All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
51:13
Biden Conference Mayhem - January 19th, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, so we continue Joe Biden's second official press conference, picking it off up exactly where he left off, and it's still ongoing, and we'll continue our full coverage.
These unconstitutional efforts, in our view, unconstitutional efforts on the part of the Republicans to stack the election and subvert the outcomes.
We have begun to organize in ways that we didn't before the communities beyond the civil rights community to make the case to the rest of the American people what's about to happen, what will happen if in fact these things move forward.
If I had talked to you, not you, I'm using you in an attorney.
If I've talked to the public about the whole idea of subversion of elections by deciding who the electors are after the fact, I think people would have looked at me like, whoa, I mean, I taught constitutional law for 20 years, a three-credit course and separation of powers, and on Saturday mornings when I was a senator.
And I never thought we'd get into a place where we were talking about being able actually, what they tried to do this last time out, send different electors to the state legislative bodies to represent who won the election, saying that I didn't win, but Republican candidate won.
I doubt whether anybody thought that would ever happen in America in the 21st century, but it's happening.
And so I think, I guess what I'm saying is, Nancy, is that I think that there are a number of things we can do, but I also think we will be able to get significant pieces of the legislation, if we don't get it all now, to build to get it so that we get a big chunk of the John Lewis legislation as well as the fair elections funds.
Sir, on COVID, if you don't mind, you touted the number of Americans who are now fully vaccinated with two shots, but even some of your own medical advisors say that people aren't fully protected unless they have that third shot, a booster.
Why hasn't this White House changed the definition of fully vaccinated to include that third booster shot?
Is it because the numbers of fully vaccinated Americans would suddenly look a lot less?
No, it's not that at all.
This has become clear and clear.
And every time I speak of it, I say, if you've been vaccinated, get your booster shot.
Everybody, get the booster shot.
It's the optimum protection you can have.
You're protected very well with two shots.
If it's the Pfizer, anyway, you're protected, but you are better protected with the booster shot.
The definition right now.
I'm following what the answer is yes.
Get the booster shot.
It's all part of the same thing.
You're better protected.
Okay, Alex, Alper, Reuters.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I wanted to follow up briefly on a question asked by Bloomberg.
You said that Russia would be held accountable if it invades, and it depends on what it does.
It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and what not to do.
Are you saying that a minor incursion by Russia into Ukrainian territory would not lead to the sanctions that you have threatened, or are you effectively giving Putin permission to make a small incursion into the country?
Good question.
That's how it did sound, didn't it?
The most important thing to do, big nations can't bluff, number one.
Number two, the idea that we would do anything to split NATO, which would have a profound impact on one of, I think, prominent impact on one of Putin's objectives is to weaken NATO, would be a big mistake.
So the question is, if it's something significantly short of a significant invasion or not even significant, just major military forces coming across.
For example, it's one thing to determine that if they continue to use cyber efforts, well, we can respond the same way with cyber.
They have FSB people in Ukraine now trying to undermine the solidarity within Ukraine about Russia and to try to promote Russian interest.
But it's very important that we keep everyone in NATO on the same page.
And that's what I'm spending a lot of time doing.
And there are differences.
There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do depending on what happens, the degree to which they're able to go.
And I want to be clear with you.
The serious imposition of sanctions relative to dollar transactions and other things are things that are going to have a negative impact on the United States, as well as a negative impact on the economies of Europe as well.
A devastating impact on Russia.
And so I've got to make sure everybody's on the same page as we move along.
I think we will, if there's something that is that, where there's Russian forces crossing the border, killing Ukrainian fighters, et cetera.
I think that changes everything.
But it depends on what he does as to exactly what extent we're going to be able to get total unity on the NATO front.
If I may ask a quick one on Iran, I just wanted to get your sense of whether the Vienna talks are making any progress, if you still think it's possible to reach a deal for both sides to resume compliance with the Iran nuclear deal, or if it's time to give up on that.
Thank you.
I'll do it in reverse.
It's not time to give up.
There is some progress being made.
The P5 plus 1 is on the same page, but it remains to be seen.
Okay, Kristen, NBC.
Very quickly on Russia, I do have a number of domestic policy issues, but on Russia, very quickly, it seemed like you said that you have assessed, you feel as though he will move in.
Has this administration, have you determined whether President Putin plans to invade or move into Ukraine, as you said?
Look, the only thing I'm confident of is that decision is totally, solely, completely Putin decision.
Nobody else is going to make that decision.
No one else is going to impact that decision.
He's making that decision.
And I suspect it matters which side of the bed he gets up on in the morning as to exactly what he's going to do.
