UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

Daily Press Briefing

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 2, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

HONDURAS
UKRAINE
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA/REGION
AFGHANISTAN
COUNTERTERRORISM
INDIA

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:32 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: All right. Hello, everyone.

QUESTION: Huh?

MR TONER: I said hello, everyone.

QUESTION: Good afternoon. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Sorry. A couple things at the top and then I'll get to your questions.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Beginning with Honduras, the United States, as part of its effort to promote good governance and economic prosperity through the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America, announced today a contribution of $5.2 million to establish a secure foundation to advance the work of the OAS Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras. This is commonly known by its Spanish acronym, which is MACCIH. MACCIH continues momentum initiated by the Honduran Government and people toward meaningful action against corruption, including criminal investigations and prosecutions of those who offer or receive illegal inducements. And we urge other states and international organizations to help ensure that MACCIH has the resources necessary to achieve its mission.

Also I just – before moving to your questions, I did want to mention some good news out of Ukraine. We do congratulate the Ukrainian Rada on the passage today of – excuse me – constitutional amendments and implementing legislation to improve judicial independence, accountability, and efficiency. This is an important step in Ukraine's fight against corruption and towards fulfilling the aspirations of the Ukrainian people for a more open and transparent judiciary that works for all Ukrainians.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Right. So I have – I want to start with something that came up yesterday.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I was not at yesterday's briefing and I don't want to go belabor or go tread the same ground that was trod yesterday as it relates to the video, the editing of the video of the December 2013 briefing. But I did the – in reading the transcript of yesterday's briefing, it raised – raises more questions, kind of, I think, than the explanation that your colleague offered.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: And so I just want – I want to get to a couple points, and I'll try to be very quick about it.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Is it correct or am I understanding correctly that until yesterday or until whenever it was that Kirby made – came down with these new rules, that it was not specifically a violation of any rule or State Department regulation to manipulate a video of the briefing? Is that correct?

MR TONER: That's correct. It was not --

QUESTION: Was it – why?

MR TONER: As far as we have checked in terms of our Foreign Affairs Manual, but also in other rules and regulations, there was not a clear policy or regulation prohibiting editing of transcripts before they were publicly posted.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, yet you – obviously you edit transcript – we're talking about the video here, not --

MR TONER: I'm sorry, video, yeah.

QUESTION: But, I mean, obviously if someone – there can be cleanup editing of things, but I – this is – this would seem to be – this stuff was deleted for content reason, not because – not for a technical hitch in audio or the video.

MR TONER: No, understood. I mean, I understand your --

QUESTION: That was not a violation of the rules until yesterday?

MR TONER: Again, there was no rule in place, and we only discovered this when we actually had the occasion to investigate it.

QUESTION: I know, but why not? I mean, now – I guess I understand now why people have to put warning labels on mattresses and stuff like that. I mean, this would seem to be just pure common sense that you don't mess around with what has been said on – from the podium.

MR TONER: And that may be partially the reason there was no rule in place, is that we all --

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: -- understand, working in this business, whether on your side or on our side, that there are --

QUESTION: Well, but apparently not. You say "we all," but someone out there didn't, right?

MR TONER: Well, understood, and that's why we've – we're correcting it going forward.

QUESTION: All right. The – am I correct in understanding that you guys – you, Kirby, your office didn't do – and had no part of this? It was all done by the Legal Adviser's Office, the – in terms of --

MR TONER: The actual investigation into the incident was conducted by the legal office, yeah.

QUESTION: And they found that there were no rules violated?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: No, they did not find that?

MR TONER: They found that there were no rules – yeah. There was no existing policy or regulations in place that would have been violated by editing this video.

QUESTION: That's just mindboggling. I mean – so --

MR TONER: We were equally surprised.

QUESTION: Yeah. So did they – to the best of your knowledge, did they ask the technician who they spoke to, who said that she was asked to do this – did they ask her what the reason was for the request to edit the video?

MR TONER: And I want to be careful here not to get too much into the substance of their investigation. They did talk to the person who did edit the video, who told them that – this person told them that they were acting in direct response to a call that they received --

QUESTION: Yeah, I know that. I read the transcript from yesterday.

MR TONER: -- asking them to edit the video. What's – I'm sorry, what's your --

QUESTION: Did they say – did they ask the technician why that request was made of --

MR TONER: No, I mean --

QUESTION: No?

MR TONER: Well, I'm sorry. When you say "why the request was made -- "

QUESTION: Did the Legal Adviser's Office, in speaking with the technician who did the edit, ask the technician what the reason was that the person, whoever got in touch with, he or she, gave for saying, "Let's remove the seven, eight minutes"?

MR TONER: So my understanding of this is that that question was posed. The person was simply acting under order to change it and did so but was not given a reason why.

QUESTION: So there was – was not given a reason why. Okay. I mean, it just seems like there would be – there's a bit of a – there seems to be a lack of curiosity here on the – I mean, if someone was to ask me, a superior asked me to do something like that, I think I would want to know why before I would even consider doing it. But in this case, the person just got the request and did it of their own volition?

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: Was everything contained – the request and that – the initial request, which I understand was like secondhand --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- to this building?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Was there any – so it – and it was all contained --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: So not --

MR TONER: So my understanding is that --

QUESTION: It didn't come from outside, not the White House?

