• 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

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 22, 2016

Share
Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL/DEPARTMENT
SINGAPORE
IRAN/RUSSIA/SYRIA/REGION
DEPARTMENT
IRAN/REGION/DEPARTMENT
TURKEY/IRAQ/SYRIA/REGION
PHILIPPINES
NORTH KOREA
DEPARTMENT
INDIA/PAKISTAN
CHINA
NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:15 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Matt's back, Brad's here, and James. And you're here. Happy Monday, everyone. Seriously, welcome to the State Department. Just a few things at the top. I couldn't resist.

Great. We'll start with Nairobi, where today, this morning, Secretary Kerry announced the U.S. Government funding, rather, of nearly $29 million for the Office of the United States – or United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' efforts to focus on voluntary refugee return to Somalia. He also announced an additional $117 million for refugees and drought victims in Kenya and Somalia. He also announced nearly $138 million in U.S. humanitarian assistance to South Sudan, and that includes funds for food aid, safe drinking water, and emergency health services to UN and NGO partners in South Sudan.

Tomorrow, the Secretary will be in Nigeria. We'll have more for you then. He also, of course, met with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, where they discussed Kenya's upcoming 2017 elections, regional security issues, the refugee situation in Kenya, and the importance of adhering to international law in countering violent extremism.

I do, just before turning to your questions, want to note our sadness upon learning earlier today of the death of former – the former president of Singapore, S. R. Nathan, earlier today. President Nathan was a lifelong civil servant whose career spanned all five decades of the U.S.-Singapore relationship, including six years as Singapore's ambassador to the United States and 12 as its president. We extend our deepest condolences to the president – to President Nathan's family and to the people of Singapore.

And I'll start with you, Matt.

QUESTION: Right. Thanks (inaudible). I heard I missed a lot last week, so I don't know – really know where to begin. Apparently, your colleague had some fun up here on Thursday.

MR TONER: Define "fun."

QUESTION: Well --

MR TONER: I'm just kidding.

QUESTION: Perhaps not fun. Perhaps – perhaps fun is not the right word for it.

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: But I'm sorry I missed it. Let's just start with Iran.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: And the apparent ending of the missions that they've been – that Russia has been flying out of the west and the – what appears to be some kind of anger or annoyance from the Iranian side with the Russians. One, are you sure – and in your contacts with the Russians, as it relates to the ceasefire talks and all that kind of thing – that this is over, that this operation of them flying sorties from western Iran into Syria is over? Do you know? What do you make of the apparent Iranian annoyance that the Russians announced this? We'll start there.

MR TONER: Well, honestly, Matt – and I know Secretary Kerry spoke briefly to this during his press avail earlier today – it's – I mean, I'd have to refer you, frankly, to the governments of Russia and Iran to speak to what happened. We're monitoring it closely; we continue to. It's not clear to us, other than what we've seen in various press and public statements, whether their use of this air base has definitively stopped, but we'll continue to watch it closely.

To us, it's part of a larger picture that is alarming coming out of Syria, where we've seen continuing airstrikes in and around Aleppo. Whether they're coming from Russia's bases in Syria itself, whether they're coming from air bases it's using in Iran, or whether it's coming from other places, it's still only making what is already a difficult situation much worse.

QUESTION: So – okay. So there haven't been any conversations that you're aware of --

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of. He hasn't spoken with Lavrov today.

QUESTION: Okay, he hasn't. But not even at the lower level, like the Geneva-type level or the --

MR TONER: I'm not aware that we have a confirmation one way or the other what's going on here.

QUESTION: So I mean, I don't want to say the word – I don't want to use the word "clueless" but – (laughter).

MR TONER: But you just did.

QUESTION: Well, I said I didn't want to use it.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: So how would you – how would you assess your current understanding of the situation?

MR TONER: I mean – so, Matt, I mean, look, a couple of points to make here. One is I'm not going to necessarily speak or address from this podium what we may know through intelligence channels. I know our colleagues over at the Pentagon are obviously watching this very closely.

I guess my major point here is while we noted its significance last week, it doesn't really change the calculus. We know that Iran is supporting the regime and working with Russia to do so. We're --

QUESTION: So does that apply to also --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- it has not changed? You don't believe that these flights have changed the calculus on the ground in wherever it is they're bombing in Syria?

MR TONER: In terms of --

QUESTION: In terms the state of play on the battlefield.

MR TONER: Well, only in that, like I said, I mean, the images coming out of Aleppo last week were, to put it mildly, heartbreaking. And further strikes that are clearly not just hitting exclusively Nusrah and ISIL targets but are clearly hitting civilian targets as well are not helpful.

QUESTION: All right, last one.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: My last one on Iran-Russia, and that is have you seen the reports that the Russians are now negotiating the sale of fighter planes with Iran?

MR TONER: I have not, Matt. I'll have to take this question.

QUESTION: Okay. And then --

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- tied to that is also did you guys ever decide or make a determination on the S300 system and whether or not that was a destabilizing --

MR TONER: I'm not aware we have, Matt.

QUESTION: It's been a while.

MR TONER: I'm aware that it's been a while, but I'm not aware we have – let me take that as well.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Could I just follow on the rockets?

MR TONER: Let me get – let me get Arshad, and then I swear I'll go to you, Said.

QUESTION: I'd like to deal with the judge's decision today with regard to the 14,900 additional documents that the State Department has been ordered to appraise, review, and then to attend a hearing in a month, when you're going to get a schedule for their production. So question one is: Do you believe that you will be able to appraise all the documents within the month that the court has given you? Question two is: Do you have any estimate of how quickly you will be able to review and, if necessary, redact the documents so that they can be publicly released?

MR TONER: So just to confirm because we've had a lot of incoming on this this morning, as you can imagine – so we can confirm that the FBI material that was handed over to us includes approximately 14,900 documents reflecting both non-record, which is a bureaucratic way to say personal, and record materials, which is a bureaucratic way to say work-related, that will, as you noted, have to be appraised now by our folks here at the State Department.

What I can say at this point in time is that there will be a status conference with the court on September 23rd that will discuss the production schedule. And as I think I noted last week, we have already committed – excuse me – voluntarily agreed, in fact, to produce to Judicial Watch any emails sent or received by Secretary Clinton in her official capacity, and that includes within – or rather, within the material, rather, that was turned over by the FBI and which were not already processed by – through our FOIA process.

So your question was how soon do you think we can conduct the appraisal.

QUESTION: Can you conduct the appraisal within the month that --

MR TONER: Yeah. So I think the intent is – sorry, I didn't mean to talk over you. I think the intent is to do that appraisal before September 23rd, and during that – and on 23rd of September lay out or discuss with the court, obviously, a production schedule. But again, we're still in the process of looking at the amount of effort, the amount of resources we need to commit to doing that. But that's the intent, at least.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And do you – to go back what you just said about your voluntary agreement to produce any emails to or from Secretary Clinton, did you mean to say any emails or did you mean to say any --

MR TONER: Work-related.

