a lot of republicans who are running for president, who are saying that they would make foreign policy decisions based on the advice they get from
our military leadership, consistent with the need to cut government and cut wasteful government spending, and to make sure we're doing everything we can to make america strong and to protect our national security. if we're making decisions based on that criteria, congress would implement this plan oday. reporter: last question. in the president's trip to cuba, my understanding he's not planning to visit the base, either the soldiers or the prison. can you confirm that and was it considered and dismissed or was it just never seen as a ossibility? mr. earnest: i don't have the details yet on the president's trip to cuba. at this point i don't expect hat the president will go to the base at guantanamo base. but let me check on that for you and we'll see if we can confirm that in advance of a more full schedule. reporter: the president seemed pretty frustrated today, talked for a long time about this plan that he's sending to congress to close the prison at
guantanamo bay. he talked about the number of hours he spent working on this and how many policies -- -- and it was obviously a major promise of his campaign. he's now in the final year in office. he basically acknowledged the impossible politics and you referenced it earlier, no members of congress want these prisoners in their district or state. i wondered if you could give us a sense of, get us in his head a little bit, how he feels. he's got 10 months left and this is still an issue that he does not seem to be able to get rid of. mr. earnest: i think the way the resident sees this is he sees it as an opportunity that he has to prevent a problem that was passed on to him from being passed on to the next president. he takes that approach not knowing who the next president's going to be. his view is that the interests of the united states would not be enhanced by passing this problem on to either a democrat or a republican.
-- in the oval office. and the president's acknowledged that the politics of this are tough. and that there's an opportunity given that he didn't have any more elections to run, vice president biden doesn't have any more elections to run. that means they have some clarity of judgment that they can use here to do the right thing for the american people. and, again, in a lot of ways, what we're looking for from congress is, even if there's a reluctance on the part of some members of congress or many republicans in congress -- many members of congress, from cooperating with the administration on this, at least they could just remove the obstructions. just get out of way so the people who are trying to act in the best interest of the american people can do their job. that's in some ways what the president is seeking. if congress feels like they don't want to be involved in this effort, as i mentioned, there's plenty of good reason for them to want to be involved in it. it would enhance our national security and save taxpayer
dollars. but if they don't, they can remove the obstructions and allow the united states -- to allow the president of the united states, his national security team and our uniformed leaders in the military, take the steps we believe are necessary to enhance our national security. e can do all of that, save taxpayer dollars, that would be the right thing to do and the president's hopeful he can get that done before he leaves office. reporter: -- -- on the supreme court. you seem to be making the argument in 1992 that even though he had in the past as chairman of the judiciary committee moved along republican nominees and was willing to in a future administration, that there was something about the election year and being in a campaign that made it inappropriate to fill a vacancy, either by the president or the senate moving it. can you explain to us what is different from june, 1992, to february, 2016? why is his answer different? mr. earnest: there wasn't a vacancy. there was nothing that he said then that prevented the senate from fulfilling its constitutional obligations. he made clear later in his
speech that if the president consults and operates with the senate, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did justices kennedy and souter. general justice kennedy was confirmed in an election year. so, again, when it comes to evaluating the performance of members of the united states senate, vice president biden's got a record that's pretty tough to beat. this is not -- as i mentioned, we're simply asking the united states senate in 2016 to do what senator biden did himself in 1987 and 1988, when he gave fair consideration to a nominee that was put forward by a president in the other party and vice president biden advanced the process so that individual could e confirmed in an election year. we believe that the senate zhowled the same thing. reporter: after that he said he didn't think that was appropriate.
mr. earnest: i think it depends on which part of the you take a look at -- which part of the remarks you take a look at. here was not a vacancy. there was nothing that senator biden said that prevented the senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty. reporter: mr. earnest: i wasn't there in 1992. i was a senior in high school. so it's hard for many to assess with a lot of clarity exactly what the dynamics were. but what is clear is that there was no vacancy at the time, there's nothing here that he said that prevented the senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty. and in fact in the same speech then senator biden made clear that he would be open to consultation with the white house, that was controlled by the other party, and fair consideration of the thomny that was put forward by the president -- nominee that was put forward by the president of the other party. reporter: could you tell us a little bit more about the president's -- mr. earnest: that's right.