MR TONER: My understanding is that, yes, it was – so the request was – and we still don't know, obviously, who made that request – but that that was passing on a request from somewhere else within the Public Affairs Bureau.

QUESTION: Okay. And you're – that – but you're certain of that? If this – I don't --

MR TONER: I mean, that's what this individual said and that's what we're --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: But yeah, there's no way that you can – I just --

MR TONER: No, we can't – I mean, we obviously can't – I mean, we have one person's word to go by. Yes.

QUESTION: Well, okay. And is – do you consider now that this whole case is closed?

MR TONER: No, and I think Kirby said as much yesterday that if we get new information --

QUESTION: You mean if someone volunteers it?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, we've – we've pulled on this particular thread as far as we can go. The individual in question here does not remember who told him or her to carry out this order. It was a phone call that took place three years ago. We're not going to question their memory. But at this point, we believe that we've done the forensics, we've identified that there's a problem here, which you identified, which is that there's no policy regarding editing of video, and we're correcting that going forward. But if we get new information as to where this request came from, we will investigate further.

QUESTION: But you're not looking at – you're not going through the roster of staff that there was at the time --

MR TONER: We've looked at all that. I mean --

QUESTION: And you --

MR TONER: I think you can rest assured that we have actually taken common-sense steps to look at --

QUESTION: Well, apparently – (laughter) – I don't know if we can rest assured that you've taken common-sense --

MR TONER: Well, we have.

QUESTION: It would be common sense not to edit the video in the first place. If common sense were the – what we were operating on here, or an assumption of common sense, this – we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Anyway, but is there is a – is the Office of the Legal Adviser or anyone else still actively trying to find out who and why, or is it just done now?

MR TONER: There's – we believe we've carried out the necessary investigation. We have hit a dead end in terms of finding out more information. If more information does become available, if we are made aware of more information about who might have been behind this request, we'll, of course, investigate.

QUESTION: Well, but to what end, though? If it was not a violation --

MR TONER: You're right. I mean, that's a fair point, is there's – is that there's no --

QUESTION: No --

MR TONER: -- there isn't any – sorry, I'll get to you in a second – I mean, that's a fair point to make. This was not in any violation of existing policy or regulations.

QUESTION: But should have been, correct?

MR TONER: We're correcting that going forward.

QUESTION: So here's my question.

MR TONER: Arshad. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I mean, yesterday Kirby made very clear that he believed that this was wrong, this shouldn't have happened, correct?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you believe that the State Department should have working for it people who would deliberately alter the historical record of the public statements of the State Department spokesperson?

MR TONER: I'm sorry. So your question is directed at?

QUESTION: Should people who would deliberately tamper with the historical record be working here?

MR TONER: Well, Arshad, I mean, I guess that's a fair question to ask. Our posture on that is that without having an existing policy in place clearly laying out that this sort of action was prohibited. We need to give this individual the benefit of the doubt that they were acting under orders of their supervisor or supervisors or other people who directed them to carry out this task.

QUESTION: The question's not about the supervisor.

QUESTION: Sorry, but I'm just – wait, wait, wait --

MR TONER: Oh, okay. I --

QUESTION: The question is not about the person who actually --

QUESTION: I've got a – sorry, I've got a – forgive me, I've got a whole bunch more questions that are raised by your answer, then. So I'm not talking about the editor, okay, because you know who they are.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: I'm talking about – and I'm not even really talking about the person who placed the phone call at the behest of someone else, because they could have been just ordered, "Please do X." I'm talking about the person who made – who originated the request.

MR TONER: So – okay. So let me answer that question.

QUESTION: So should they be here in Public Affairs?

MR TONER: So as Kirby said yesterday and I'll reiterate today, we believe that this was an inappropriate request, an inappropriate action, but it did not violate any rules that were in place at the time that governed that sort of action.

QUESTION: So it's fine if – for them to still be here? Tampering with historical record is okay as long as there's no rule against it?

MR TONER: Well, Arshad, first of all, we don't have that individual or that individual's name.

QUESTION: I know.

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: But the signal you're sending is anything that isn't explicitly prohibited is fine, even if you regard it as wrong or inappropriate. And I don't see how that's a position --

MR TONER: That's not at all the signal we're sending, and in fact --

QUESTION: It is. It is.

MR TONER: -- Assistant Secretary Kirby just today sent an email out to the entire bureau explaining the change in policy and explaining the actions we've taken thus far to get to the bottom of this. We have carried out an investigation – actually, we had the legal office carry out that investigation; we didn't do it internally, for obvious reasons – and until we find reason to pursue that investigation further, we're at a dead end.

But that in no way excuses the action that was taken. And I think Assistant Secretary Kirby has shown his commitment to the integrity of the bureau and to the integrity of the State Department by taking the actions he's taken and being as transparent as possible in explaining why he's taken them.

QUESTION: You said that you had done the forensics. Yesterday I asked if you had, for example – or the Office of the Legal Adviser – had sought to obtain the telephone records, and the answer was not to his knowledge. Why not? I mean, "forensics" is a strong word. If you're doing the forensics to figure out how something happened, you don't just necessarily ask people, you also look for digital trails.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: So why didn't you look? Or can – if you don't know, can you take the question of – well, did they look for digital trails? I think a lot of phone calls around here are tracked, right? And I think PA phone calls in particular sometimes are tracked. So if you didn't look for the phone records, I don't understand how you can argue that you did a thorough – you did thorough forensics on this.