QUESTION: -- work-related emails?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: And that's always been a – obviously, a dividing line or whatever, a --

QUESTION: So why – do you have a clear understanding of why work-related emails would have turned up in the FBI investigation but not have been – and to be more precise, work-related and record in the federal – in the – according to the federal rules on what is a record – why work-related emails, federal records, would have turned up in the FBI's investigation but would not have been turned over by secretary – former Secretary Clinton's staff in the first place?

MR TONER: So a couple of points to make there. First of all is since we haven't had the opportunity yet to make a full assessment and, frankly, even begin our assessment and complete a review of the documents to determine which were work-related, which were personal, we still don't know – we still don't have a firm sense of how many of these 14,900 are new, that we haven't seen before. Granted, that's a healthy number there, so there's likely to be quite a few. In response to your – what I think is your question, though, which is why didn't we have these earlier, all I can say is what former Secretary Clinton has said, which is that she said that she confirmed for the court that she had handed over or believed that she had handed over all of the work-related emails that were contained on clintonemail.com that were in her custody that she believed were potentially federal records, and she provided all of those, as I said, that were in her possession to the department. The FBI, obviously, in the course of its investigation seems to have found other documents. I'm not sure it's – refer you to the FBI to speak to where they obtained these records from. But I think right now our focus is to move forward with our assessment of these – appraisal of these documents and then figure out how soon we can get them over to Judicial Watch.

QUESTION: But the – if the 14,900 documents include even one work-related federal record, as you say is most likely to be the case, why – should you not have had those already?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think that's something that we're looking at internally, and all I can do is refer you to what I just said, which is that Secretary Clinton, as she verified herself to the court, said that she gave to the – over to the State Department all of her work-related emails that were on her server.

QUESTION: And one other one on this. Judicial Watch has released a number of emails including some not to or from Secretary Clinton. I mean, some are, but including emails between Doug Band, who at the time was either I think an aide to former President Bill Clinton or was working for the – and/or was working for the Clinton Foundation, in which they show requests, which I imagine are not unusual, but requests for meetings with then-Secretary Clinton by senior officials, senior foreign officials. To your --

MR TONER: You're talking directly to Secretary Clinton, these emails?

QUESTION: These – some of them were to, but most of them – the ones I'm referring to were between Band and Huma Abedin --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- regarding requests, and the specific one by the crown prince, I think of Bahrain, asking to see then-Secretary Clinton. To your knowledge, was there any policy on the part of former Secretary Clinton to exclude from her work-related – her emails deemed to be federal records emails that dealt with the Clinton Foundation?

MR TONER: The – I'm sorry, the – just the last part of your question one more time.

QUESTION: Was there any effort – was there a decision by then-Secretary – by former Secretary Clinton's aides --

MR TONER: Yeah, sorry.

QUESTION: -- to exclude from federal records emails to or from the Clinton Foundation?

MR TONER: Certainly that I'm not aware of.

QUESTION: Sorry, certainly that – not that you're aware of?

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: What I would say about those emails is – more generally is that State Department officials, including Ms. Abedin, are in touch with a full range or a wide range of outside individuals and organizations, nonprofits, NGOs, think tanks, others, and requests for meetings with the secretary come from a broad range of sources and through different channels, both formal and informal. That's to be expected. There was nothing precluding State Department officials from having contact with – in this respect, with Clinton Foundation staff. And I would just add to that that the department's actions under Secretary Clinton were always taken with the intent to advance our foreign policy interests as set forth by this Administration and with no other intent in mind than that.

Please, James.

QUESTION: I think in a related vein --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Wait, wait, just one thing on this. After the last batch of – they were not emails from Secretary Clinton but they were very much like the ones that Arshad was just talking about between top – her – some of her top aides and Clinton Foundation folks. One of your colleagues said that you were – that the State Department was sure that there was no impropriety involved in any of the contacts between this building and the foundation. Is that still the case?

MR TONER: That is still our belief, yes --

QUESTION: So you --

MR TONER: -- that there was no impropriety, that this was simply evidence of the way the process works in that any secretary of state has aides who are getting emails or contacts by a broad range of individuals and organizations.

QUESTION: So as far as you're concerned, what, these emails like the ones that just were released today --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- don't show anything new. This is old news; you guys have already looked into this and decided that there wasn't any problem or any --

MR TONER: I mean, of course we're always assessing new emails as they come in, so I don't want to make it look like we just disregarded this.

QUESTION: I mean, these are --

MR TONER: I think that – I'm sorry. Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Go ahead and finish.

MR TONER: No, I just said we'll always assess new emails as they come in, but we're --

QUESTION: But these aren't new emails. They're --

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: But I mean, you guys – you're confident or you know that the emails that were released today have been looked at by people whose job it is to look into these things and decide whether or not there was violation or an appearance of a --

MR TONER: Yes. That is my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: And nothing in there has raised --

MR TONER: Again, I stand by what I just said, which is that there was no – yeah.

QUESTION: How do you address the inference – forgive me, James – the inference that is left in Judicial Watch's statements on this, that meetings were granted to certain people who were also significant donors to or partners with the Clinton Foundation? And they leave the inference that people were getting meetings – were getting consideration, at a minimum, for meetings – because they were big donors to the foundation?

MR TONER: I mean, I guess I would just once again emphasize that there wasn't a single channel for access to the secretary of state – then-Secretary of State Clinton – and for senior aides in the department at that time to have – sorry – to have connections with the Clinton Foundation – which, by the way, was working on, for example, Haiti relief post-earthquake – a pretty significant role in that, in fact – only speaks to the fact that these were important people who had reason to convey information to the secretary. There was nothing that we have seen that implied any kind of untoward relationship.

QUESTION: But my question goes --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- really to the – I mean, it's clear in the American domestic political tradition, it is completely explicit. You pay x thousands of dollars and you get to go to a reception with the president or a candidate for the presidency. And I've been at fundraisers, standing on the outside of them, where there are different levels of money you cough up and that governs how much access you get – whether you get a photo with them or not and so on. And so the question I'm – I want you to address is --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Judicial Watch is leaving this inference there that you pay to the foundation and you get to see the secretary of state. Can you say, "No, that's just not true, that's not how it works"?

MR TONER: What I would say is that we have no clear sign that that was the case. We've seen no evidence that that was the case.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yep. Please. I'm sorry, James. Go ahead.

QUESTION: That's all right. In a related vein – and I should say to Arshad that in fairness to Judicial Watch, I think their public relations people would be very displeased if the record were allowed to stand suggesting that they had simply left such things to inference. They make it rather explicit how they feel about it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I stand corrected. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Fox News has obtained and shared with your office roughly 180 pages of call logs from the office of Cheryl Mills covering a two-year period when she was chief of staff to Secretary Clinton. As you have seen, the individual who left the greatest number of messages for Ms. Mills in that period of time by an exponential order was Laura Graham, then the chief operating officer for the Clinton Foundation – close to 150 in the two-year timeframe. As you know, this evidence arises at a time when many questions have been raised about whether the Clinton State Department and specifically Ms. Mills maintained an appropriate distance from the Clinton Foundation. Can you tell us why Ms. Graham and Ms. Mills were in such close and constant contact?

