Michelle Obama: 'I will not run for president' - CNNPolitics
Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd once offered President Obama an entire episode to Brian Flood | May 13, @ AM Also Read: President Obama Drops N-Word in Marc Maron Radio Interview: We're 'Not Cured' of Racism. President Obama with the actor Bryan Cranston in the private dining room of ( Mr. Cranston, 60, won a Tony Award in for his performance in “All the Does it bum you out to be the guy who stresses out most people he meets? I give credit to the press for sticking with an unspoken rule not to follow. Oct 2, In , NBC installed Todd as moderator of Meet the Press, perhaps media team this year, with several Meet the Press interviews making.
Chuck Todd lands President Obama for first 'Meet The Press' - POLITICO
I think an all-Democratic Congress would have provided an even better opportunity for tax reform. But I think, talking to Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell that they are serious about wanting to get some things done.
The tax area is one area where we can get things done. And I think in the coming weeks leading up to the State of Union, there will be some conversations at the staff levels about what principles each side are looking at. There are companies that are parking money outside the country because of tax avoidance. In terms of corporate inversion, those are situations where companies really are headquartered here but, on paper, switch their headquarters to see if they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
I think that needs to be fixed. So, fairness, everybody paying their fair share, everybody taking responsibility I think is going to be very important. How we do that -- the devil is in the details.
We are way behind. And early on we indicated that there is a way of us potentially doing corporate tax reform, lowering rates, eliminating loopholes so everybody is paying their fair share, and during that transition also providing a mechanism where we can get some infrastructure built.
I wanted to ask about Cuba. What would you say to dissidents or democracy advocates inside Cuba who fear that the policy changes you announced this week could give the Castro regime economic benefits without having to address human rights or their political system? When your administration was lifting sanctions on Myanmar you sought commitments of reform. Why not do the same with Cuba? And if I could just follow up on North Korea.
Do you have any indication that North Korea was acting in conjunction with another country, perhaps China? With respect to Cuba, we are glad that the Cuban government have released slightly over 50 dissidents; that they are going to be allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations human rights agencies to operate more freely inside of Cuba and monitor what is taking place. I share the concerns of dissidents there and human rights activists that this is still a regime that represses its people.
And this gives us an opportunity for a different outcome, because suddenly Cuba is open to the world in ways that it has not been before. And over time, that chips away at this hermetically sealed society, and I believe offers the best prospect then of leading to greater freedom, greater self-determination on the part of the Cuban people.
I think it will happen in fits and starts. But through engagement, we have a better chance of bringing about change then we would have otherwise. I think it would be unrealistic for me to map out exactly where Cuba will be. But change is going to come to Cuba.
And I think this change in policy is going to advance that. I had a number of questions on Cuba as well. Do I have to write all these down? How many are there? As quick as I can. I wanted to see if you got an assurances from the Cuban government that it would not revert to the same sort of -- sabotage the deal, as it has in the past when past Presidents had made similar overtures to the government. What do you mean? They sort of had this pattern of doing provocative -- provocative events.
Okay, so just general provocative activity. I wanted to see what is your knowledge of whether Fidel Castro -- did he have any role in the talks? Or did you ask about him? People haven't seen him in a while. This is taking up a lot of time. It was a tragic circumstance that ended up collapsing talks that had begun to take place. I haven't seen a historical record that suggests that they shot the plane down specifically in order to undermine overtures by the Clinton government.
I think it is not precedented for the President of the United States and the President of Cuba to make an announcement at the same time that they are moving towards normalizing relations. And that could put significant strains on the relationship.
And the whole point of normalizing relations is that it gives us a greater opportunity to have influence with that government than not. So I would be surprised if the Cuban government purposely tries to undermine what is now effectively its own policy. And we will be in a position to respond to whatever actions they take the same way we do with a whole range of countries around the world when they do things we think are wrong.
But the point is, is that we will be in a better position I think to actually have some influence, and there may be carrots as well as sticks that we can then apply. My opening remarks probably took about 15 minutes, which on the phone is a pretty long time. And at the end of that, he said, Mr.
Perhaps you have the -- at the end of my remarks I apologized for taking such a long time, but I wanted to make sure that before we engaged in the conversation he was very clear about where I stood.
