• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Jeff Rathke
Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
May 19, 2015

Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL
DEPARTMENT
CHINA
SYRIA
RUSSIA/UKRAINE
IRAQ
BURMA/REGION

 

TRANSCRIPT:

12:43 p.m. EDT

MR. RATHKE: Hello, good afternoon. So the – as you are aware, the Secretary is in Seattle. He'll be delivering remarks soon on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we'll get a signal when those remarks are about to start so folks can go back and watch it. I don't have any other announcements to make at the start. So since we're going to have to keep this potentially very brief, we'll turn it right over to you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: What's your reaction to reports that the Clinton emails, the timeline that you provided, was rejected by a D.C. District Court judge?

MR. RATHKE: Well, there was a court order issued this morning which directed the department to provide certain information within a week. That's what you're referring to. This includes directing the department to propose a schedule for rolling productions of Secretary Clinton's emails. Of course, we take our legal obligations seriously; we'll comply with the order. So I don't have further comment than that, but we will, of course, comply.

QUESTION: So you have no plans to appeal or to challenge this ruling?

MR. RATHKE: I don't have any plans of those sorts to announce, no, at this point.

QUESTION: And can you explain why you wanted to release them all en masse in one big bulk delivery?

MR. RATHKE: Well, we – that was the plan that we had originally proposed, which we spoke about from the very first time this issue came up. I don't have further reasoning beyond what we filed in the court papers to detail.

QUESTION: I'm not challenging. I just --

MR. RATHKE: No, no.

QUESTION: I just wanted to know why that was --

MR. RATHKE: Well, it's a large volume of documents, 55,000 pages. It requires coordination with – in some cases, with other agencies, and as well internally. So – and it covers basically the entire span of Secretary Clinton's time with the department, so it covers a lot of different issues. And so -- but I don't have --

QUESTION: So --

MR. RATHKE: -- further detailed analysis of that.

QUESTION: Okay. So now we should expect within one week a new timeline from this department on how it will release it --

MR. RATHKE: Right.

QUESTION: -- bit by bit?

MR. RATHKE: That's right. That's the request. I would also just mention, because it's – we've been handling it separately, which is we've been working to release the Benghazi-related emails first. That has also been part of the plan from the start. But this order as well calls on the State Department to provide a proposed deadline – provide within a week a proposed deadline for when those emails will be produced. We will comply with that aspect too, so just to make that clear.

QUESTION: Are any of those emails going to be released this week?

MR. RATHKE: I don't have a deadline to announce for those, but of course, we've been working on the Benghazi-related emails first – for release first.

QUESTION: So nothing on it yet?

MR. RATHKE: But I don't have a deadline --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. RATHKE: -- on it. Yes, Justin, then we'll come back.

QUESTION: Are you – have you – how many of these emails have you actually reviewed, and are you prepared to start releasing any of them? If so ordered, will you be prepared to start rolling them out as --

MR. RATHKE: Yeah, I'm not in a position to preview where that stands. We've just gotten the order this morning to produce the schedule within a week, so we'll do that.

QUESTION: But you do have an enormous staff working on it apparently, so are none of the emails of the 50,000 cleared at this point in time?

MR. RATHKE: I didn't say that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. RATHKE: I just said I don't have an update on where that process stands. So we've got a court order to – which we will meet.

QUESTION: It's very possible, then, that you could start releasing them within a couple weeks.

MR. RATHKE: Well, I don't know. I don't have – again, I don't have the specifics of where those reviews stand. We are going to comply with the court order, so we'll come up with a schedule for rolling productions.

QUESTION: So in your filing, you noted the sensitivities of foreign governments. Is there any work going on to talk to foreign governments right now about information that may be in those emails that – whether they're compromising or not, whether they deal with sensitivities or embarrassing details, is there anything going on of that nature?

MR. RATHKE: And do you mean in specific reference to – do you mean to all – with reference to all of the emails or --

QUESTION: I don't --

MR. RATHKE: -- with the Benghazi-related ones?

QUESTION: No, not the Benghazis specifically. I mean with all of them, yeah.

MR. RATHKE: Well, I don't have anything to say beyond what's in our filing. I can check and see if there's anything more to say about our contacts with foreign governments.

QUESTION: Are there any plans to redact information that may not be classified or extremely sensitive, but reflect poorly on countries and therefore would maybe make diplomatic operations more difficult with some governments?