MR TONER: Well, a couple of things to say about this. First of all, just to step back and to address what James is referring to, these are logs that were in effect spreadsheets that were maintained by – who was then an assistant to chief of staff Cheryl Mills to track, as you can imagine, the large volume of incoming calls that she received about a range of issues. And these documents were released through the FOIA process, I think back in April. So it's no surprise, of course, as I just think I said to Arshad, that State Department officials are in contact with a range of outside individuals and organizations, including nonprofits, NGOs, and, of course, think tanks and others. And that's certainly true with Ms. Mills.

I would also state – and again, I don't know if I'm inferring from your question; I wouldn't want to do that – but Secretary Clinton's ethics agreement at the time did not preclude other State Department officials from engaging with or having contact with the Clinton Foundation.

So you're right; there are these, I guess, 100 and – approximately 150 messages. I can't give you a readout of every one of those messages or every one of those calls, rather, and in fact, how many of the calls were returned and – or connected. All I can say – and I would go back to, again, what I just said – explained to Arshad, is I would note that the State Department at the time was – and certainly, Cheryl Mills individually was a coordinating hub for U.S. and international efforts to – relief efforts in the wake of the 2011 Haiti earthquake. And as I said, Cheryl Mills personally led those efforts throughout her tenure here. And former President Clinton also played a role as a coordinator for relief efforts in his role as the U.S. special envoy – or UN special envoy for Haiti.

So again, I don't want to speculate, but that could well be the reason why there were these calls, simply coordinating on what was one of the premier or most significant foreign relations issues of the time.

QUESTION: On one occasion, Ms. Graham left a message for Ms. Mills referencing, quote, "our boss," unquote. Did Ms. Graham and Ms. Mills have the same boss?

MR TONER: I can't speculate as to who they were referring to. I just don't know.

QUESTION: I didn't ask you to do that. I just asked: Did they have the same boss?

MR TONER: They did not have the same boss. I can answer that.

QUESTION: With these call logs fresh in mind, can you still assure the American people that the Clinton State Department maintained at all points an appropriate distance from the Clinton Foundation?

MR TONER: Again, we have seen no evidence of any behavior, any relations with the Clinton Foundation that weren't completely above board. And in this case, it's likely that what they were dealing with during many of these calls was the immediate aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.

QUESTION: And finally, since we just touched on Ms. Abedin, some unrelated questions about her. The New York Post has been reporting on the presence of Huma Abedin for more than a decade on the masthead of an Islamic journal that published some fairly vile things, including blaming the U.S. for 9/11 and an article by Ms. Abedin's mother in which she wrote that the, quote, "empowerment of women does more harm than benefit," unquote. When Ms. Abedin was cleared to work here in the Department of State, one of the two jobs she held down during her tenure here, was Ms. Abedin's association with this journal known to the secretary or to anyone else in this building?

MR TONER: James, I don't have an immediate answer for you on that. I haven't seen these reports, to be honest. What I would say is that we wouldn't normally talk about someone's clearance process, except to say that, having gone through security process and considering what – the level of clearance she would have needed for the job she – that she held, I can assure you that she was – like any individual, would be fully vetted. But I can't speak to these specific allegations. I just don't --

QUESTION: The presence of a State Department employee or a prospective employee on the masthead of a journal that is published and disseminated would typically be the kind of thing that those who do the vetting around here would, in fact, uncover, correct?

MR TONER: Again, I think they look at a broad range of material. They conduct extensive interviews with friends, families, and when they go to those friends and families, they get second and third sources to talk about what an individual's connections and others may be. But beyond that, I don't want to speak in any great detail about how that process works.

QUESTION: Can you take the question of whether Secretary Clinton knew about Huma Abedin's presence on the masthead of this journal for 12 years?

MR TONER: I can certainly take it. I'm not sure I can get you a clear answer for that. For one thing, I don't know that we would speak on behalf of Secretary Clinton, who now has left the State Department and is no longer here. And I'm – I'm just not, in all candor, sure that I'm able to talk about what was shared about an employee's security clearance. It might be of a confidential nature, so --

QUESTION: And Matt Lee earlier in his questioning today said he was questioning you on the subject you of Iran, but really it seemed to be more about Syria. In the event that we come back to the subject of Iran in this briefing, I would appreciate a chance to resume questioning with you on the subject of the video – the video.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask, because I'd like to ask some questions about – now, hold it.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask, to follow up --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- on Matt's question on Iran.

MR TONER: Of course, Said.

QUESTION: We jumped into the email, we go back now to Iran and Syria. Are we not – is it --

MR TONER: Are you saying I'm running a sloppy briefing, sir? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Listen, I'm fine with any format, but are we sticking to sort of issue dedicated or not? I'm okay with any format, but let's have one. Thank you.

MR TONER: Do you have a question?

QUESTION: I have a question. I wanted to ask on Iran. Remember when you went to Arshad to talk about the emails?

QUESTION: Can we go back to Iran then?

QUESTION: I have a question on Iran.

QUESTION: Mine is about the editing of the video.

QUESTION: Well, not properly Iran, so --

MR TONER: Let's take your question and I'll get back to you.

QUESTION: -- that's why I'm deferring.

MR TONER: No worries. Yeah, no worries.

QUESTION: Can I ask you some questions related to Thursday and Friday's information regarding the $400 million payment?

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: So let's unwind this a bit. On August 3rd, Spokesman Kirby said reports of a link between the prisoners and this payment were completely false. Do you stand by that or no?

MR TONER: Yes, we do.

QUESTION: So there's --

MR TONER: I'm sorry. One more time, the statement – I apologize.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: No, I'm sorry. I was – I was finding my --

QUESTION: On August 3rd, John Kirby, the assistant secretary, did a tweet and it said reports of a link between the prisoners and the payment are completely false. Do you stand by that?

MR TONER: Yes in the aspect that it was conveyed at the time through the – now, let me be clear, through the article that was written that conveyed that it was some kind of ransom or quid pro quo, and we've been very adamant about defending that it was not done in that manner.

QUESTION: He didn't say reports of – he said "reports of a link" was the quote, not reports of ransom regarding an aspect of something. Do you stand by that there was no link between these?

MR TONER: Again, what we stand by is the fact that there was no ransom or quid pro quo.

QUESTION: Okay, that's not what he said at the time. In the briefing, he said on Thursday that the money was used as leverage and there is a connection. He used the word "connection." Do you stand by that?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Today at the White House briefing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he wouldn't have used the word "leverage" and he refused to use the word "leverage." Do you understand why the White House isn't accepting your latest rationale for the money?

MR TONER: First of all, I wouldn't – well, look, there's a lot of wordplay here, perhaps on both our parts. So what is clear about the way this occurred – and we've tried to address this on a variety of occasions – on a number of occasions, rather, and perhaps we haven't done a good enough job at it. But we have tried to, if you will, pull back the veil on what happened, and what happened was on that day in the final hours, there was the culmination of three lines of effort: the Iran nuclear deal; the release of our detainees, and also on our side the release of Iranian prisoners held in U.S. prisons; and then, thirdly, the Hague settlement. In the final hours – minutes, if you will – there were snags in the process. It was not as smooth as one would always hope for. Things happen. We've recognized that and we've talked about that, and in fact, what I strongly defend is what John said last week, which is it would have been imprudent for us to have handed over that money and not used it as leverage or however you – whatever type of description you want to give it, except for ransom. It was not ransom because this was money that we owed the Iranian Government. But in those final moments, it was decided that we were certainly going to use it as leverage in that particular moment until our citizens were back on a plane and safely out of Iranian airspace. And again, we stand by that because that was important to get them safely home.