Remarks by the President in Year-End Press Conference | piliciauskas.info
And then, President Castro proceeded to deliver his own preliminary remarks that last at least twice as long as mine. And then I was able to say, obviously it runs in the family. But that was the only discussion of Fidel Castro that we had.
I sort of forgot all the other questions. With respect to Congress? We cannot unilaterally bring down the embargo. There are bipartisan supporters of our new approach, there are bipartisan detractors of this new approach. People will see how the actions we take unfold. And I will certainly weigh in. Would you have certain preconditions that you would want to see met before doing that?
Can you rule out the use of military force or some kind of cyber hit of your own? They will be presented to me. I will make a decision on those based on what I believe is proportional and appropriate to the nature of this crime. But you didn't make much progress this year on your legislative agenda.
And some Republican lawmakers have said they're less inclined to work with you if you pursue executive actions so aggressively. Are you going to continue to pursue executive actions if that creates more roadblocks for your legislative agenda? I think there are real opportunities to get things done in Congress. I think the American people would like to see us get some things done. The question is going to be are we able to separate out those areas where we disagree and those areas where we agree.Interview With 'Obama's Girlfriend' - All In - MSNBC
I think there are going to be some tough fights on areas where we disagree. If Republicans seek to take health care away from people who just got it, they will meet stiff resistance from me.
If they try to water down consumer protections that we put in place in the aftermath of the financial crisis, I will say no. But on increasing American exports, on simplifying our tax system, on rebuilding our infrastructure, my hope is that we can get some things done.
Immigration is the classic example. I was really happy when the Senate passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill. And so the question is going to be I think if executive actions on areas like minimum wage, or equal pay, or having a more sensible immigration system are important to Republicans, if they care about those issues, and the executive actions are bothering them, there is a very simple solution, and that is: Because both sides are going to have to compromise.
I think this is going to be our last question. So one of the first bills that Mitch McConnell said he will send to you is one that would authorize the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. And also, what do you see as the benefits? At issue in Keystone is not American oil.
It is Canadian oil that is drawn out of tar sands in Canada. That oil currently is being shipped out through rail or trucks, and it would save Canadian oil companies and the Canadian oil industry an enormous amount of money if they could simply pipe it all the way through the United States down to the Gulf. Once that oil gets to the Gulf, it is then entering into the world market, and it would be sold all around the world. Now, the construction of the pipeline itself will create probably a couple thousand jobs.
Those are temporary jobs until the construction actually happens.
But when you consider what we could be doing if we were rebuilding our roads and bridges around the country -- something that Congress could authorize -- we could probably create hundreds of thousands of jobs, or a million jobs.
Once that is resolved, then the State Department will have all the information it needs to make its decision. But it was never going to be the answer to lowering gas prices, because the oil that would be piped through the Keystone pipeline would go into the world market.
Last question, I guess. What is the state of black America as we talk about those issues as well as racial issues in this country? Like the rest of America, black America in the aggregate is better off now than it was when I came into office. The gap between income and wealth of white and black America persists.
We are seeing record numbers of young people attending college. The task force that I formed is supposed to report back to me in 90 days -- not with a bunch of abstract musings about race relations, but some really concrete, practical things that police departments and law enforcement agencies can begin implementing right now to rebuild trust between communities of color and the police department. And my intention is to, as soon as I get those recommendations, to start implementing them.
Some of them will require congressional action. This story is complex and goes beyond a simple "True" or "False" grade. One basic notion that is false is the idea the Obama administration took no action — it did.
The question that has been asked many times since the presidential election is why it didn't do more. Private warnings Among other things, top U. Obama himself told Russian President Vladimir Putin not to interfere in the election. These warnings did not work.
Obama Explains National Anthem Stance?
Publicity Obama administration officials also told reporters on background that Russian intelligence operatives were behind the cyberattacks that led to the release of emails stolen from political figures and institutions.
Although it wasn't universally accepted, the active measures campaign became a part of the political campaign itself. Trump and opponent Hillary Clinton traded barbs about the Russian interference during their debates. YouTube Trump has gone back and forth about what he accepts and what he doesn't about the nature of the attack.
Sometimes he acknowledges it; other times he has cited the denials he has gotten from Putinsaying, "I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. On that point, Trump has been consistent: There was, he says, "no collusion. More on this below. Once it had — and concluded Russia's attack was aimed at helping Trump and hurting Clinton — the United States imposed a slate of punitive measures against Moscow.