the president periodically has con -- convenes meetings with his national security team to discuss the ongoing effort to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. the president will convene the meeting or the next meeting on thursday at the state department. over the last few months the president has convened these meetings not just in the situation room but in other places. you'll recall the president went to the pentagon to have this meeting. i know there was a discussion about our counterisil campaign at nctc last year. and this week the president will be convening the meeting at the state department. obviously the state department's been doing important work to try to reach this agreement or at least an understanding around the cessation of hostilities in syria. so given the primesy of the work that's been doing at the state department right now, the president thought it made sense to convene the meeting over at the state department this time. last one. reporter: thank you.
speaking of election year politics, i wanted to ask you bout something the president said last week. several times you've indicated you wouldn't endorse in the presidential primary and the white house chief of staff said he'd see who the nominee is at the end of the primary process. that's not our job and then he'll decide. the president's remarks during his press conference seem to suggest that he could endorse a democratic candidate in the race. he said ultimately, i will probably have an opinion on it. based both on being a candidate of open change and on a president who has some knicks and cuts and bruises from getting stepped on. my question is, what's changed recently that the president is now suggesting could actually endorse in a primary? mr. earnest: if you take a look at the way that i've described the situation, we don't currently have a plan for the president to make public his preference in the democratic presidential nomination process. the president will fill out a ballot and vote absentee in illinois. the illinois primary is march 15. so he's got to make a decision
pretty soon, if he hasn't already. so the real question is whether or not we're going to make that public. right now our plan is not to make that public. but i wouldn't rule out the possibility that we may decide to make that public at some point in the future. ok. thanks, guys. we'll see you tomorrow. reporter: -- -- short list mr. earnest: i'll try to come with that tomorrow. >> bring the binder. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> and the "road to the white house" running through nevada tonight where they hold their republican presidential caucuses. they should finish up no later than 12:00 a.m. eastern. and will be here to bring you the results as they come in and speeches from the candidates live right here on c-span. 30 republican delegates are at stake in nevada which are proportionately allocated to the candidates. more than 2/3 of nevada's
population lives in clark county which includes, las vegas. hillary clinton won the nevada democratic caucuses last saturday. we spoke to a reporter about john kasich's campaign. >> the columbus dispatch is reporting that john kasich's path to the nomination is getting murky. joining us is darryl rowland he is the editor for "the columbus dispatch." thanks very much for being with us. >> darel: thank you no problem at all. >> your governor is the last of several current or former governors still in this republican race. the bad news, he is teetering on the brink of irrelevance si. how so? -- irrelevancey. how so? >> if you would have told the kasich campaign people a few
months ago they would be the last former governor standing after former governor bush they would be turning cartwheels because they would think the nomination was all within hand. but as we all know 2016 has turned out like pretty much no one has predicted. so governor kasich did very well in new hampshire, second place finish. got a lot of publicity. some donations, some endorsements. south carolina he didn't compete very much and finished next to last down there. now comes to more states that are not necessarily real friendly to someone of his middle of the road philosophy, i say "middle of the road" just in comparison to the rest of the republican field. we have the s.e.c. primary or super tuesday coming up on march 1st. a lot of the states are not very friendly to his type of candidacy. the other thing is many of those states have a threshold meaning that unless you get 15 or in
many more cases at least 20% of the votes, you don't even qualify to get a single delegate. of course, governor kasich has not got than total, even his good showing in new hampshire did not have him at that threshold. and that means if you don't make the threshold all your votes go to the frontrunners and just sort of adds to their total. and that leads us to where we are today. a lot of people are pressuring governor kasich to get out of the race, clear the space for marco rubio to be the standard bearer, i guess what we've been calling for lack of a better term, the accomplishment to trump or governor cruz. has been r kasich spending a fair amount of time in michigan. it's beyond supertuesday, that caucus, on march the 8th. can he survive that long? >> there are so many states
and speeches as they are available tonight. live coverage on c-span. next, hillary clinton talking about gun violence, civil rights, and policing practices. she is joined by several mothers who lost children to gun violence. we will also hear from former congressman gabby giffords and her husband, retired nasa astronaut, mark kelly. that event was held at the central baptist church in columbia, south carolina.
great time. there is a spirit of excitement in the air. we are looking forward. withith me as we get ready a word of prayer. god, we thank you for allowing us here on this day the lord has made. we wer rejoice and are glad in it. you brought us a long way and keep us every day. we come with an attitude of gratitude to say thank you. we come for the manifestation and movement of thy spirit. have your way in this place tonight as we come with a spirit of celebration. there is nobody but you, lord. we give your name all the praise and glory because you are worthy to be praised. in the precious name of the one who is able to turn opposites into opportunity, in the name of the one was able to turn our burdens into blessings, in the
name of the one who is able to turn our sorrows into joy, and able to turn our midnight to bright daylight, to white tears -- wipe tears away from our eyes, in the precious name of christ we pray, amen. [applause] we asked that you prepare to meet our panelists tonight. first of all, gabby giffords. [applause] mr. mark kelly, sybrina wilson, mcbath, and lucia mariah hamilton.