QUESTION: Okay. I can accept that, but you probably should coordinate with the White House so you guys get on message on that --

MR TONER: Point taken.

QUESTION: -- because he went back in time again today.

Since we're lifting the veil, as you said, on Friday's conference call, a senior State Department official said he would provide details on how the $1.3 billion in subsequent payments were made. Can you provide any indication whether that was also cash, gold, silver, check, promissory note, blood diamonds? I don't know. You tell us what form that payment took place.

MR TONER: Look – and obviously we've talked about this offline, rather – I'm trying my best to get more details about that. The problem that we're up against with regard to this particular piece of the arrangement is that we generally don't talk about these kinds of financial arrangements because – and especially in the case of Iran, where we don't have a financial relationship or a business relationship with them – that other parties may have been involved and we don't want to speak on their behalf without getting their agreement to do so.

QUESTION: I'm not asking you for the interlocutor, for the other central bank that was used in that. I'm only asking for the form of payment --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- and maybe, if you can, on how it was spread out. That has nothing to do – that doesn't violate anyone's --

MR TONER: I could try to do that, and I would also – sure.

QUESTION: -- sensitivities.

MR TONER: I can certainly try to get you that information, Brad. I can also – would also encourage you to talk to the Department of Treasury, which also handles that.

QUESTION: I think you should be able to get an answer from Treasury faster than I will, but I'll --

QUESTION: Hey, Mark --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: I just have one or two more.

MR TONER: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: You've been – the Administration has been very adamant that this was done properly. I think in the conference call the senior official said it was fairly above board, the 1.3 billion. Do you – back to the 400 million. Do you know who picked up the money?

MR TONER: I don't. I don't have the – you're talking about --

QUESTION: From Iran. Do you know --

MR TONER: From Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah, who did you pay?

MR TONER: I believe it was Iranian officials – Iranian Government officials. I don't know particularly who individually it was.

QUESTION: Do you know from which part of the Iranian Government you paid?

MR TONER: I don't have that information, no.

QUESTION: Does the Administration know who it paid?

MR TONER: I'm certain they would, yes.

QUESTION: Okay, so that information is something you think should come out at some point if you're lifting the veil, or no?

MR TONER: Well, again, there's – we'll see what level of detail we can get for you.

QUESTION: And then lastly, there's been murmurs – well, more than murmurs – from Congress, Senate and House banking and some others, that – about a congressional inquiry. Is this something you think is a worthy topic of congressional inquiry given the slowness on a lot of the revelations?

MR TONER: Well – given the what? I'm sorry.

QUESTION: The slowness on the details.

MR TONER: Oh, the slowness.

QUESTION: I mean, seven months later we're still going into this.

MR TONER: Again, well, look, we don't have to re-litigate this. Of course, we can, but we don't have to. But we were very upfront at the very beginning about the fact that all of these – all three of these efforts culminated at the same time back in January. That said, certainly we're always looking to provide and cooperate with – provide Congress with and cooperate with Congress on any information it desires.

QUESTION: So if – you'd welcome a congressional investigation if one came?

MR TONER: We will do our best to cooperate with and work with Congress.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Just on the – just on – this is very brief – on the money. You said "last-minute snags." Does that mean you're saying now that the money – the plane with the money was delayed?

MR TONER: I – we're saying – we talked about this a little bit --

QUESTION: Last week, that I missed?

MR TONER: Yeah, last week.

QUESTION: In other words, there were these snags and then you guys went and said, look, you're not going to get your money until these snags are – is that right?

MR TONER: There were – and "snags" is my term. But yes, there was – during the actual handover of the --

QUESTION: All right, if this is old then I --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And then just one more thing. There have been Iranian officials, or at least one Iranian official, quoted as saying that it was a ransom. There's a reason that they think that and – or there's an explanation for why they would want to say that.

MR TONER: Reason why – yes, exactly. Thank you.

QUESTION: But my – I want to go back to 2011 when the hikers were released. At that time, there was --

MR TONER: You're straining my memory, but – go ahead.

QUESTION: -- a bail, "bail," quote/unquote, paid of 500,000. It says – at the time, you guys said it was arranged by the Sultan of Oman. But I'm just wondering, was there any U.S. Government money involved in that that you gave to the Sultan of Oman, or did he just out of the kindness of his heart reach into his own bank account and pay that bail money? Because frankly, either way, that might be where the Iranians got the idea that they could hold Americans and get paid for it. Granted, not 400 million, but --

MR TONER: Well, again --

QUESTION: So the question is --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- was there any American money involved in the payment of bail by the Sultan of Oman to Iran?

MR TONER: I'd have to look back at it, Matt. I'll --

QUESTION: In 2011.

MR TONER: Yeah, I'll have to look at that. But again, I just want to raise again my disagreement about how this 400 million is being bandied about as some kind of ransom or as some kind of money that we, out of whatever motivation, decided we were going to give the Iranians. This was part of a settlement that we owed the Iranian Government. And by the way --

QUESTION: Right, but then you said you held --

MR TONER: -- American businesses and American companies have received similar compensation since 1979.

QUESTION: Right, I know, I know, but then you said you held it up – just now – you held it up until you were assured that they were safe.

MR TONER: No, no, but that's – but so – no, no. So again, just to clarify what John had spoken to last week and what Brad referred to was the fact that when there were some delays and some – frankly, a lack of clarity in what was happening on the ground as we were getting all of these American detainees on – and their family – on a plane to get out of there, we said we acknowledged that yes, we did use it as leverage.

QUESTION: Can I go to the rockets please?

QUESTION: Chairman Royce --

QUESTION: Can I ask about the rockets?

QUESTION: Just to stay on --

MR TONER: Let's stay – let's finish this and I'll get to you, Said. I'm not ignoring you, I swear. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Just to follow up on Mr. Klapper's line of questioning: Chairman Royce of the House Foreign Affairs Committee told Fox News on Thursday that the $400 million went to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Without knowing necessarily the exact destination within the Iranian Government of that money, as you seem unsure right now, can you at least rule out that the money went to the IRGC?

MR TONER: All I would say, James, is I just don't have that level of detail. I just don't know it personally. I can check.

Please.

QUESTION: I want to go to the rockets, but how would you know if the money went to that – the Revolutionary Guard?

MR TONER: IRGC? I mean, honestly --

QUESTION: Would you? There is no way --

MR TONER: I mean, we could always hand it over to someone who could hand it over to the IRGC. I mean, it's their --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: I mean, what --

QUESTION: It actually might have been some --

QUESTION: Okay, all right. I want to ask you about the rockets.

QUESTION: You're not even saying who you handed it over to.