And I think it is not irrational, if he wanted to, to talk about dealing with strategic doctrine and dealing with force structures in Europe and in The European parts of Russia.
But I don't know whether he's decided he wants to do that or not.
So far, in the three meetings we've had, the OSCE and anyway, have not produced anything because the impression I get from my Secretary of State, my National Security Advisor, and my other senior officials that are doing these meetings is that there's a question of whether the people they're talking to know what he is going to do.
So the answer is, but based on a number of criteria as to what he could do.
For example, for him to move in and occupy the whole country, particularly from the north from Belarus, he's going to have to wait a little bit till the ground's frozen, Smegan Kruff, to move in a direction where he wants to talk about what's going.
We're continuing to provide for defense capacities to the Ukrainians.
We're talking about what's going on in both the Baltic and the Black Sea, etc.
There's a whole range of things that I'm sure he's trying to calculate how quickly he can do what he wants to do and what does he want to do.
But he's not, he's an informed individual.
And I'm sure, I'm not sure, I believe he's calculating what the immediate, short-term, and the near-term and the long-term consequences of Russia will be.
And I don't think he's made up his mind yet.
I want to ask you about your domestic agenda.
You've gotten a lot of questions about voting rights, Mr. President, but I want to ask you about black voters, one of your most loyal constituencies.
I was in Congressman Clyburn's district yesterday in South Carolina.
You opened this news conference talking about him.
I spoke to a number of black voters who fought to get you elected, and now they feel as though you're not fighting hard enough for them and their priorities.
And they told me they see this push on voting rights more as a last-minute PR push than it is a legitimate effort to get legislation passed.
So what do you say to these black voters who say that you do not have their backs, as you promised on the campaign trail?
I've had their back.
I've had their back my entire career.
I've never not had their back.
And I started on the voting rights issues long, long ago.
That's what got me involved in politics in the first place.
And I think part of the problem is: look, there's significant disagreement in every community on whether or not the timing of assertions made by people has been in the most timely way.
So I'm sure that there are those who are saying that why didn't Biden push John Lewis bill as hard as he pushed it the last month?
Why didn't he push it six months ago as hard as he did now?
The fact is that there is a timing that is not of one's own choice.
It's somewhat dictated by events that are happening in country and around the world as to what the focus is.
But part of the problem is, as well, I have not been out in the community nearly enough.
I've been here an awful lot.
I find myself in a situation where I don't get a chance to look people in the eye because of both COVID and things that are happening in Washington, to be able to go out and do the things that I've always been able to do pretty well.
Connect with people.
Let them take a measure of my sincerity.
Let them take a measure of who I am.
For example, I mean, as I pointed out in South Carolina, you know, last time when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I got the Voting Rights Act extended for 25 years and I got strong determined to vote for it.
That's what I've been doing my whole career.
And so the idea that I didn't either anticipate or because I didn't speak to it as fervently as they want me to earlier, in the meantime,
I was spending a lot of time, spent hours and hours and hours talking with my colleagues on the Democratic side, trying to get them to agree that if in fact this occurred, if this push continued, that they would be there for John Lewis.
And anyway.
So, but I think that's a problem that is my own making by not communicating as much as I should have.
Yet, you find that when you deal with members of the Black Caucus and others in the United States Congress, I still have very close working relationships.
So it's like every community.
I'm sure that there are those in the community, and I'm a big labor guy.
I'm sure there's people in labor saying, why haven't I been able to do A, B, C, or D?
So it's just going to take a little bit of time.
You put Vice President Harris in charge of voting rights.
Are you satisfied with her work on this issue?
And can you guarantee, do you commit that she will be your running mate in 2024, provided that you run again?
Yes and yes.
Okay.
You don't care to expand?
Pardon me?
Do you care to expand?
No, there's no need to.
I mean, I asked the question.
She's going to be my running mate, number one.
And number two, I did put her in charge.
I think she's doing a good job.
Let me ask you big picture, particularly when you think about voting rights and the struggles you've had to unify your own party around voting rights.
Unity was one of your key campaign promises.
In fact, in your inaugural address, you said your whole soul was in bringing America together, uniting our people.
People heard the speech that you gave on voting rights in Georgia recently, in which you described those who are opposed to you to George Wallace and Jefferson Davis, and some people took exception to that.
What do you say to those who were offended by your speech?
And is this country more unified than it was when you first took office?
Number one.
Anybody who listened to the speech, I did not say that they were going to be a George Wallace or a Bull Connor.
I said we're going to have a decision in history that is going to be marked just like it was then.