[applause] now it gives me great pleasure, a distinct privilege, and supreme honor to introduce the one whose service has been her mantra all her life. she has been on outstanding public servant all her life. of served well as president her senior class at wesley college. in the academic halls of yale university where she received her law degree. when she received her law degree, she did not yield to the wall street temptation but went to work for the children's defense fund. she helped those helpless with a voice for the hopeless and has always served well. she served well as the first lady of arkansas, served well
while she was in the white house, served well at the senate -- as a senator, as a secretary, as a mother, served well as a grandmother. she has always served well. in the defining moments of her life, she watched her mother struggling, have to take a job cleaning houses to support the family. she learned to have compassion for single, working mothers because she saw what her mother was able to do. in 1968, she heard the late dr. reverend martin luther king give a speech that empowered her to do more for social service. dr. king said everybody can be great because anybody can serve. you don't need a college degree in order to serve. you don't need for your verbs and subjects to agree to serve. you just need to have a heart full of grace. sisters,rs and
a heart full of grace. then you have love in your heart as well. i present one who has served well. because she has served well, she served with a period and not a comma. she served well in the past. she serves well in the present. and she will serve well in the future as our next president of these united states of america. [applause] hillary clinton: good evening. thank you all so much. , thank you for welcoming us here to central baptist church.
i am deeply honored to be with you and have so many numbers of your church with us this evening, both here in the sanctuary and in the fellowship hall where i hope they can hear our voices. i want to recognize a few people. you will be introduced to these extra ordinary people behind me in a moment. i believe you are in for such a blessing when you hear from each and every one of them. heree thank them for being . i'm going to acknowledge each of them in a minute. thank you. [applause] i want tointon: recognize and acknowledge congressman jim clyburn. [applause] hillary clinton: and mrs. emily
clyburn, both of whom are with us this evening. i also want to acknowledge someone i first met in south carolina a long time ago when i came as a young lawyer for the children's defense fund to investigate the deplorable situation of young people, young teenagers, being held in adult prisons. buell with us,ey and his wife, linda. i want to thank them for coming. attorney who let me his automobile, at that time a stick shift. [laughter] hillary clinton: that i drove as i went frome
place to place to interview people, to gather information for the lawsuit the children's defense fund eventually filed with him being involved in that. tonight, we are going to talk about two very important issues. they intersect. they are distinct. but they have grave consequences, not just for the people sitting here with me but for all americans. women whoear from children.their whomothers of the movement have suffered as no mother ever should. you will meet sybrina fulton, pusan, trayvon martin, -- whose
son, trayvon martin, west followed and shot in the housing development were his father lived because he went out to buy a package of skittles. week.ears ago this mcbath. meet lucia her teenage son, jordan davis, with friends playing music as every teenager i have ever known does. because the music was too loud. free mothers who lost children and incidents with the police, maria hamilton, who son was shot and killed by police in sconsin.e, wi
reed-veal whose daughter was killed in texas. and the mother whose son was choked to death after being stopped by police for selling cigarettes on the street. that is too many deaths. short.y young lives cut too many questions still unanswered. wrong when weery have these incidents where kids can get arrested for petty crimes and lose their lives. something is wrong when african americans are three times as likely to be denied a mortgage as white people. when the median wealth for black families is a tiny fraction of the median wealth of white
families. and something is terribly wrong when african american men are far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than white men convicted of the same offenses. there's something terribly wrong when little children in flint, theigan, are poisoned by water they drink and bathe in because their government wanted to save money. [applause] hillary clinton: my friends, we need real justice and accountability across america. we need to face the reality of systemic racism, and we need to break down all the barriers in our economy and society that hold people back and disproportionately hold back african americans. we need to be building ladders of opportunities in the place
of those barriers. we need to rebuild trust in our justice system. for the mothers here and know that they tragedy thenced a vast majority of us never will. for is howo grateful they are turning their grief into resolve. they have been traveling across south carolina the last few days . they have been traveling across america to ask for the real change we need. there are many state and city officials already working to do this. they are having police-involved deathsgs and in-custody handled by independent authorities. i support these efforts.