MR TONER: I can't confirm that we did all of the tracking of phone calls or whether we're even able to do so. I know we did check our records as much as we could to see what might have happened that day. And you're right, there are records that exist. But if I have more to share on that, I certainly will. But --

QUESTION: Can you check whether you looked for phone records, please --

MR TONER: Sure. Sure.

QUESTION: -- and answer that? And then – and I don't like dwelling on this, but I feel like the integrity of the public record is an important thing.

MR TONER: It is.

QUESTION: It was clearly and deliberately violated by someone, right? And even if there wasn't a rule against it, presumably the State Department has basic codes of behavior, right? I mean, isn't there something that says you should be honest in your dealings with the public?

QUESTION: Apparently not.

MR TONER: Well, look, of course. And we've talked about --

QUESTION: But then it is a violation. If of course there's a rule that says you should be – or a basic precept that you should be honest in your dealings with the public, then somebody violated that.

MR TONER: And again, I'm not – it's impossible to – for me, without knowing who directed this individual to carry out this task, what the rationale was, what the justification was, what the reasoning behind it was. So that's point number one.

Point number two is there was no existing regulation or policy in place. We've addressed that. Moving forward, we're putting in a clear policy in place that this kind of action is not going to be tolerated in the future. I think we can certainly – and you're right to point out the fact that this was an inexcusable incident, but we also have to look forward and how do we correct this for the future. And we're setting in place a clear procedure and clear guidelines in how to avoid any action like this, because we do obviously take our role seriously.

QUESTION: You – we were told by a State Department official yesterday that the person who received the phone call discussed the matter with her superior and that they concluded that the request had come from a place of sufficient credibility and authority within the department – within the bureau, excuse me – that they then acted on the request. Have you or did the Office of the Legal Adviser go to people of credibility and authority in the bureau and ask them, "Did you do this?"

MR TONER: We have asked those questions.

QUESTION: And nobody said they did it?

MR TONER: That's correct.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: We've asked so far.

QUESTION: Yeah. So what I don't – I continue to not understand how there could have been a conversation between someone and their manager that concludes that a request has come from a place of sufficient credibility and authority from the bureau they work in that they should do this, but that they have no other recollection of anything about the call – the gender of the person who called. Do you know the gender of the person who called? Because that would cut your list of suspects in half.

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: Do you know the gender? Do they remember the gender?

MR TONER: Again, it was a secondhand call. Somebody was conveying this. And we do know that, and I'm not --

QUESTION: Right. So they – do they know the gender of the person who called?

MR TONER: And we do know that, and I'm not going to share that.

QUESTION: Okay. So – no, that's – okay. I mean, it's not very transparent of you, right? But then you have eliminated half the potential people --

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: -- who made the call, and that makes it easier for you to find out, well, gee, who actually made the call and then who told them to make the call.

MR TONER: And let's be very clear, when we're talking about transparency, I'm not going to get up here and reveal to you from this podium every detail of what is an internal, albeit by our legal office, an internal investigation into what happened. I'm under no obligation to do that, and that's out of respect for the privacy of the individuals involved. What I am obligated to do is to explain to you, and I think John did as well yesterday, that we realize that this was an intentional action, we've taken steps to address it, we've investigated the incident as far as we can take it at this point in time, and we're taking steps to correct that this incident – that a similar incident doesn't happen in the future.

QUESTION: And do you know the identity of the person who placed the call, relaying the message from the place where it originated?

MR TONER: No, we've not been able to clarify that either.

QUESTION: Sorry, Mark, you may not have an obligation, but apparently there was no obligation before yesterday not to mess around with the video transcript, so – or the video. So I just – in the interest of transparency, in the interest of trying to set this aside, why not reveal the details of what the legal adviser found beyond what you have already done, or is that it? Is that all that they know?

MR TONER: That's more or less it – right.

QUESTION: Because it doesn't seem like that's very – it doesn't seem like a very thorough investigation. Well, someone got a phone call passing on a request from someone else and that's the end of it – that doesn't sound like – anyway. Can you at least tell us what the new policy is specifically?

MR TONER: I can --

QUESTION: Like what does this email that Kirby sent around today say --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- in terms of what the regulation is? Thou shalt not edit --

MR TONER: (Laughter.) I mean, thou shalt not – fair point. I don't have it in front of me, but --

QUESTION: Okay, can we get it?

MR TONER: Yeah, of course, I can get you – I can get you the text. I mean, we're going to make clear that all video and transcripts from daily press briefings need to be immediately and permanently archived in their entirety and that --

QUESTION: Including anything with glitches like audio or video glitches?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: So it will be naked, unedited?

MR TONER: Unedited and naked, if you will.

QUESTION: Can I – can I make a point about the edit --

QUESTION: Well, wait. Wait, can you finish that --

MR TONER: No, no, I'm just saying in the unlikely event that narrow, I don't know, compelling circumstances that require edits be made, like the inadvertent release of privacy-protected information – just as an example – that that would only be made with the express permission of the assistant secretary and with an --

QUESTION: So any edit at all has to go through the assistant secretary?