You either voted on the side, not to make you George Wallace or didn't make you Bull Connor, but if you did not vote for the Voting Rights Act back then, you were voting with those who agreed with Connor, those who agreed with, and so, and I think Mitch did a real good job of making it sound like I was attacking them.
If you notice, I haven't attacked anybody publicly, any senator, any congressman publicly.
And my disagreements with them have been made to them, communicated to them privately or in person with them.
My desire still is, look, I underestimated one very important thing.
I never thought that the Republicans, like for example, I said they got very upset.
said there are 16 members of the present United States Senate who voted to extend the Voting Rights Act.
Now, they got very offended by that.
That wasn't an accusation, just stating a fact.
What has changed?
What happened?
What happened?
Why is there not a single Republican?
Not one.
It's not the Republican Party.
So that's not an attack.
Is the country more unified than when you first took office?
The answer is, based on some of the stuff we've got done, I'd say yes, but it's not nearly unified as it should be.
Look, I still contend, and I know you'll have a right to judge me by this.
I still contend that unless you can reach consensus in a democracy, you cannot sustain the democracy.
And so this is a real test whether or not my counterpart in China is right or not when he says autocracies are the only thing that are going to prevail because democracies take too long to make decisions and countries are too divided.
I believe we're going through one of those inflection points in history that occurs every several generations or even more than that, even more time than that, where things are changing almost regardless of any particular policy.
The world's changing in big ways.
We're going to see, you've heard me say this before, we're going to see more change in the next 10 years we've saw in the last 50 years because of technology, because of fundamental alterations in alliances that are occurring not because of any one individual, just because of the nature of things.
And so I think you're going to see an awful lot of transition.
And the question is, can we keep up with it?
Can we maintain the democratic institutions that we have, not just here but around the world, to be able to generate democratic consensus on how to proceed?
It's going to be hard.
It's going to be hard, but it requires.
It requires leadership to do it.
And I'm not giving up on the prospect of being able to do that.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
There are deep questions among Americans about the competence of government.
From the messy rollout of 5G this week to the Afghanistan withdrawal to testing on COVID.
What have you done to restore Americans' faith in the competence of government?
And are you satisfied by the view of the competence of your government?
Look, let's take Afghanistan.
I know you all would like to focus on that, which is legitimate.
We were spending a trillion dollars a week.
I mean, a billion dollars a week in Afghanistan for 20 years.
Raise your hand if you think anyone was going to be able to unify Afghanistan under one single government.
It's been the graveyard of empires for a solid reason.
It is not susceptible to unity.
Number one.
So the question was, do I continue to spend that much money per week in the state of Afghanistan, knowing that the idea that being able to succeed other than sending more body bags back home is highly, highly unusual.
My dad used to have an expression.
He'd say, son, if everything's equally important to you, nothing's important to you.
There is no way to get out of Afghanistan after 20 years easily.
Not possible, no matter when you did it.
And I make no apologies for what I did.
I have a great concern for the women and men who were blown up on the line at the airport by a terrorist attack against them.
But the military will acknowledge, and I think you will, who know a lot about foreign policy, that had we stayed and I not pulled those troops out, we would be asked to put somewhere between 20 and 50,000 more troops back in.
Because the only reason more Americans weren't being killed and others is because the last president signed an agreement to get out by May the 1st.
And so everything was copacetic.
Had we not gotten out, and the acknowledgement is we'd be putting a lot more forces in.
Now, do I feel badly what's happening as a consequence of the incompetence of the Taliban?
Yes, I do.
But I feel badly also about the fishless that are taking place in the Eastern Congo.
I feel badly about a whole range of things around the world that we can't solve every problem.
And so I don't view that as a competence issue.
The issue of whether or not there's competence in terms of whether or not we're dealing with 5G or not, we don't deal with 5G.
The fact is that you had two enterprises, two private enterprises, that had one promoting 5G and the other one are airlines.
They're private enterprises.
They have government regulation, admittedly.
And so what I've done is pushed as hard as I can to have 5G folks hold up and abide by what was being requested by the airlines until they could more modernize over the years so that 5G would not interfere with the potential of the landing.
So any tower, any 5G tower within a certain number of miles from the airport should not be operative.
And that's, and so I understand, but anything that happens that's consequential is viewed as the government's responsibility.
I get that.
Am I satisfied with the way in which we have dealt with COVID and all the things that go along with that?
Yeah, I am satisfied.
I think we've done remarkably well.
You know, the idea that on testing, we should have done it quicker, but we've done remarkable since then.
What we have is we have more testing going on than anywhere in the world.