today, i am announcing we will provide federal resources to support this state and locally driven approach. [applause] hillary clinton: tackling and ending systemic racism requires contributions from all of us. white americans, we need to do a better job of listening when african americans talk about the seen and unseen barriers they face every day. we need to recognize our privilege and practice humility rather than assume our experiences are everyone's experiences. i also believe that if we work together to make major, new investments in communities left justice anduarantee dignity to every american, that
will benefit all of us. i really applaud congressman clyburn's plan as to how better distribute federal funds so that those communities left out and left behind over so many years can have a better chance to lift themselves up. [applause] hillary clinton: our problem with violence goes far beyond the terrible cases where the police are involved. that is why i am deeply honored to have former congresswoman gabby giffords and her husband mark kelly with us. [applause]
hillary clinton: the epidemic of gun violence stalking our land is another barrier holding us back. year areericans every killed by gun violence. gabbyore are wounded as was. gun violence is by far the leading cause of death for young african american men, more than the nexts combined -- then the nine causes combined. just the other night in kalamazoo, michigan, six people were killed at random. thenone of us can forget ine faithful people murdered bible study in mother emanuel church in charleston. this is not just an urban
problem as some like to say. it is a problem for our entire country. shot whilerds was meeting with her constituents in the parking lot of a shopping mall. she was doing her job. day,eople died that including a nine-year-old girl who was so excited because she was going to get to meet her congresswoman. she was standing in line to do just that. grateful gabby and mark have been taking on the gun lobby tirelessly fighting for commonsense reform. we should all join them in this effort. [applause] hillary clinton: we need comprehensive background checks.
we need to keep more guns out of the wrong hands. we need to close what is called the charleston loophole that what the killer there get a gun, even though he should have been barred. we need to revoke special immunity gun dealers and manufacturers have today. [applause] hillary clinton: they should be held accountable for their products just like any other company. and we need to crack down on straw purchasing and make it a federal crime. and for goodness sakes, we should bar people on the no-fly list from buying guns in the united states. [applause] know thelinton: i politics are hard. i am well aware of that. but sometimes the hard things are the most important things to keep trying to do. we can't go on like this.
president obama has said we need to make it a voting issue, and i agree completely. [applause] hillary clinton: so please join me in welcoming again these remarkable people who are taking this journey on behalf of all of us. [applause] hillary clinton: i want each of our panelists to have a chance to tell you [indiscernible] why they are so committed to doing what they can.
and let you have a chance to extraordinarye people of courage and commitment. my name is sybrina fulton. i am the mother of trayvon martin. [applause] sybrina fulton: thank you. wow. [applause] sybrina fulton: thank you. i changed my hairstyle. i fit right in. let me start by saying the reason why we are here, number
one, the mothers of the movement and the mothers on a mission is because secretary clinton supported us. and we have to stand in support of her. [applause] sybrina fulton: we each have a personal story and we each have a reason why we feel the way that we do about secretary clinton. that is because we met her. i don't want to look because it will make me tear up. we had the opportunity to sit with her, to meet with higher. -- with her. when we met with her, she walked in as the secretary. she walked in as a political figure. she walked in as a presidential candidate.
but she walked out -- walked out as a compassionate mother and grandmother and a compassionate life. -- wife. because there was no way in the world she was going to be able to sit in the room with 12 different families, and each one of us had a tragic story about our sons or daughters that had been murdered as a result of senseless gun violence. the meeting took a whole another our because we turned out -- poured out our hearts when no other candidate would listen to us, mrs. clinton did. [applause] sybrina fulton: nobody reached out to us. nobody listened to us. nobody said black lives matter until this brave and powerful
woman stood up for us. [applause] sybrina fulton: i was never into politics. but now i am. one of the reasons is because of her. because i feel if she can stand all the men she has to go up against, i can too. [applause] sybrina fulton: a lot of you have seen and heard about what happened with my 17-year-old son, trayvon martin. trayvon was 17 years old. he had just turned 17. he was minding his own business. he was not committing any crime. he was on the telephone with a young lady from miami. this person decided to pursue
trayvon, to follow trayvon, and to murder trayvon. trayvon was clearly profiled. the media wanted us to believe it was about the hoodie. but you guys know everybody wears that hoodie. a does not matter if you are black, white, purple, green, african american, asian, hispanic, you wear that hoodie. our young ladies and young men where that hoodie. it was about the color of his skin. we have to come to terms with that because only when we come to terms with that will be come up with a solution about why it continues to happen. [applause] very simply i: will say it was secretary
clinton stood up for us. clinton thatary met with us, listened to us. she took notes herself. she knew about all of the families in the room because her research team did their homework. but she heard a lot more than she probably anticipated. we poured out our hearts to her because that is the passion for the rest of our lives. tragediesies, these for us, they never go away. i think about my son day in and day out. i live with this day in and day out. these mothers live with this day in and day out. we have an opportunity to have someone that is going to stand up for us as african americans, for us as women.