MR TONER: That's correct.

QUESTION: Yeah, that's what Kirby said yesterday.

MR TONER: That's correct.

QUESTION: But he also said yesterday, if I'm not mistaken, that it would be annotated so that the omission was noted?

MR TONER: That's correct, yeah. I was just going to get to that.

QUESTION: Yeah. Does that policy also apply to the transcripts, State Department transcripts? And I do not want anybody to think that I have anything but the highest regard for the transcribers, but --

MR TONER: No, no, I – and I – that should already be the case.

QUESTION: Well, but it should have been the case that --

MR TONER: We always asterisk if we do a – if we do an annotated – an annotation to the transcript, of the written transcript.

QUESTION: It pains me to ask the question --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but it should have already been the case that tampering with the video violated a rule, but it didn't until yesterday. So are there going to be similar rules regarding the transcripts?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: For all State Department officials who speak on the record, including in the briefing?

MR TONER: Yes. And there should be.

QUESTION: And you will annotate any changes to the actual spoken word, as transcribed?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: So one point I have to make and a question I had about the edits--

QUESTION: I'm sorry, is that in the latest email? Is that in his latest thing?

MR TONER: I'll double-check on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: This may just pertain to video, but that's a fair question. I'll check.

Please.

QUESTION: Okay. So one question is the edit itself was – anybody who's looked at video could see that it was a flash edit. It wasn't – it in no way resembled a technical malfunction. In fact, it resembled experienced editing. So why then – the question is: Why then was it initially called a technical glitch, when, in fact, it just didn't appear to be that at all? What – where did that come from?

MR TONER: Look, so what I'll say to that is I'm not sure that as a layman I would have been able to say that it was a professionally done editing job or a glitch.

QUESTION: Well, that's not – frankly, that's not plausible.

MR TONER: I'm just saying – I'm just saying, so understand that we're all not broadcast experienced press officers here at the State Department. That said, we did recognize, Justin, very shortly after that initial response, that it clearly was. And we were told that internally. And so we corrected ourselves once we found that out.

QUESTION: Not only do I not find that plausible, but I also don't find it plausible that the technician, as Arshad mentioned, does not remember who gave this order. Did anybody ask the technician if this was the only time she had been asked to edit a video, or was this a standalone, one-time deal?

MR TONER: My understanding is it was a standalone request.

QUESTION: Okay. Which they would remember doing, but not remembering who gave the order. Do you have any reason to believe that it was the then-spokesperson, Jen Psaki, who ordered the edit or have you ruled her out?

MR TONER: So Jen has – Jen Psaki has gone out publicly --

QUESTION: I've heard, yeah. I've seen that.

MR TONER: -- and said that she had nothing to do – no knowledge of this and nothing to do with this incident. Jen Psaki is a highly regarded professional and colleague, and I take her at her word.

QUESTION: And last one for me. Do you find it necessary maybe to do – for the Press Office to do its own investigation, or are you totally satisfied with the legal office's own investigation of this? I mean, if anybody would know --

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: -- it would – I would think it would be you all.

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, what we did was we specifically picked the legal office to do this because we didn't want – we wanted an objective and unaffiliated body to look at the incident. And that's what they were able to do. As to your questions about what this person knew or what they didn't know, ultimately we have to take them at their word, that they don't remember who gave them the order. And as I said, if we come across more information that sheds light on that, we'll certainly pursue it.

QUESTION: Did you ever consider punishing the technician?

MR TONER: We have not, no.

QUESTION: And why not?

MR TONER: Well, again, because they were simply carrying out an order and they were not violating any existing regulations at the time.

QUESTION: So you're told. I mean, you're taking their word for it that they were carrying out an order.

MR TONER: We are.

QUESTION: And you have no proof of that.

MR TONER: We are.

QUESTION: Mark, I just --

QUESTION: Look, (inaudible).

QUESTION: You probably answered this before.

MR TONER: Independently. Please.

QUESTION: But did you say that that's the only time this happened? Was that – like it's (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Well, I mean, Kirby spoke to this yesterday. We have no – well, I don't want to say we have no capability, but unless you wanted us all to simply spend all of our time going through every --

QUESTION: Right. I mean, to the best of your knowledge, that's the only time?

MR TONER: No, right.

QUESTION: And also a clarification. You probably talked about it before when you explained it. Was that immediately after – I mean, the day after, the day following? When did this happen?

MR TONER: I'm sorry, what --

QUESTION: When was it excised? When the – when was it edited?

MR TONER: We believe it was the day of.

QUESTION: The day of.

MR TONER: And in terms of our knowledge – to our knowledge, it has not happened before or since. But we have no way of answering that definitively, because we just don't have the manpower or the technology to go back and look at every videotape.

QUESTION: You don't have the what?

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: I mean, you might not have the manpower, but you certainly have the technology, right?

MR TONER: I mean, we – well, I mean, yes.

QUESTION: I mean --

MR TONER: We have YouTube.

QUESTION: If you want to spend like five weekends looking through --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: I mean, that's not – was there any thought given --

MR TONER: I'll get to you.

QUESTION: Sorry. Was there any thought – you just said you wanted an independent and objective, impartial look at this, and you went to the legal adviser. Why not the IG?