MR. RATHKE: Well, what we've said all along is that we're going to use the FOIA standards for redactions. You're probably familiar with those. I don't have the list of every single standard, but we're going to use the FOIA standards for redactions and, I believe, indicate when redactions are made under which of the FOIA standards.

Laura, yes, and then we'll go back.

QUESTION: Yeah. Following up on Justin's question, is the Benghazi-specific related emails – are those – have those worked their way through the process, or are they still awaiting other agency reviews on those? What's the holdup with those specifically?

MR. RATHKE: Well, as I said, we – those are – those are the first that we are going to produce. That is still the intention. I don't have a deadline or an update on the process, but clearly, that – those 300 approximately emails, which total about 900 pages, that – those will be the first to be released.

QUESTION: Right. But if you've given them to the committee, what would stop you from giving them to the public at this point?

MR. RATHKE: Well, what we gave to the committee were very lightly redacted versions, and so there has been – we did not go through the – we did not apply the FOIA standards to the emails that we provided to the select committee. So what we've been doing since then is to apply those FOIA standards to those emails.

QUESTION: If the emails are already segmented into these, I guess, hundred segments or batches, then I mean, what's --

MR. RATHKE: I'm sorry. What are you referring to?

QUESTION: Well, as the court order was specified and it's already been segmented, I guess, into these hundred batches that are working their way through separately the process for agency review, if they're already divided up that way, why the desire to release them as one bulk release in January? Why not do a more rolled-out release?

MR. RATHKE: Well, this is very similar to Brad's question. We announced our plans to do them in one. I don't have anything to add to what was in the court papers. Clearly, the court has issued an order; we're going to comply with it. But I don't – I don't have a further breakdown of the individual components, let's say, of the 55,000 pages.

QUESTION: The Secretary herself has just told correspondents that she wants this done as quickly as possible. Does that change your timeline at all? She seems to really want to get this out as quickly as possible.

MR. RATHKE: Well, we've said from the very start that we're going to apply the FOIA standards to releasing these emails to make sure that information that shouldn't be released under those standards is not included. That's what we continue – that remains our intention.

QUESTION: Would you take into consideration anything that she may say about the release of this, since they're the emails that she generated herself?

MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not familiar with those comments. These are records, as we've talked about, so we have to – we have to treat them that way in anything that has to do with release.

Brad, did you have a question?

QUESTION: No, it's just that the line of questioning is pertinent because critics are alleging that you're slow-rolling it and that this whole notion of keeping them all to the end is to draw out the process and then essentially have a kind of information dump at the end. Is that what was going on?

MR. RATHKE: No, no, I don't think so. Again, we have a large volume of records that cover the entire span of Secretary Clinton's time at the department, so I'm sure you could – you can imagine this would cover pretty much any topic. It could cover any topic on our foreign policy agenda. And so there would also be a question if certain things were released early, you could have other records pertinent to the same topic that might not have been finally processed, so there was a desire to do them at once so that they would – so that they would be available in their entirety. Again, we've got an order – an order that instructs us differently, so we're going to comply with it.

Anything else on this topic?

QUESTION: No.

MR. RATHKE: No?

QUESTION: Change of --

QUESTION: Benghazi related?

MR. RATHKE: Wait, wait. Did you – is it something on the same topic?

QUESTION: I did have one last one on this one.

MR. RATHKE: What's that? Go ahead.

QUESTION: And would you, having reviewed the emails or having some knowledge of them, would you be willing to say at this point that there's no incriminating evidence in any of the Benghazi emails specifically?

MR. RATHKE: What do you mean by --

QUESTION: Anything that the committee could use against her to say that she was withholding information --

MR. RATHKE: Well, the committee's had these emails for some time.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. RATHKE: So again, we're going through to apply the FOIA criteria, and we will release them when that's done.

QUESTION: Right. But you understand my question, right?

MR. RATHKE: You're asking me to reach an advanced judgement and --

QUESTION: Yes, I'm asking you to make a judgement about the --

MR. RATHKE: -- about the content of the emails --

QUESTION: Correct.

MR. RATHKE: -- which I'm not going to do.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. RATHKE: We're reviewing them according to the standards, and we'll release them.