i say my vote goes to hillary clinton. [applause] >> we love you, hillary! i am maria hamilton. dontre's story was not in the mainframe. it did not get the national attention. he was demonized. to thejust a thought milwaukee police department, to the judicial system there. was 39. dontre was a young man that had
a future bigger than life. dontre talked about bringing duffel bags of money home and taking care of his family. wanted to do a digital license plate and was in the process of getting it done. his life was stripped from him ism in of race -- milwaukee, wisconsin. we are the worst of everything in milwaukee. the justice i am fighting for with this mother is across the board. it is our babies' education. it is their lives. it is where they live. the churches they go to. we want them to live. i am fighting for life.
dontre was shot 14 times. he had 21 bullet holes in his because a starbucks manager said he was sitting too close to their stand in a public park. broad daylight. not bothering anybody. not asking for anything. on was a $400had outfit. jordans, jabos. but she still seen him as a wasless black man that disturbing starbucks from making money, so she called the police three times to have him removed out of the park. they came out on both occasions
and talked to dontre and spoke with her. the second time they came out, they told her he was a citizen. he was not doing anything wrong. they was not going to make him leave. cop she was familiar with. he had been a beat cop in the area. they had his personal cellphone number. he missed the first message. but when he got it, he instructed dispatch to reopen that situation after he had been informed it had been closed. not knowing two officers had already been there. and they opened it. he went to the park. he struck dontre eight times with a baton. it was not considered a weapon because christopher manney, the police, had it.
dontre felt as though he had to stop this man from beating him and retrieved the baton. it became a weapon. and his life was taken. there has been no accountability. 30,re passed away april 2014. me and my family took to the streets, went to city hall. 80% of thedid investigation. seven days before dontre was murdered, scott walker, our governor, our government, signed a bill stating that two outside entities were supposed to investigate police-involved shootings. that did not happen. they did all of the interviews
of the 60 witnesses. of video.no footage christopher manney said he was hit in the head. when we went to the d.a.'s offices and saw the pictures, there were no bruises, no scars. christopher manney took pictures right afterwards. there were no signs of a struggle. but dontre, brown skin, my complexion, he had 12 bruises on his body. and they say self-defense. christopher manney was fired by dontre's for breaking civil rights on the approach and illegal patdown. it was a policy issue. he was not indicted on a local level. he was not indicted on a state
level. he was not indicted on a federal level. i waited 22 months. forward.osure and go clinton came to milwaukee and talked with the .ollege students at uwm i had the opportunity with my son to speak with her. i broke down on her shoulder. i owe her a cleaning bill. [laughter] maria hamilton: but she allowed it. first, i was kind of embarrassed. "i am a she told me, mother and a grandmother, and i feel your pain."
haver and her staffers been contacting me and my family -- her at her staffers have been contacting me and my family to see how i was doing, how everything was going with the case. when it was final, they called me and told me, what can we do? it was not high-profile. i am not here just to be on camera. i am here because our babies are dying. the police is not being held accountable. stipulationss and and legislation that protects them. [applause] maria hamilton: so they get out of their cars with their guns. the police in the united states i need tomentality is get home fast after my shift. they are not concerned about the people they engage with during
their shift. when we start making them respect us as human beings in the urban areas by coming together, standing up, and opening your eyes and seeing things with your eyes wide open? we can get the accountability we need. we can love and cherish and raise our families as well. thank you. [applause] >> first i want to give my complete thanks to secretary clinton for allowing us to travel on her behalf around the country, specifically here in south carolina, to tell you our stories and why it is so important to vote on her behalf.