MR TONER: IG doesn't really do this. We talked about that, actually.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MR TONER: And they don't really do this.

QUESTION: Yesterday?

MR TONER: I mean, they do broader investigations.

QUESTION: You say that the person who originally ordered this cut didn't break any existing regulations at the time.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You've now – you've since asked a lot of people whether they did it. They've all said no. If they were lying, would that be a breach of regulations?

MR TONER: That's --

QUESTION: To lie to this inquiry.

MR TONER: I mean, that's highly --

QUESTION: I mean, they're weren't under oath, but they --

MR TONER: I mean, it's a hypothetical.

QUESTION: They have a duty of honor.

QUESTION: Well, that's a reasonable question.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Does the State Department have a rule against people lying to its own internal inquiries? Because if it doesn't, apparently it's a-okay to lie and maybe somebody will write a policy the first time you catch somebody doing it. So I mean, I think that's a very reasonable question. Do you have a policy against lying?

MR TONER: I don't know. I mean, I can't answer that definitively, that we --

QUESTION: But --

MR TONER: I assume we do, but I don't --

QUESTION: In the opinion of your office, is it – is the person honor-bound to come forward? Enough time has been wasted, the person who ordered it knows they did it; do they have a duty to stop wasting everyone's time?

MR TONER: If somebody wants to come forward with that, then we would welcome that, obviously.

QUESTION: But do they have a – are they honor-bound to do so? Is it the honest thing to do?

MR TONER: I mean, certainly, it's the ethical thing to do. But – but --

QUESTION: Is the legal office an unaffiliated body? You said it was an unaffiliated --

MR TONER: Yes, it is. I mean, it's not connected to the Public Affairs – I mean, it's obviously a State Department office, but they were able in this particular instance to play an objective role.

QUESTION: Why not do a truly independent investigation though, like bring in an outside counsel? Often companies, when they have issues, and sometimes they ask for a general counsel to investigate things. Other times they decide – and I realize it costs money --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- that you should have an independent law firm come in and figure out what happened, because there are no relationships, no conflicts of interest, no – people are not all reporting --

MR TONER: Understood.

QUESTION: -- up to the Secretary of State.

MR TONER: Understood. We believe in this instance that the legal office was able to carry out an objective investigation.

QUESTION: Mark, how many people work for the Bureau of Public Affairs here?

MR TONER: I knew you were going to ask me a hard question like that. (Laughter.) I'll get the --

QUESTION: That seems to be pretty easy.

MR TONER: I know. I should know that off the top of my head. I'm going to casually look over here and ask Elizabeth.

MS TRUDEAU: About 300.

MR TONER: 300.

QUESTION: Have you interviewed all 300 of those individuals?

MR TONER: No, we have not.

QUESTION: And why not?

MR TONER: Again, I mean, they're all aware of the incident. And if they, as David offered --

QUESTION: They read the paper the next --

MR TONER: -- if they wanted to put – step forward – no, we only actually focused the investigation on those who would have been involved, and that is the people in the Office of Video Services.

QUESTION: And you're confident that it was someone from the Bureau of Public Affairs that made this request?

MR TONER: That's our – again, recognizing that we only have the testimony of one person to go by, that is our understanding that that request came from elsewhere in the Bureau of Public Affairs. Correct.

QUESTION: And you only looked at the Office of Video Services? You didn't ask people outside like in the PA --

MR TONER: No, no, we did. As we --

QUESTION: Did you ask people in the PA front office --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- which is where authority is vested for PA's running, right?

MR TONER: Well, it's a different front office now, but yes.

QUESTION: No, no, I got that.

MR TONER: All these conversations were had, yes.

QUESTION: Following up on an earlier question that Arshad asked --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- couldn't you call the telephone company to figure out the records?

MR TONER: I'm not sure.

QUESTION: You said you would take --

QUESTION: How are you not sure?

MR TONER: I can look into it, but I'm not – okay.

QUESTION: You said you would take the question about whether --

MR TONER: I will. I will take the question.

QUESTION: Whether the telephone company was called? Is that the question?

MR TONER: Whether we have records of phone – phone records. I'm not --

QUESTION: And whether you tried to find them for this – it's one day. You know the date.

MR TONER: I'm aware.

QUESTION: Given the inconclusive nature of the investigation by you and the Office of the Legal Adviser, why wasn't this matter referred to the State Department's Office of Inspector General?

MR TONER: Well, I just tried to answer this to Matt. The Inspector General's Office has a little bit of a different writ, if you will, and looks at broader issues or institutional processes. I mean, it does audits of embassies, it does audits of programs, it does audits – this is a specific incident.

QUESTION: Email?

MR TONER: Now --

QUESTION: It doesn't do email as well?

MR TONER: Yeah. But I mean – no, I mean, but in all honesty, we felt like this was a little too specific for their purview.

QUESTION: Couldn't his office choose to take it up, though? It's not just things you refer to him.

MR TONER: I'm – I suppose they could, yeah.

QUESTION: Harf, Marie Harf. Did you ask her, as long as we're checking off names here?

MR TONER: Marie, and – yes, and she said she also had no knowledge of this and certainly wouldn't have condoned it.