QUESTION: Jeff, Benghazi related --

MR. RATHKE: Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Now that Secretary Clinton agreed to appear before a congressional hearing on Benghazi, what will be the State Department's role? How will you work with her on this issue?

MR. RATHKE: On which issue?

QUESTION: She's going to appear before a hearing, a congressional hearing.

MR. RATHKE: Right.

QUESTION: She agreed like a couple weeks ago. What will be your role? What is the State Department's role in this case? How do you work with her? I mean --

MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not sure what your question is. Of course, we've engaged --

QUESTION: My question – my question is she is --

MR. RATHKE: We've engaged throughout --

QUESTION: She is no longer the --

MR. RATHKE: Sorry, Said. Let me try to answer your question.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. RATHKE: We've engaged since the formation of the select committee with the committee to provide documents, to provide testimony of officials. We – the Secretary has said we're going to cooperate with the committee. We've been doing that; we continue to do that. Now as for Secretary Clinton's plans and her testimony before the committee, I would refer you back to Secretary Clinton and the committee. Our engagement has been ongoing and it will continue.

QUESTION: I'm saying – I guess I'm trying to see what kind of coordination you will have with her on this. I mean, what is the type of coordination that the State Department will have with the former secretary of state on this particular issue?

MR. RATHKE: Again, I don't have any detail to offer on that.

Let's move on, because we're going to run out of time. Yes.

QUESTION: Change of subject. The U.S. has charged three Chinese professors and three others – Chinese nationals with economic espionage and stealing trade secrets from two companies that develop technology. Does the State Department have any comment on this? Does this – did you have any role in looking at, for example, the visa issues or what – any kind of role that the State Department would have in this?

MR. RATHKE: Well, there was – the Department of Justice this morning released their document on this, a rather long document with a lot of detail.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. RATHKE: So for any questions about the specifics of the investigation, the Department of Justice would have the lead. I think this case demonstrates, though, that the United States is committed to protecting U.S. companies' trade secrets and their proprietary business information from theft. So this is an important issue for the United States. I'm not going to comment on our role in the investigation, though.

QUESTION: Is there any concern that this case might cast a pall over – I mean Chinese nationals looking for work in that kind of area, in technology? I mean, it does raise some concerns, and is there any concern within this building and – that that would be the case, the spinoffs from this?

MR. RATHKE: Well again, we, as with our colleagues from the Department of Justice and across the U.S. Government, we are committed to enforcing the law and to supporting those – the law enforcement agencies and also to ensuring that American companies and American individuals – that their business information is protected and that economic espionage is something that we take very seriously. So --

QUESTION: I guess the question that I really want to ask was that is there going to extra scrutiny on overseas nationals working in this area and the granting of work visas or authorizing them to work here in that area? Is there going to be extra scrutiny?

MR. RATHKE: Well, I think this has just been issued today, so I think it would be too early to say that there were specific operational measures that the State Department would adopt. But I go back to my earlier statement: We take these issues very seriously. We're always vigilant about these kinds of concerns, and I think for today I'll leave it at that.

Anything else on this topic?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) topic.

MR. RATHKE: No – new topic?

QUESTION: Syria.

MR. RATHKE: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There were news reports today saying that Secretary Kerry has offered SOC President Khaled Khoja when he was here in D.C. two weeks ago – he has offered a proposal stating that if the opposition wants a political solution for the crisis in Syria, they have to accept Assad in the transitional phase, and if they want Iran and Russia to support this transitional phase too. Today the SOC spokesperson has said that Assad will not be part of any political solution or in any transitional phase, no matter how long it takes or whatever shape it takes. Do you have anything on this? Is it accurate that the Secretary has proposed such a proposal?

MR. RATHKE: I have no information about such a proposal, and I'm not confirming in any way. Again, our position has long been and it remains that Assad has no role in Syria's political future. We've been extremely clear about that publicly as well as privately. So I don't have – I don't see any truth in that report that you've cited. I haven't seen the report myself, but the way you describe it, no.

QUESTION: And are you more flexible now about Assad participating in the transitional phase for a short period of time to convince Iran and Russia to support a political solution, and that's why ambassador or Special Envoy Rubinstein was in Russia yesterday?