QUESTION: Don't you care? I mean, you would want to know, don't you?

MR TONER: I'm saying I personally don't know that level of detail.

QUESTION: How do you know it wasn't --

MR TONER: I'm certain that the people who we dealt with or who dealt with this knew who they were handing over the money.

QUESTION: I want to go back --

QUESTION: Can you rule out that the Revolutionary Guard picked up the money?

MR TONER: I said I don't know.

QUESTION: That's what I just asked.

MR TONER: Yeah, yeah. That's what he – yeah.

QUESTION: Well, then --

QUESTION: On the S300, now there were statements from Iran saying that they have it, they have the Russian missiles that were, I guess, stopped back in 2010 because of sanctions. First of all, did you confirm that in your response to Matt? Did you confirm that they do have most of these rockets, most of the S --

MR TONER: I did not confirm that.

QUESTION: Okay. Now let me ask you about the – it's called Bavar-373. Is that – it is a rocket that Iran claims it has made on its own and using its own technology, its own resources, and so on.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have a position on that? Would you object to Iran having this kind of missile? I think it was modeled after the S300 --

MR TONER: I don't. We're aware – yeah. No, we've – sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Go ahead. I mean, you're talking about this – news reports of, there's some kind of domestic missile defense --

QUESTION: Right. The president of the country was --

MR TONER: Yeah – domestically built. I don't. We're looking into the reports, and I'd really refer you to the Department of Defense to talk about it.

QUESTION: Okay. But is that something that would – would bother you if Iran developed its own defenses or its own rockets and so on? Because they also are doing, making, or designing or manufacturing cruise missiles and --

MR TONER: Well, again, I think --

QUESTION: And turbo jet engines and all that.

MR TONER: I think therein lies the – I mean, the issue here would be whether it is an offensive or defensive capability.

QUESTION: Okay. And one last question on the role of Iran in Yemen. Are you concerned that these rockets may find their way to, let's say, the Houthis in Yemen?

MR TONER: Well, certainly we're always concerned about any influence that would further exacerbate the conflict in Yemen. What we're trying to push for now, and indeed is what the Secretary is trying to do in these meetings later this week in Saudi Arabia, is work on how do we get back in place a credible peace process in Yemen.

QUESTION: Should we do the videos of the Iran nuclear --

MR TONER: Let's do – let's finish all the Iran stuff. Let's do that.

QUESTION: One more.

MR TONER: And then I swear I'll get to you. Are you Iran or no?

QUESTION: Turkey.

MR TONER: I swear I'll get to you. I don't leave.

QUESTION: I had a hunch.

QUESTION: Do you know who he's meeting in Saudi Arabia?

MR TONER: Yeah, I don't think I – I apologize, Arshad. I'm not sure I have that all listed in front of me. Let me just check very quickly, then I'll get to you, James, I promise.

QUESTION: Okay. What are we reading out right now?

MR TONER: Who he's meeting with in --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: -- and I don't think I have it in here, but let me just check.

QUESTION: Okay. But he will be in Saudi Arabia and in part – it will be at least in part to advance the Yemeni peace process?

MR TONER: Exactly. Yep.

Sir.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. During his briefing on Thursday when he presented the findings of the Office of the Legal Adviser on the edited briefing video, Admiral Kirby recounted a fateful moment back in December 2013 when a female supervisor within the Bureau of Public Affairs placed a telephone call to a subordinate, a subordinate technician within the bureau, and asked for this infamous edit of the video to be made. Kirby stated, and I quote, "There is no evidence to indicate who might have placed that call or why."

Do you stand by that statement?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: The Legal Adviser's report, which was made available to the news media only after Kirby's briefing had concluded, included a section that is captioned "Evidence of Purposeful Editing." Does it not?

MR TONER: Yes. But I believe your statement – again, sorry, I'm just rewinding here – said that we don't know who that person was.

QUESTION: Correct.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)

QUESTION: It said there is no evidence to indicate – Mr. Kirby said, "There is no evidence to indicate who might have placed that call or why." And you just stood by that statement. In the section of the report that I just mentioned it states, and I quote, "The technician did not recall a reason being given for the edit request but did believe that the requester had mentioned in the course of the call a Fox network reporter and Iran," unquote.

That suggests that the exchange between Ms. Psaki and me was, in fact, directly related to why the call was placed, does it not?

MR TONER: I'm not sure it does. I think it actually would just mark where it was identifiable, and that's a common thing. Look, I mean, I'm speculating here, and I think that's the important part to stress here. That could easily have been someone conveying to someone, hey, that's where you find this exchange; it's where the Fox News reporter – everyone knows, of course, your famous visage – would be a place to find that part of the transcript and identify that as a part where there was maybe a garble, maybe a glitch. The fact is we don't know. And I'm not trying to be facetious. I'm not trying to be lighthearted about this. We did conduct an investigation. We conducted over 30 interviews. We looked at the email records we could. We did an honest appraisal of what we could do in terms of finding out what happened here, and we didn't find out – we didn't find a smoking gun. We --

QUESTION: When Admiral Kirby stated that there was, quote, "no evidence" to indicate why this call was placed, that was false, wasn't it? There was some evidence. And in fact, the mention of me and Iran appears in a section of the report entitled, "Evidence of Purposeful Editing." So there was not no evidence, was there?

MR TONER: Again, it's --

QUESTION: There was some evidence about what the call was related to.

MR TONER: I mean, we all – well, look. James, we all know – and that's partly what I – why I made my last point. Look, we all know that it was the segment in which you asked this question of Jen Psaki that was edited from this video – which was not, as we have said many times, the official transcript but was a video of this press conference – video that was always available through other means. But this particular video was edited, and that segment was edited. What John was trying to convey, what the report we believe conveyed – or found, rather – was that there is no smoking gun here. There's no clear indication that this was done with malicious intent.

QUESTION: He said "no evidence." He didn't say clear evidence one way or the other. The point is this person recalls the requester of the edit citing that exchange, so we can't rule out that that was, in fact, the basis for the request. Correct?

MR TONER: I think we can't rule in or out anything.

QUESTION: Okay. During Thursday's briefing, Admiral Kirby acknowledged it to be true that the State Department videos of its briefings are shot with cameras purchased with taxpayer funds and that the employees operating these cameras are themselves federal employees --

MR TONER: That's correct.

QUESTION: -- as are those who upload the videos to the State Department website and maintain that website. And you don't disagree with any of that, correct? Correct?

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: When the technicians operate --

MR TONER: I think I'm being set up again here (inaudible).

QUESTION: Again, with panache. (Laughter.) When the technicians operate the camera for this purpose, as they are at this very moment – they are, in fact, recording the briefing, are they not?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: So would it be safe to say that every time State Department employees shoot the video of these briefings, they are, in fact, making an audio-visual record of the briefing? Isn't that what the video is?

MR TONER: It is. And one of the things we talked about last week was the fact that – look, the printed transcript that we disseminate --

QUESTION: It's a simple question. It's an audio-visual record of the briefing, correct?

MR TONER: It is an audio-visual record --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- not necessarily the official audio-visual record of the briefing.