[applause] my name is lucia mcbath. , am the mother jordan davis shot and killed in jacksonville, florida, on november 20 3, 2012, black friday. jordan and his friends were excited about shopping. ,hat is all they were doing going from one mall to the next. in the time they stopped to get chewing gum week is my son said if we are going to pick up girls, we need to get some chewing gum because our breath stinks. [laughter] typical for teenage boys, also playing loud music. in that three and a half minutes time the boys stopped to get goesng gum and the driver
into the convenience store to get chewing gum and cigarettes, a whiteichael dunn, software developer, pulls in next to the boys in the parking lot. within those three and a half minutes, he begins an argument with my son about the volume of the music. emboldened by the standard ground law in the state of florida and this expensive law all over the country, based upon that law, being emboldened by that law and its implicit bias and his racist attitudes towards young men of color, he racially profiled the boys, considered they were thugs and gang bangers. he shot 10 rounds into the car. three of the rounds he shot into the car, ballistics show he was aiming for my child, for jordan. three of those bullets he shot
into the car did kill jordan instantly. he other seven bullets continued to shoot at the boys as they were trying to get out of harm's way. detract them as if you were a policeman, tracking them as they moved out of the parking lot. that what gaved him carte blanche and the ability to shoot to kill, ask questions later, shoot first, ask questions later, what gave him the authority is the expansive gun culture and radical gun laws we have in our country. [applause] lucy mcbath: because the gun laws have become so extremely radical, we see disproportionately in our communities of color that people are acting out their implicit biases and racism through gun
violence towards our communities. it is no statistically -- it is that 30atistically times more a black man will be gunned down by gun violence more than a white man. a black woman will be gunned down through gun violence than a white woman. particularly will live one year less in this country because they die by gun violence. they will live one year less than a white male. i have had the great and profound privilege to stand on the podium with president obama as he gave his executive orders in this country towards gun violence prevention. being able to stand on that podium with him, i could only thank what my father -- think what my father would think. illinois branch
president of the naacp for over 20 years. he served on the executive board. i know he would roll over in his grave if he knew his grandson died by systemic racism acted out by gun violence, the same things he had been fighting for for those last 40 years in the civil rights movement, i now have to fight on his behalf. [applause] lucy mcbath: i have been watching secretary clinton for many years. i have watched her as first lady in this country. i have watched her as senator clinton in this country. i have watched her as secretary of state. allieswatched her bring back to the fold, countries that
had long been forgotten about, and she has done a good thing. [applause] lucy mcbath: i have no doubt in my mind that she will execute the executive orders of president obama. i have no doubt in my mind that theyill make sure institute comprehensive background checks. i have no doubt in my mind that she will make sure any individuals in this country selling high volumes of guns that consider themselves in the business of selling guns, and they are gun dealers, i have no doubt she will make sure they are fully and duly licensed. [applause] doubt sheh: i have no will make sure we begin to eradicate the black market
the highf guns, numbers of black market guns infiltrating our cities. and most of those guns are the ones being used against communities of color. i have no doubt that she will do everything in her power to make sure she is keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, the mentally ill, and definitely making sure she is putting into place common sense measures in our existing gun laws. she is not against second amendment rights for people to bear arms. make no mistake about that. but she understands that with the second amendment right, people have to have commonsense measures put in place. [applause] basically, i know and ill execute gun --
don't say gun control because it is not about controlling your guns. put gun violence prevention basically to save us from ourselves. [applause] lucy mcbath: i do know she will make gun dealers and gun manufacturers accountable for the numbers of guns and the immunity they have in this country towards what is happening in the gun culture. so i stand before you, sit here before you this evening to say i have no doubt she is the candidate of choice. i have no doubt -- [applause] lucy mcbath: i have no doubt she cares about what is happening in our communities and the nation at large. i have no doubt she is the candidate that will protect and serve the constituents that have placed her in office. that if myno doubt father were standing here with "wellay, he would say,
done," because you are making the right choice. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. giving honor to god who is perfect in my life. endorse thisay to wonderful woman. [applause] like my fellow mothers said before me, we have a personal experience with her. we did not have to go looking for her. she came to us. [applause]
not one of the presidential us.idates even considered secretary clinton reached out to me several times before the meeting in chicago. her staff constantly called me and told me anything that i need, to call them, and they would see what they could do. at first, i was saying, why are they calling me? no one else had reached out like that. no other elected official had reached out like that. you know how we get leery sometimes because -- what is going on? all, there was no catch. she was just genuinely concerned about all of our cases.