QUESTION: And finally, yesterday you stated that – or excuse me, Admiral Kirby stated that both Ms. Nuland and Ms. Psaki did their jobs, quote, "credibly, honestly, and with integrity" on the relevant days in question. Given that it is the universal conclusion that one of those briefers spoke falsely from the podium on one of those days, it seems appropriate to ask you for the purposes of the record the same question Ms. Psaki was asked, quote: Is it the policy of the State Department where the preservation of the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned to lie to achieve that goal? Because only if you could answer "yes" could you come to the conclusions you have about the job done by Ms. Nuland on that day.

MR TONER: No, I mean, I think if you ask Ms. Nuland, Toria – and certainly we have, and I've spoken with her personally about it – she had no knowledge at that date that we were conducting bilateral talks with Iran. And if you extrapolate or go forward in time to Jen Psaki's comments on that date, she was simply stating that sometimes negotiations – or, rather, diplomacy needs a level of secrecy. She wasn't condoning --

QUESTION: But that wasn't the false statement.

MR TONER: It wasn't a false statement.

QUESTION: Right, it was Ms. Nuland's statement that was false --

MR TONER: And I said she had no knowledge at the time that she made that comment that there were, in fact, negotiations going on with Iran.

QUESTION: But if she had no knowledge, why would she say they're not going on? Isn't proving a negative a little difficult?

MR TONER: Because she was speaking on what she knew. I mean – if – I mean, pick a issue. If you'd asked me what – I would certainly – I wouldn't offer that it was possibly happening if I – to the best of my knowledge I believed it wasn't, and that was her starting point.

QUESTION: Couldn't she say, "I'll find out?"

MR TONER: Look --

QUESTION: Can I ask to --

MR TONER: -- I'll let my statement stand.

QUESTION: Can I ask to clarify one important point here? You basically said your rule – you ruled out that the White House was involved, yet you have no idea who made the order. How do you rule out the White House?

MR TONER: I mean, look, Justin – I mean, we've taken it to the level that we've pursued this.

QUESTION: But you can't rule out the – look, the --

MR TONER: I can't rule out the --

QUESTION: You can't rule out the White House. Is that correct?

MR TONER: I mean, I can't rule out categorically that --

QUESTION: Santa Claus?

MR TONER: -- Santa Claus didn't call and order it.

QUESTION: Or the White House.

MR TONER: I mean --

QUESTION: You would agree with that statement?

MR TONER: I just can't definitively say that anyone – what – I mean, all we know and all I have shared --

QUESTION: Right. Well, that's why I'm asking, because you kind of – yeah. I was just asking for clarification.

MR TONER: And I – no, but I'm not --

QUESTION: Can't you say you'll find out?

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, are you interested in finding out, or is it just – this is – it is a done deal? I mean, is it just now you're going to treat it as water under the bridge? I don't understand why you're satisfied with the legal adviser's investigation that stopped with the person who actually just did it and on instruction from someone else, and you don't – doesn't go any higher.

MR TONER: I mean, we've hit a dead end. Arshad's point notwithstanding that we could maybe unearth phone records and pursue that – I don't know if that's even viable. But we've hit a dead end, and we're not an autocratic government that can force someone to say what we've – what they've already offered. We – this is – this was a civil conversation with --

QUESTION: Right. Waterboarding is out of the question, I assume. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: And Mark, one of the reasons I ask about the White House is because it's important to note that Ben Rhodes has been sort of accused of trying to manipulate the press on the whole scope of the Iran negotiation. So I'd ask you this: Did you ask Ben Rhodes if he was – if he made the call to edit the tape?

MR TONER: We, as we often do, have talked to our colleagues in the White House and the NSC about this and about a lot of issues. And look, I mean, that's a huge conclusion to jump to. We are at this point satisfied that this came with – from within the bureau. We don't have any indication to believe that it came from outside the Public Affairs Bureau. If we get an indication that that was the case, then we'll pursue that. But at this point we don't have that, so all we're doing based on that knowledge is taking steps, moving forward to put in place procedures and regulations that will keep this from happening in the future.

QUESTION: Mark, are all --

QUESTION: And can I just – can I just repeat my appeal – my plea for the --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- to get the new guidance, the new regulation?

MR TONER: Of course, yeah. I think we can share that.

QUESTION: Mark, are all of your talking points here at the State Department scrubbed by the White House when it comes to the subject of Iran?

MR TONER: No. No, but we often share with them, I mean, and they share theirs with ours. We often talk about – whether it's Iran or any issue, as much as possible we try to share information.

QUESTION: Is it just a coincidence that this particular exchange between my colleague James Rosen and Jen Psaki was on the subject of Iran?

MR TONER: Oh, I have no idea whether it's coincidental or not. I just don't know.

QUESTION: One more thing on this.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: According to the Foreign Affairs Manual, it is the Telecommunications and Wireless and Data Services Division of the IRM Bureau that is responsible for – or maybe IRM is a subset of another bureau – but that is responsible for – but I thought they were their own – is responsible for telecoms for the department. Do you know if the Legal Adviser's Office went to IRM to say, "Hey, do we have these records?"

MR TONER: I don't. I'll have to check.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you take that one?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: And then also if you can see if there are records – I mean, it may be they don't keep them for three years. I have no idea. Maybe they keep them for five, maybe they keep them for six months. I don't know. But if you can check how long they keep records if they keep them.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

QUESTION: Wait, I've just got – I just want to make sure I got this from yesterday and also from today, and that is the conclusion that you have reached based on the limited investigation that has been completed so far is that this stuff was deliberately removed or edited out because of what the content was; is that correct?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) was too long.