QUESTION: Well, wait a minute. It's – it is generated by federal employees of this federal agency with federal equipment.

MR TONER: It does --

QUESTION: That would make it the official audio-visual record, would it not?

MR TONER: Not necessarily. I mean, we put – well, don't look aghast. No, there are different --

QUESTION: I was looking askance, not aghast.

MR TONER: Askance. (Laughter.) No, I mean, in all seriousness, this is – we've talked about this last week and, in fact, it's mentioned in the report – is – and we're in the process of consulting with the National Archives and Record Administration on what constitutes official records and transcripts from the Public Affairs Bureau of the State Department. It has always been clear understanding that the written transcript that comes out, that is sent far and near every day, is the official transcript of the State Department.

Now let me just finish. Now, the video transcript of this briefing was offered --

QUESTION: It's not a transcript. It is a video.

MR TONER: -- or rather, video of the briefing – thank you – that was put up on various platforms was frankly first done as a courtesy and also as a way to get the video out to different audiences, to other audiences that might not necessarily be on the mailing list of the State Department or want a printed transcript of the briefing. We also – as I said, that same video was put up on DVIDS – or a different version of it, but put up on DVIDS, that was unedited. I'm just saying that it was not the official video – or official transcript of that said briefing.

QUESTION: We know it wasn't the official transcript. The transcript was the official transcript.

MR TONER: Correctly.

QUESTION: I think, Mark, that you know perfectly well that whether we're speaking in colloquial or strict technical terms, you are engaged in an elaborate kabuki with other angels on the head of a pin when you seek to tell us that the official video of the State Department's briefings, prepared by State Department employees, is not the official video or may not be considered the official video. The unofficial videos of these briefings are the ones that the news organizations take. You know this. The official video is the one that your department creates. But be that as it may, my final question on this is to try to be of some --

MR TONER: I don't get to rebut that? (Laughter)

QUESTION: -- some help to you --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- in your discussions with the National Archives and Records Administration. The Federal Records Act defines presidential records as, quote, "audio and visual records or other mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form," unquote, and encompasses any such records generated by, quote, "a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President in his official duties."

Given that you, from this podium, in this very briefing, have just acknowledged that the State Department videos created and maintained with State Department funds and employees are, in fact, an audio-visual record of these proceedings, then why wouldn't we imagine that they are covered under the Federal Records Act, which again specifies audio and visual records?

MR TONER: All I can say in answer is that the National Archives and Record Administration, who we're consulting with to see whether any changes should be made to address press briefing videos, clearly recognizes through its current disposition system, or schedule rather, that the written transcript is the quote/unquote, "permanent record," with regard to the briefing.

Now, all that said, what's important here is that we acknowledged that there was a portion of a video of that briefing on that day that was edited. We have acknowledged that that is, for whatever reason it was done, was incorrect and should not have been done. And we've taken steps to address that.

At the same time, it's also important to recognize that if this was part of some grand scheme to somehow blot that from the record of history, it was a poorly executed one, because there were plenty of other sources, including news reports, that came out of that exchange. So let me just finish. All we're trying to say here is that there were other sources out there of this briefing, of this exchange within the briefing, and that we acknowledge that this edit, deliberate or otherwise, to this particular video – well, we know it was deliberate. Sorry, let me correct myself. We don't know why it was done. That that edit should not have been done, and we have now put into place a policy that will forbid that from happening or prevent that from happening in the future.

QUESTION: I agree with you; it wasn't a great advertisement for the efficacy of government. Let me finish by simply asking you, because both you and Admiral Kirby have raised this question, this notion, that these videos were only made and uploaded to the State Department website as a courtesy.

Is it the posture of the department that only records that are generated as a result of some statutory obligation should be counted as federal records, or those records that are generated as a courtesy or from some other human motivation aren't necessarily to be considered federal records? In other words, it strikes me that this reference to the courtesy, the great courtesy that you showed the American people in recording and archiving these briefings, that that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's a federal record, and can we agree about that?

MR TONER: Well, while we're having this discussion, I would call your attention to the fact that we are one of the few federal agencies who gets up on a daily basis and holds these kind of press briefings and exhausts the room answering all of your questions. We may not be able to give you all of the information that you want every day that you seek, but we make a best effort every day to answer every question from every person in this room who comes in here who has a question about the conduct or the content of our foreign policy. And I'm proud of that personally and professionally.

Now with regard to whether this is the – should be considered an official transcript, I'm only citing chapter --

QUESTION: A federal record.

MR TONER: -- of a federal record, thank you. I can't speak to that in terms of whether that – we should have that semantic argument.

QUESTION: Come on, this has gone on forever.

QUESTION: The presence of courtesy is not a – excuse me.

MR TONER: I agree.

QUESTION: The presence of courtesy is not determinative as to whether something's a federal record. Am I correct about that?

MR TONER: Again --

QUESTION: Since you keep raising it.

MR TONER: Well, I keep raising the fact that there were other records out there, one of which was considered the permanent record. Let's leave it there.

Please.

QUESTION: Okay. Kurdish President Masoud Barzani will be meeting with Vice President Biden in Turkey. Can you tell us – can you inform us what will be on the agenda of their talks?

MR TONER: I cannot, and I'm sorry – you've waited so long for that question. No, I mean, look, I'd have to refer you to the White House.

QUESTION: Can you – okay. Possibly, then, since you can't tell me very much, so I'm left to guess, I think the past decade has, quite arguably, vindicated the Vice President's judgment about Iraq when he wrote in the pages of The New York Times that Iraq should be decentralized into three separate regions. One can say that seems to be a keen insight. At the time, the Sunnis opposed it, but I bet you that they've got a different attitude now. Do you think it's possible, if you could speculate, that that spirit of decentralization might be informing Vice President Biden's meeting with Mr. Barzani?

MR TONER: I would in no way whatsoever speculate in that regard.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Thank you. So Jeff Davis, the spokesperson for the Pentagon, said this over the weekend about the regime airstrikes on Hasakah in Syria. He said, quote, "As we've said in the past, the Syrian regime would be well-advised not to interfere with coalition forces or our partners." So the Kurdish YPG forces have been described from this podium as partners and as brave. Secretary Carter has described the YPG as willing, capable, and one of the most effective partners. Now the Pentagon has confirmed that the YPG has come under attack. What does "well-advised" mean? And as Jeff Davis notes, you've warned the regime in the past, as he says, "as we've said in the past." Why haven't we seen any response to Syrian regime airstrikes on the YPG forces, who are your partners?

MR TONER: Well, I'm going to refer you to the Department of Defense to speak to their comments regarding air strikes that they might undertake. But what I think was conveyed was the fact that – and we have acknowledged this – that we have Special Operating Forces, SOF, who are advising and assisting some of the forces that are fighting ISIL in northern Syria. And what was made very clear was if we believe that these personnel, these people, are put in harm's way by these airstrikes, we'll act accordingly.

QUESTION: Not just them. Jeff Davis says "coalition forces or our partners." This is quote\unquote. So meaning that if your partners – as I said, the YPG has been described as your partner – comes under attack, the Syrian regime will be well-advised not to do that. I mean, why to issue warnings when not to follow through when you don't – I mean, why should the Syrian regime take the United States seriously every time you issue a threat and you don't really implement it?