[applause] gwen carr: and she has proved that time and time again. even after the meeting in chicago. she had follow-up letters, telephone calls. so it was not like this was an exploitation of us mothers because as you listen to the other mothers, you know we cannot be exploited. [applause] gwen carr: as you all know, you have all seen the tape. my son, eric garner, died on july 17, 2014, by the hands of s.lice officer everybody knows about candelaria, but it was five other officers as my son laid on
the ground dying say i cannot breathe. 11 times he said, i cannot breathe." but those officers chose to take his life. to add insult to injury, there was no indictment. we had a full video showing my his equall rights, rights, and his human rights were violated. [applause] but we did not get an indictment. where is the justice? what kind of world do we live in? i will never forget as long as i live. yet to see the full video. but from what i have seen, it plays over and over in my head.
it is like a reoccurring nightmare. gentlemen,dies and it is worse than a nightmare because i never wake up. but you know, at first, i could do nothing but take to my bed. i did not want to get up anymore. they had killed my son, my firstborn, for no reason. he was not armed. he was not committing any crime that day. he had just broken up a fight. he was targeted. garner wasu if eric a white man in the suburbs standing on the corner selling cigarettes, it would not have gone down like that. [applause] because -- my
family was there for me from beginning to end. some good people, i had the national action network, a lot of people that came afterwards and gave me the strength to get out of bed. but for most, it was the lord. , arelked to me and told me you going to lay there and die like your son or are you going to get up and uplift his name? i thought about it. i thought there are so many men and women like me out there that are faceless and nameless. to myself, my case was very high-profile. every american has entered the name eric garner. so now i have to be the voice of
the voiceless. because we cannot take this anymore. we have to get up and do something about it. we can't stay in our comfort zones anymore! [applause] gwen carr: we have to step out of the box. i never thought i would be up here. i never thought i would be an activist. i never thought i would be in front of you making the statement. but it is what it is. today, i had to turn my sorrow into a strategy. my mourning into a movement. i took my pain, s mothers have empowered each other. so my son's death would not be in vain.
walk, speak, rally, do whatever it takes until my voice is heard and until justice is served. [applause] gwen carr: that is why i ask all vote and to pick the right candidate. ishink the right candidate secretary clinton. she is the one for us. she will stand with us. she will be with us and try to change policies. [applause] gwen carr: and again, i endorse her because she endorsed as first -- us first. thank you. [applause] >> now you see why we call her mama gwen.
i am the mother of sandra bland. know,ose of you who don't it has been more than a tough road. than aneen more extraordinary journey. i often tell people that to sit among these mothers and know what pain really is, you come across people and people don't know what to say to you. when you talk about in 2015 getting a phone call your daughter is found hanging in a partition, nota only does that not add up, something is wrong with them. she was unlawfully arrested while she was in texas on a job interview. she did get the job. she was going to be a student ambassador at her old alma mater, prairie view a&m.
sandy was extremely smart. sandy was a young lady who said listen, i know my rights and i'm not going to allow you to put your foot on my neck because i know what you are not supposed to be doing. when she was unlawfully stopped was clearly, there for the entire world to see the tape was put out. there was a bystanders' tape. thank god for that. that we were able to hear. because there is never any audio on the tapes that come out from the other side. but thank god for that video that showed the whole world you can be doing absolutely nothing because she pulled over because she was targeted. the officer sped up behind her so she was pulling over to let
him go by. so she is now arrested, pulled over for failure to signal. but she ultimately after the and there was a shift in the stop, she was charged with assault on an officer. the family never saw any assault of the officer. i don't know if anybody ever saw any assault on an officer. but because of what she was charged with, she was put in jail where she should never have been. it was indicated she should be placed separate and apart because of the violent nature. sandy was merely minding her own business. encio could not take it. andy to any officer
anyone here to serve and protect, make sure that is what you are doing and that you are not isolating and neglecting. [applause] geneva reed-veal: because i know says myct if your boss guy was wrong, you are wrong. but at the same time because of the way our justice system works, seven months later the gentleman has now been indicted on a perjury charge. ok? but he is still getting paid. ok. he is still on payroll regardless of the fact they said termination is in progress. as a parent, you say, how long is the process? we don't know? it could take a year, months, we don't know. you don't get any justice right now. because he needs a fair trial. mother, to you as a