MR. RATHKE: Again, I don't have any detail to offer on that. Our view is clear: Assad has no future in Syria. There is, of course, consultations being led by de Mistura now in Geneva. That's the focus of attention. Also, our special envoy has had some discussions recently in Geneva as well as in Moscow, but I don't have that kind of (inaudible).

QUESTION: But Jeff, you certainly agree --

QUESTION: So far --

QUESTION: On this one – on this one, when you said that he has no role in the future of Syria, did you mean, too, that he has no role in the transitional phase, too?

MR. RATHKE: Well, again, I think we've been very clear about Assad. I'm not going to get into parsing this in the way you're trying to suggest. Our view on Assad has not changed.

Yes, Jo.

QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the meetings which Special Envoy Rubenstein had yesterday in Moscow?

MR. RATHKE: Well, you probably have seen the note we put out yesterday afternoon. I don't have a lot to offer beyond that. He – this was a follow-up to the discussion that Secretary Kerry had with President Putin and with Foreign Minister Lavrov on the topic of Syria. So Special Envoy Rubenstein met with Deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov, other foreign ministry officials, and the focus of all these discussions is to create the conditions for a genuine, sustainable political transition in Syria that's consistent with the Geneva communique.

QUESTION: And what does that require?

MR. RATHKE: Well, again --

QUESTION: The right conditions – what are you talking about when you talk about the right conditions? What do you mean? It's just – create the right conditions, what do you mean?

MR. RATHKE: Well, again, we need to see the process in Geneva that de Mistura is leading move forward. He's having consultations, and we've been talking with the Russians about putting the right pressure on all parties to engage. I don't have further detail to read out than that.

QUESTION: Jeff.

MR. RATHKE: Yes, Said, and then we'll go to Nicolas.

QUESTION: Just a very quick follow-up.

MR. RATHKE: Yeah.

QUESTION: But you keep saying you want a transition or you want to see a Syria that is representative of all Syrians. Certainly, Mr. Assad represents a large minority, if you will, because it's the Alawis, the Christians, (inaudible) and so on. They are part of the process. I've spoken to Mr. de Mistura himself. I mean, this is the case. How could you say that he has no role to play whatsoever in the transition?

MR. RATHKE: Look, Assad is responsible for the bloodshed in Syria --

QUESTION: I understand. I mean, that aside.

MR. RATHKE: -- and I don't – sorry, Said. We're running out of time here. I don't have anything to add.

QUESTION: But the hard fact is that he does represent a large minority, correct?

MR. RATHKE: He is the leader of the regime that has been brutally suppressing its own people, which has led to the deaths of countless thousands and millions of Syrians who have had to flee, either internally displaced or left their country.

Nicolas, go ahead.

QUESTION: Very quickly, staying in Russia. Do you have details or a readout about the meeting Assistant Secretary Nuland had in Moscow yesterday?

MR. RATHKE: So she is – she has just returned this morning, I believe. I don't have the detailed readout of each meeting. I would – again, this was focused on Ukraine, our desire to see Minsk implemented, following on Secretary Kerry's meetings with President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov. We may have more to say in the course of the day.

Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Ukraine, yesterday Kyiv showed off to the media two men that they said were Russian soldiers that they had captured during a gun battle --

MR. RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: -- in the east. And they'd been wounded and they were shown to the Ukrainian media. I just wondered if you had an opinion on whether (a) these really were Russian soldiers, and (b) whether what – I mean, surely there are conventions against parading or allowing the media to go in and sort of see people that you all are saying are captured prisoners.

MR. RATHKE: Okay, so we're aware of the capture of these two Russian military personnel, and we note that this took place in – near Shchastya, which is in Luhansk, which is on the Ukrainian Government's side of the ceasefire line. The Ukrainian Government has informed the United States that they are in Kyiv, they are receiving medical attention, and that Ukraine has invited international organizations to visit them.

Now this capture comes as no surprise. We've said repeatedly that Russians and the separatists are working together, training together, and operating with the same command and control systems. So this capture only heightens our concern that the combined Russian separatist forces continue to flout the terms of the Minsk agreements, and Russia has shown little willingness to abide by its commitments and has not used its considerable influence with the separatists to persuade them to do the same.

Now you asked a technical question as well, which is --

QUESTION: No, there's an ethics question. An ethics question, I guess. Yeah.