MR TONER: Given --

QUESTION: Based on what you know --

MR TONER: Based on what we know, yes, that is accurate.

QUESTION: And --

MR TONER: Because it was a particular piece of the – of the video that was removed, a particular exchange.

QUESTION: And because of that you have reached the – there is no other reason that you have reached that conclusion? The only reason that you've reached that conclusion is that it's just that one part?

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: And do you think, or is there a sense in the building, that what was said in that edited portion was somehow embarrassing or incorrect or --

MR TONER: No. And in fact, I mean, so two points on that. One is even though that portion was excised or edited, it was always available on DVIDS, the digital --

QUESTION: Right. Which makes it – which would --

MR TONER: The Defense Video and Imagery Distribution System. So --

QUESTION: Which would make it – if it was an attempt to hide something – a particularly inept attempt.

MR TONER: Precisely.

QUESTION: Sloppy.

MR TONER: Which --

QUESTION: And really kind of stupid. So --

MR TONER: And secondly – and secondly, we didn't view the exchange to be all that sensitive.

QUESTION: Precisely. I was sitting here in this same seat when it happened, and I didn't think much of it at the time. So I don't understand --

MR TONER: So what that begs the question is the rationale behind this, and I just don't have a good answer for you, Matt. I just don't.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we please move on? Syria? We've (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Yes. Syria, yes.

QUESTION: Yeah, a little less dramatic though. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: How sad that Syria is less dramatic.

QUESTION: Can you update us on the aid situation on --

MR TONER: I can. So yesterday, as many of you saw, the United Nations, the ICRC, and the Syrian Red Crescent did deliver some badly needed humanitarian assistance to Darayya as well Moadamiyeh. We have seen, however, reports that a full food shipment to Darayya that was anticipated for today did not move ahead[1]. This is unconscionable, and we expect the regime to live up to its deal to allow full delivery to go forward.

QUESTION: So it did not move ahead – it was blocked?

MR TONER: It was blocked. Yes, that's our understanding.

QUESTION: So it continues to be blocked. What is your contingency plan or – you have agreed to do perhaps some airdrops or something like this.

MR TONER: Right. So --

QUESTION: So what is next?

MR TONER: So a couple of points to make on that. First, we look to Russia to exert influence on the regime to live up to the arrangement that it agreed to, because ground delivery does remain the best means to provide this kind of assistance to these besieged communities. And recent deliveries are far from sufficient to provide relief to the hundreds of thousands of people who have not received any relief in years. I think Darayya was 2012.

QUESTION: 2012.

MR TONER: Yeah. So – but at the same time, we are actually – and I believe the UN is meeting on this later today, but we do support the World Food Program moving forward on logistics on how to carry out air operations to provide humanitarian assistance by air. They have looked at – they are looking at a number of approaches. They've tried this in the past. It's just a very inefficient way to do it, and it would also have to be under – or with the permission of the Syrian Air Force. So there are some logistical hurdles to overcome if we do decide to move to air drops.

QUESTION: My last question.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: If the Syrian Government allows these shipments to go through and so on, would that be an incentive to get the talk moving immediately or going right away?

MR TONER: Well, we've long said there should be no preconditions to the talks moving forward. But this simple follow-through on allowing humanitarian assistance to reach these besieged communities would be, frankly, an easy way for the regime to send a message to the opposition and to the international community that it is willing to do the right thing.

QUESTION: Yes, please.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Do you know --

MR TONER: You and then --

QUESTION: The Syria issue.

MR TONER: Yeah, but she had her hand up --

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

MR TONER: Oh, okay. I'll do – go to Syria --

QUESTION: Just to clarify – I mean, do you have a specific number quantitatively what is the size of this humanitarian aid and what is – in compared to whole thing – I mean, like, is it 25 percent of the – or 50 percent or 40 percent of what you are trying to do? And then you are going to the – I mean, the aid, humanitarian aid targeting what, how many people?

MR TONER: You're talking about – you're – the first --

QUESTION: Today's – whatever (inaudible).

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, the first question you asked, you're talking about --

QUESTION: What is the size of this humanitarian aid?

MR TONER: You mean what is the size that we've been able to deliver thus far?

QUESTION: Tons.

MR TONER: Yeah. I did have that in here, but I don't seem to have it in my – what was delivered yesterday. I don't have it in front of me. What was your second question, if I can answer that?

QUESTION: And the second question, another number, which is the – those who are going to be affected by this aid, humanitarian aid: 100,000 people, 40,000 people?

MR TONER: Well, it's hundreds of thousands. And if you group in all of the besieged areas, I believe it's in the hundreds of thousands of people. But let me get you those numbers, okay, in terms of what needed to be delivered and where or what was delivered. What are you asking for? What we did – what has been delivered thus far?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Yeah, we can get that for you. But that's also – I can also refer you to the UN. They're the ones who obviously are --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: -- overseeing this process.