these mothers have all talked about the time of separation we had to have from the world. we are grieving. we had to grieve in the open. when you did not see me at first, i was in a season. i tell everyone there are five seasons. fall,, spring, summer, and the season of sit up and -- shut up and sit down. i was literally in the house. i know what you're talking about. lines closed -- blinds closed. darkness everywhere. all you could do was cry. myself,d have thought cornell west, and don king had the same barber. [laughter] geneva reed-veal: there was no way i could step out of the house at that time and tell the story because what you would have heard would not have been what should have come out. [laughter] geneva reed-veal: we sit here
in what i called a mess for a long time. i'm still very angry. don't let the smile fool you. you. let the peace full i am very angry. but i am not angry enough to riot. i am angry enough to vote for this lady. applause]d geneva reed-veal: i will tell you why. just as a mom, i am looking at my sister's. these are some bad sisters. what i used to call a mess has turned into a ministry. to meet these marvelous mothers. and now we are in the mothers of the movement. i'm grateful for the opportunity. secretary clinton, i met her at
the congressional black caucus. congresswoman sheila jackson lee, who has been awesome from day one. day one, she had so many call my family and say we are not taking it. she introduced me to secretary clinton at the c.d.c. secretary clinton, i'm doing ok. i go and we are introduced. she held my hand and looked in "what do youaid, want? what do you want out of the situation?" we were in a room full of people. this is the secretary. i was so excited but trying to be real cool. i said i want justice for my daughter. justice is something different for each of us i am sure. meansnetheless, justice
it is time for just as to stop -- just us to stop getting justice. that is really what it means. she came and met with us. you want to talk about someone who walked in. she needed no introduction. we all knew who she was. she walked in being who she is, sat with us, new every story. did not rush s. allowed us to say everything we needed to say. assess what we would like to see us what we would like to see done and said you would be strong as a unit. we hear you. we heard her. but each of us had our thing going on. when i tell you today i could go in my dining room, take my shoes off, and say, and over and take a seat, she would be at home. that is the type of intimate feeling i felt in that room with her. there were no heirs.
,he did not allow the media in which was awesome, so there is no exploitation here. [applause] geneva reed-veal: i'm sick and tired of hearing that. i am a little over 50. i have got to tell you there is no exploitation here. there are no payments being made. there are no secret e-mails about this. [laughter] [applause] geneva reed-veal: i'm just saying. i'm just saying. please understand that she followed up. she told all of us before she left that room, she was already late running for the next but we took our photos. she was very genuine. you cannot fake compassion. you cannot fake genuine. you cannot fake the fact you care.
inn't care if it is the span of an election, you cannot fake that. i don't think there is a better, more qualified individual to get the job done. as we sit here, yes, we are her cheerleaders absolutely. no, we are not being coerced. you cannot take our personal interaction and turn it into a public lie because we are telling you this is what is has happened for us. when i say i made the decision to support secretary clinton, it is because she is also mother, grandmother. but she has so many other titles that she proved herself in, and so i don't have to tell you what she has done. check it out on the internet. ok?
[applause] geneva reed-veal: honestly. and to be able to sit here and endorse her, it is an honor. so i will tell all of you before we get out of here today, we are serious when we tell you, you do not have an option not to vote. you don't. ok? there is no option. [applause] geneva reed-veal: you have no time and no right to complain if you don't get out to vote. [applause] geneva reed-veal: if you are tired, if you are angry, get angry enough to get to the polls. take someone with you. if you know that there are a group of teens hanging on the ander, go get those teens make sure they are registered to vote. let them know why this is important. we are going to have a situation if we stay home. we are going to have a situation
if we don't vote for this woman. that is where my vote is going. let's not be misunderstood. i would not be out here far from hey hey --ted -- wasting time if it was not important for us. we are running from place to place because this is serious. it is critical. we have nine months to put her in. she is the new baby. when you are pregnant, you are expecting your baby. that is the baby right there. ok? [applause] let's take-veal: this nine months, and let's deliver this baby. let's turn what has been a long history into her story. [applause]
>> hello, everybody. i am not a mother. [laughter] >> but i will tell you a story anyway. it was about five years ago that gabby was meeting with her constituents in a supermarket, a safeway grocery store. gabby was the kind of representative that tried to govern from the middle, tried to reach across the aisle to get things done on behalf of her constituents and the american people. she and her constituents were met that day in the parking lot by a young man with a gun who was clearly mentally ill and should not have been in possession of that firearm. he shot gabby first, giving her a serious traumatic brain injury. murdered six others, including a
nine-year-old girl who had very high-minded ideas about service and democracy and wanted to meet gabby. she was next in line. they never met. gabby was in the hospital for six months. i was commander of the spatial at the time. while she was in the hospital, i did my final flight on space shuttle 12 people died. long -- twice as many as what happened in tucson. we started to think about this issue a little differently. we started thinking about this nation where we have 2-3 times gun vice