MR TONER: Well, again, the first priority's always the safety of our own personnel. We are aware that the Syrian regime has maintained this base in Hasakah since before the start of our operations there, our cooperation with the Syrian forces – Syrian Arab forces that are fighting ISIL. Our forces and our focus is on the counter-ISIL efforts in northern Syria. We are assisting the Syrian democratic forces in that regard. And as you note, as a result of some of these regime airstrikes, U.S. aircraft went into that area to ensure the safety of our personnel. We're going to continue to maintain very close situational awareness, and we'll always come to the defense, as I just said, of our personnel.

We communicated that to the Russians through our de-confliction channel to reinforce the importance of maintaining separation and safety of flight for any of our operations. But last week we saw regime airstrikes came very dangerously close to U.S. forces on the ground, but in terms of any other comments they may have made, I'd just refer you to Department of Defense.

QUESTION: Follow-up on --

MR TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: So in effect, if there are U.S. – wherever there are U.S. personnel, there's – in a pretty wide area of northern Syria – because that encounter you talked about, they hadn't necessarily struck or dropped bombs – so, in effect, there's a no-fly zone in that part of – in Syria where U.S. personnel are; a de facto one?

MR TONER: No, I wouldn't say that at all, because that requires – in terms of logistics and support and footprint and execution is at a whole different level. What I would say is that any time – and we're watching and monitoring closely where our forces – and it's a relatively small number of forces; let's not exaggerate here – are on the ground advising and assisting the Syrian Democratic Forces, and we see air strikes appear to – or not appear to, but carried out in close proximity to them, then we're certainly going to come to their defense and we're certainly going to make clear to the Russians and the regime that we'll protect our forces.

QUESTION: Well, I understand that, but just --

MR TONER: But, I mean, you said de facto no-fly zone and, again, I would refer you to the Pentagon, but there's – I think there is a distinction between the two.

QUESTION: I agree, yes, but if they don't drop their bombs – you're saying if they committed these airstrikes, I understand that they would fly to intercept, but in the reports of what happened most recently, they hadn't struck yet. They were just flying in the area, so I mean does the U.S. feel that any presence of the Syrian air force in areas where the United States is or might have forces is unpermissible or prohibited?

MR TONER: No. I think what we saw last week were indeed airstrikes carried out by the regime, at least to my understanding, and we very quickly and urgently conveyed that if we see additional ones, we'll act accordingly.

QUESTION: Mark, do you convey to the Syrian Government where your trainers or personnel are?

MR TONER: No. I mean, only in the case – in this case, where we had to acknowledge, I think, that they were in close proximity.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a question on the humanitarian situation, because there was a session today --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: -- at the the national security – I mean – national security, I'm sorry – the Security Council at the UN. They were meeting; they were being briefed by Stephen O'Brien, I believe, on the situation. My question to you: Are you going to go along with Russia's suggestion for or call for 48-hour ceasefires or do you have any other – any view on the issue of safe passages that was suggested by Russia?

MR TONER: Yeah. Well, is it adequate? Not really, but would we go along with it? Sure, because, frankly, any effort to stop the violence and allow some humanitarian assistance to release – to relieve the besieged citizens of Aleppo would be welcome. But it's not sufficient. It's not what Russia had signed up to in UN Security Council resolution 2254, but also additionally, through various meetings of the ISSG, that it would provide full access to humanitarian – to besieged areas for humanitarian assistance. So it's not in any way adequate to the need that is out there, but certainly the sooner the better we can get some relief to these people.

QUESTION: So would you support these corridors suggested by Russia for people to leave and come back and for goods and whatever humanitarian aid to come through?

MR TONER: I mean, again, it's a hard answer to – it's a hard question to answer directly because it's insufficient. And in fact what needs to take place is – more broadly is a nationwide cessation of hostilities. And until we get there, none of these half measures will be adequate. But certainly if you're talking about innocent civilians being allowed to escape from a besieged city, we're certainly not going to turn a blind eye to that.

Please.

QUESTION: Philippines.

MR TONER: Philippines.

QUESTION: A few questions.

MR TONER: Are we done – I'm sorry, let me just – are we – I'm sorry, because I got accused of not finishing out an issue. So are we done with Syria? (Laughter.) I'm just teasing.

So go ahead. Philippines.

QUESTION: Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte lashed out at the U.S. and the UN for criticizing his crackdown on suspected drug dealers, or rather for criticizing his country's methods. He threatened to leave the UN; he accused the U.S. of violating human rights, citing police killings of black people. This comes two weeks after he insulted the U.S. ambassador to the Philippines, also called Secretary Kerry crazy. Do you see this as a departure from normal relations, or is this normal?

MR TONER: Look, so first of all – I'll take your question step by step. I mean, we're very concerned – deeply concerned, I would say – about reports of extrajudicial killings of individuals suspected to have been involved in drug activity in the Philippines. President Duterte's criticism of the U.S. aside, I would defend the fact that we are a nation who believes strongly in the rule of law and due process and respect for human rights. That's not to say we're perfect, but we believe in those ideals, and we also believe that those principles go a long way into promoting long-term security. So we continue to work with and to urge the Philippines to ensure its law enforcement efforts comply with its human rights obligations.

As to his comments about the UN, look, I'd have to refer you to the president or his aides to explain what he meant. It's not for us to parse what he may have intended to say there.

QUESTION: Do you not – you don't see it as a departure from normal relations? Would you say --

MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, we were in the Philippines, in Manila. We had a meeting with President Duterte now several weeks ago. But I can say that those meetings were held in a very constructive fashion. There was a good and frank exchange on both sides about the importance of the bilateral relationship with the Philippines on our part and a desire to see it strengthened going forward; a recognition, I think, of some of the challenges that the Philippines faces in terms of crime and in terms of drug trafficking, but also, on the part of the Secretary – Secretary of State Kerry – a very clear message that law enforcement – effective law enforcement – has to be tied to human rights concerns and respect for human rights. And certainly, he conveyed that message in his meetings with the president.

QUESTION: You said we were in Manila a few weeks ago. Secretary Kerry's meeting – are you referring to Secretary Kerry's meeting with --

MR TONER: Yeah, I'm talking about Secretary Kerry was in Manila a few weeks ago.

QUESTION: So President Rodrigo Duterte actually commented on that meeting, and he said – and I quote here – "Kerry came here. We had a meal and he left me and Delfin" – meaning the incoming defense minister, I guess – "$33 million. I said okay, maybe we should offend them more so this crazy will just give more money just to make peace. So it's all about the money," end quote. Is this normal for a bilateral relationship?

MR TONER: Again, you're asking me, which I think is out of my wheelhouse, to defend the comments of the president of another country.

QUESTION: I'm not asking you to defend them.

MR TONER: Then what are you asking me?

QUESTION: What is the reaction?

MR TONER: The reaction is that we continue to make clear to the Philippine Government about our concerns about human rights, extrajudicial killings, but we're also committed to our bilateral relationship and strengthening that bilateral relationship.