MR. RATHKE: I'm not in a position to offer an opinion on the legal status of these individuals. Regardless of how they are characterized, we expect humane treatment for all detainees, whether they're held by the separatists, by Russia, or by Ukraine.

QUESTION: Iran?

QUESTION: But following up on this, the embarrassment or public ridicule of detainees is like one of the sacrosanct principles of the Geneva Conventions. Are you saying this doesn't apply now in Ukraine? I mean, so --

MR. RATHKE: No. I didn't say – I didn't say that it doesn't apply. I mean, the application and the status of individuals under the Geneva Conventions is a technical, legal matter. I'm not in a position to say how that – whether that applies and how that applies in this particular case.

QUESTION: Murdering people is a technical, legal matter too.

MR. RATHKE: No, Brad --

QUESTION: I mean, it's a basic tenet of international law. It actually predates most of the treaties that are in effect in the world today. So I mean, to just say it's a technical matter and you're not going to take the question is unfair.

MR. RATHKE: That isn't all that I said, Brad. If you were listening, I – we also said that regardless of how they are characterized, that we expect humane treatment for all detainees, whether they're held by the separatists, by Russia, or by Ukraine.

QUESTION: Do you believe publicly showing off detainees to journalists is humane treatment?

MR. RATHKE: Well, again, I'm not going to go beyond what I said. We certainly believe that all detainees should be treated humanely.

QUESTION: New topic --

QUESTION: I have one on --

MR. RATHKE: Sorry, anything on the same topic? Yes, Nicole.

QUESTION: Yeah. I understand that there are – or there are working group talks going on right now with separatists and Ukrainian Government on various aspects of the conflict – humanitarian issues, economic issues. I'm wondering if there is any U.S. or State Department involvement in those talks – participation, monitoring? Are you guys part of it at all?

MR. RATHKE: Well, there's a meeting – if you're talking about meetings of the trilateral contact group and meetings in Minsk, we're not a direct party to those. We certainly support the working groups under the trilateral contact group. And as a way forward, that has the participation of the OSCE. We strongly support that. We've been engaging with our European partners, most recently with Ukraine and with Russia. So we support that.

We're going to have to wrap this --

QUESTION: Do you have a body in the room?

MR. RATHKE: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Do you have a body in the room?

MR. RATHKE: For the trilateral contact group meetings?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. RATHKE: No. We're not a party of the trilateral contact group.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Is there a desire to have a body in the room, as Nicole said, though? Is there a desire for a more greater --

MR. RATHKE: Well, we've talked --

QUESTION: You talked about yesterday about deepening U.S. engagement.

MR. RATHKE: Yes, that's right. But --

QUESTION: So is one of those deep --

MR. RATHKE: We're not changing that format. And we're not suggesting a change to that format. We support that format; we're actively engaged diplomatically; we're deepening our engagement broadly. That's not to change any particular format.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on the situation in Ramadi? Iraq, Ramadi? Any update?

MR. RATHKE: Nothing beyond what we said yesterday as far as the on-the-ground situation. I would say – and I think this will have to be the last one because the Secretary's about to begin his speech – the Government of Iraq has begun the process of consolidating and reorganizing its forces to begin an offensive to retake Ramadi. Prime Minister Abadi had a cabinet meeting today, and in that cabinet meeting the council of ministers strongly supported the prime minister's actions in Anbar, including the use of the Popular Mobilization Forces under the command of the commander in chief.

QUESTION: So you are in support of the Popular Mobilization Forces?

MR. RATHKE: We're supporting Prime Minister Abadi and his council of ministers.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Jeff, do you have any reservation about the Shia militias being used in Ramadi, like that you had, I think, about --

MR. RATHKE: I think I spoke to this yesterday; I don't have anything to add.

QUESTION: Jeff, the Rohingya.

MR. RATHKE: So the Secretary's going to begin speaking --

QUESTION: Rohingya – do you have any update for – quick on the Rohingya issue?

MR. RATHKE: Rohingya, okay. Let me just mention that we remain concerned about the situation. We urge the countries of the region to work together to save the lives of migrants at sea. I would point out there was a joint statement issued by the International Organization for Migration along with several other international organizations. We support that joint statement and we urge countries to adopt the nine-point plan that it presents. We also believe all governments should participate in the conference being hosted by Thailand on May 29th. We continue to urge governments to identify and address the root causes of the crisis.

Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:08 p.m.)