Please. Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Afghanistan. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Pentagon released the heavily redacted results of its internal investigation into a night raid in Afghanistan in 2010 in Gardez, which killed seven people, including two pregnant women. The U.S. military had already apologized for that raid, but the internal investigation concluded that although, quote, "tactical mistakes were made, the soldiers acted within their rights, followed standard operating procedure," so no one involved in that raid faced disciplinary measures or anything. I understand you will probably not comment – not speak to the details of this specific incident, but what should countries hosting U.S. soldiers expect when even with apologies, there is little to no accountability when things go terribly wrong? In other words, can other countries really expect justice from the U.S. military's internal investigations?

MR TONER: Well, a couple of thoughts – and again, not having in front of me the specific report or incident that you're referring to, and I would have to refer you to the Department of Defense to really talk about the details of that incident. But generally speaking – and I think we talked about this, frankly, in light of another tragedy, which was the attack on the hospital in Helmand a few months ago, and --

QUESTION: Kunduz.

MR TONER: Kunduz. Did I say Helmand? I apologize. Kunduz, thank you. But the fact that we carried out very rigorous internal investigations into that incident that did hold individuals accountable – again, I'd refer you to the Department of Defense to speak to specifically what actions were taken, but it was career-ending for many of the – or some of the military officers involved in that incident, to my understanding. But I think generally speaking the U.S. military holds itself accountable for its actions, and if there are credible allegations of either abuses or mistakes on the battlefield, that we carry out very stringent investigations looking at culpability.

QUESTION: Well, there are credible allegations the U.S. soldiers tried to cover up the killing of the women in Gardez, but the witnesses' accounts apparently had no effect on the results of the investigation. Do you think internal investigations are appropriate when it comes to horrible incidents like that night raid in Gardez?

MR TONER: I would say that the U.S. military does have a system in place that allows it to credibly investigate the actions of its personnel overseas – well, overseas and in the United States as well, but on the battlefield. And I don't have the specifics of this incident in front of me, so I can't speak to that.

QUESTION: And would the U.S. welcome an independent investigation by perhaps an international body into this night raid in Gardez, in Afghanistan?

MR TONER: Without knowing the specifics, I'm just not – it sounds like an investigation was carried out by the U.S. military. I'd have to refer you to them to speak to whether an additional investigation would be warranted.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. ever welcomed an international independent investigation into an incident that involved the military overseas?

MR TONER: I – off the top of my head, I can't speak to one or I don't have one on the tip of my fingertips. But again, I'll reiterate the fact that our internal investigatory services are second to none, and we do hold people accountable.

QUESTION: Except for the video.

MR TONER: Yeah, right. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, that's only going to make it --

MR TONER: I'm talking about the U.S. --

QUESTION: I know.

MR TONER: I'm talking about the U.S. military.

QUESTION: Maybe you should give the briefing video thing over to the Pentagon --

MR TONER: I'm talking about the U.S military.

QUESTION: -- if you have such confidence in their investigations, no?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) DVIDS.

QUESTION: India.

MR TONER: India.

QUESTION: If I may, with your permission, before my question on India, can we go back quickly on terror report please? He mentioned about two things – one, foreign fighters and foreign donations. Who is providing?

MR TONER: Who's providing foreign donations or foreign fighters? I --

QUESTION: Both.

MR TONER: Both.

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

MR TONER: Look, I mean, in terms of foreign fighters, we've talked about this a lot. These – many of these individuals are recruited through social media. He spoke a little bit about that. It's something we need to address through countering violent extremism efforts – extremism, rather – or efforts to counter violent extremism. And we're working with governments around the world to accelerate those efforts. But in terms of financing or funding, there's a variety of sources of funding for groups like ISIL, for example. And one of the efforts – the counter-ISIL efforts that we've had success with in the past six months has been really hitting those sources of funding, whether it's oil wells, whether it's money laundering, whatever, but being able to dry up the sources of it that it uses for its financing.

QUESTION: And finally --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- as far as Prime Minister Modi's visit and U.S. and India relations are concerned, so much has been going on in town about his visit next week. What role do you think this building or diplomacy is playing as far as Prime Minister Modi's visit next week in the White House, in Washington? I mean, is there any functions here or Secretary hosting any functions for him or to hosting him?

MR TONER: Well, I don't have anything to announce yet. Certainly, the Secretary will be involved with Prime Minister Modi's visit. I can imagine there will be meetings at some level here at the State Department and perhaps some events. I just don't have anything to announce at this point in time.

But obviously, we're very much looking forward to Prime Minister Modi's visit. The U.S.-Indian relationship is of incredible significance, not only to the region but to the world. We have a broad bilateral and multilateral relationship with India and look forward to engaging on all those issues.

QUESTION: And Mark, finally, this may be the last visit of Prime Minister Modi under this Administration. Anything new we are expecting? Because Modi – Prime Minister Modi will be there, still the prime minister of India, but maybe not this Administration.

MR TONER: I mean, again, I don't have anything to preview today. As we get closer to the visit, perhaps we will. But the breadth of the U.S.-Indian relationship is wide. As we mentioned earlier, it addresses security; it's got a strong economic component. We're looking to build closer relationships across the board with India, because we see it as a vital partner in the region.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

MR TONER: That's it?

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MR TONER: Thanks guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:25 p.m.)

DPB # 95

[1] This aid delivery is actually anticipated for tomorrow, June 3.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list