QUESTION: A week ago, Secretary Carter announced a ramped-up military presence in the Philippines. Is the U.S. inclined to ignore the insults because of the importance of the cooperation with the Philippines and of its position on the South China Sea?

MR TONER: So a couple of thoughts. First of all is that we have a long and enduring security relationship with the Philippines, and of course we're seeking always to improve that relationship. So I wouldn't necessarily tie that in with anything else other than what it is, which is the Philippines remains an important partner in the region.

With regard to us looking or turning a blind eye to human rights abuses or possible human rights abuses in the Philippines, I can assure you that that's not the case. We take any credible allegations of human rights violations very, very seriously and would raise them with the Filipino Government.

QUESTION: But can your reserved reaction to the insults and accusations be explained by the fact that the cooperation with the Philippines is important to the United States and it doesn't want to sort of rock the boat further?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, we have a very frank and candid relationship with the Philippines but a good relationship with the Philippines. They're under new leadership now with President Duterte. He is well known, as we all know in this room, as a plain-speaking, I guess, politician. It's not for me to judge that. I'm just going to say that we continue to work with the Filipino Government on a broad range of bilateral and regional issues, and while at the same time making clear that as Philippines addresses issues that touch on human rights that we're going to make our concerns clear.

QUESTION: My very last one. My very last one.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: The Philippines president bringing up shootings involving police and black people in the U.S. and elevating it to an international level – do you think it is appropriate for him to do that?

MR TONER: I would say it's appropriate for anyone anywhere to ask questions or look at – again, we're a transparent, I hope, country. And as I said earlier to your – in response to your previous question, we're by no means perfect, but we strive to have in place a justice system that is – treats all people with respect and respects their human rights.

Please.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. On North Korea.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong will visit New York next month for the UN General Assembly. There's no diplomatic relationship between U.S. and North Korea. What is the visa status of entry into the United States?

MR TONER: What is the visa status of the --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: -- foreign minister of – I'm sorry, I think I didn't get the first --

QUESTION: North Korean foreign minister visit to United States in New York next month.

MR TONER: We don't normally discuss visa issues.

QUESTION: Yeah. (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: What I would say is – sorry. What I would say is with respect to the UN General Assembly and the UN writ large is that we have certain legal obligations that we adhere to as a host country of the United Nations, but I'm not going to speak to – that often will require us to allow individuals of countries where we may not have – with whom we may not have diplomatic relations to come for the express purpose of attending the General Assembly. But I'm not going to speak to specific individuals or cases.

QUESTION: But he's entering the United States, but – so who give to visa to – State Department?

MR TONER: I said I can't – I've tried to explain this. We have certain legal obligations that we have taken on as the host country for the United Nations that allow us or permit us or require us to provide visas for individuals from governments with whom we may not have diplomatic relations. But I'm not going to talk about specific cases.

QUESTION: Mark, one follow-up on the Clinton email. Looking at the Judicial Watch release today that is saying that there's – you said there's no impropriety in the relationship between Hillary Clinton and the --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Clinton Foundation during that time. Is the argument that you're making is that Crown Prince Salman and other people that are singled out in some of these emails would have access to the State Department and to Hillary Clinton irrelevant of their donations to the Clinton Foundation?

MR TONER: Yes. I mean, I can't – I'm sorry, your – I'm processing your question. I apologize for the delayed response there, because I'm processing the question. All I'm saying is that we the State Department have contact with a wide range of individuals, of government, with governments, with organizations, with NGOs around the world. And so we get requests for meetings or time with the Secretary or access to the Secretary from a variety of sources. All I'm saying in this case is that no one below the secretary was prohibited from having relations with the Clinton Foundation at that time. So it's not surprising or necessarily does it indicate something nefarious was going on that we were receiving messages or getting input from the Clinton Foundation as to who this person might meet with.

QUESTION: So it would not be unusual for, say, the – some member of the Saudi family to have access to the Secretary of State for a meeting or --

MR TONER: Well, again, it depends on what the issue was, what the subject matter, what the – it's hard for me to just categorically say yes or no. Sorry.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV.

MR TONER: Can we just do one or two more questions? I've been up here a long time.

QUESTION: So a case of sedition has been registered against Amnesty International in India after they staged an event called "Broken Families" on the situation of different families in Indian-held Kashmir. So do you have anything to say to Amnesty or to Indian authorities on this?

MR TONER: You're saying – one more time, I apologize. Amnesty --

QUESTION: A case of sedition against Amnesty International in India.

MR TONER: With – against Amnesty International, I'm sorry. Well, we obviously, as we do around the world, support the right to freedom of expression and assembly, including through civil society. We've seen these reports that local police in Bangalore have initiated preliminary investigation into allegations of sedition against Amnesty International. I direct you to the Bangalore police for more details into this investigation, but certainly we, as I said, respect the right for Amnesty and others to express themselves freely.

QUESTION: The Pakistani and Indian authorities have expressed their desire to restart the dialogue process, but both the countries have their own agendas. Pakistan wants to talk about the Kashmir, while India wants to talk about the cross-border terrorism. Sir, Pakistan on different occasions seek U.S. role for mediation between the two countries. Will United States come forward as a mediator?

MR TONER: Well, first of all, we strongly support all efforts between India and Pakistan to – that can contribute to a more stable and prosperous region, and that includes meetings at any level between Indian and Pakistani officials. Our longstanding position has always been that India and Pakistan stand to benefit from a normalization of relations and practical cooperation, and so we would be encouraged that India and Pakistan continue to engage in direct dialogue aimed at reducing tensions.

So I'm going to get to --

QUESTION: Sir, may I ask one last question? Please, sir, it's very important.

MR TONER: No, please. One more --

QUESTION: One more on China.

MR TONER: No, go ahead, sir. And then he had a --

QUESTION: Yeah. China issued new guidelines on Sunday that aimed at establishing a stronger Communist Party presence in all NGOs in China. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: I believe I do. You're talking about the charity law, I believe. Look, a vibrant civil society is important to development of any country around the globe, and we urge China to uphold the assurances it has given that it will welcome and foster engagement with civil society, and engagement with civil society, including an active role for non-governmental organizations from other countries.

And you had one more?

QUESTION: Yes, on North Korea.

MR TONER: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: So the – I know there's a big U.S.-Korea exercise taking place starting today, 25,000 U.S. troops. North Korea's rhetoric has kind of ramped up and the president of South Korea today was referencing it, saying that North Korea is planning a – is prepared for a pre-emptive Korea-style nuclear strike in case the exercise poses a threat to them. Is there any – I know that this building doesn't comment too regularly on the rhetoric out of North Korea, but is there any concern? I mean, a year ago they shelled South Korea during the same period. Is there any concern that North Korea might take action now?

MR TONER: Well, again, I'd refer you to the Department of Defense to talk about our military cooperation exercises, but to speak broadly to your question, is there any concern given the level of erratic behavior that we've seen on the part of – on behalf of North Korea over the past – certainly past six or seven months? There's always concern, but I don't think that's going to keep us from moving forward.

Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:32 p.m.)