And we're going to continue to increase that.
Did we have it at the moment exactly when we should have moved and could we have moved a month earlier?
Yeah, we could have.
But with everything else that's going on, I don't view that as somehow a mark of incompetence.
Look, think of what we did on COVID when we were pushing on AstraZeneca to provide more vaccines.
Well, guess what?
They didn't have the machinery to be able to do it.
So I physically went to Michigan, stood there in a factory with the head of AstraZeneca and said, we'll provide the machinery for you.
This is what we'll do.
We'll help you do it so that you can produce this vaccine more rapidly.
I think that's pretty hands-on stuff.
We also said right now, when people, the hospitalizations are overrunning hospitals and you have docs and nurses out because of COVID, they have COVID.
We put thousands of people back in those hospitals.
Look at all the Marine, all the military personnel we have there, first responders.
Nobody has ever organized.
Nobody has ever organized a strategic operation to get as many shots in arms by opening clinics and keeping and being able to get so many people vaccinated.
What I'm doing now is not just getting significant amounts of vaccines to the rest of the world, but they now need the mechanical way is how they get shots in arms.
So we're providing them to know-how to do that.
Now, should everybody in America know that?
No, they don't necessarily know that.
They're just trying to figure out how to put three squares on the table and stay safe.
But so I do think the place where I was a little disappointed, I wish we could have written it differently, is when we did the legislation to provide the funding for COVID and the money we provided for the states to be able to deal with keeping schools open.
Some of them didn't do a very good job.
Some are still holding the money.
I don't have the authority to do anything about that.
I think that's not particularly competent.
There's things that could and should have been done.
They could have moved faster.
So I understand the frustration.
You know, I remember, I think it was, I forget which cabinet member saying to Barack Obama, something was going on.
And he said, well, you're going to be sure, Mr. President, of the millions of employees you have out there, somebody's screwing up right now.
Somebody's screwing up.
So, you know, it's just a, but I think you have to look at things that we used to look at on balance.
What is the trajectory of the country?
Is it moving in the right direction now?
I don't know how we can say it's not.
I understand the overwhelming frustration, fear, and concern with regard to inflation and COVID.
I get it.
But the idea, if I told you when we started, I tell you what I'm going to do, first year I'm going to create over 6 million jobs.
I'm going to get unemployment down to 3.9%.
I'm going to generate, and I named it all, you'd look at me like you're nuts.
Maybe I'm wrong.
President, at least in our recent memory, with as much Washington experience as you entered this office with, but yet after we sit here for more than an hour, I'm not sure I've heard you say if you would do anything differently in the second year of your term.
Do you plan to do anything differently?
Are you satisfied with your team here at the White House, sir?
I'm satisfied with the team.
There's three things I'm going to do differently now that I've gotten the critical crises out of the way in the sense of that movement, knowing exactly where we're going.
Number one, I'm going to get out of this place more often.
I'm going to go out and talk to the public.
I'm going to do public fora.
I'm going to interface with them.
I'm going to make the cases what we've already done, why it's important, and what we'll do, what will happen if they support what else I want to do.
Number two, I'm bringing in more and more now that I have time.
I mean, literally, like you, I'm not complaining.
It's, you know, 12, 14 hours a day, no complaints.
I really mean it sincerely.
But now that certain of the big chunks have been put in place and we know the direction, I'm also going to be out there seeking more advice of experts outside, from academia to editorial writers to think tanks, and I'm bringing them in, just like I did early on, bringing in presidential historians to get their perspective on what we should be doing, seeking more input, more information, more constructive criticism.
about what I should and shouldn't be doing.
And the third thing that I'm going to be doing a lot more of is being in a situation where I'm able to bring, I'm going to be deeply involved in these off-year elections.
We're going to be raising a lot of money.
We're going to be out there making sure that we're helping all of those candidates, and scores of them have already asked me to come in and campaign with them, to go out and make the case in plain, simple language as to what it is we've done, what we want to do, and why we think it's important.
How many more hours am I doing this?
happy to stick around you always ask me the nicest questions I know you do all right none of them make a lot of sense to me but i well let's let's try Fire away.
Come on.
New year.
Why are you trying so hard in your first year to pull the country so far to the left?
Well, I'm not.
I don't know what you consider to be too far to the left if, in fact, we're talking about making sure that we had the money for COVID, making sure we had the money to put together the bipartisan infrastructure, making sure we were able to provide for those things that, in fact, would significantly reduce the burden on working class people, but make them, they have to continue to work hard.
I don't know how that is pointed to the left.
If you may recall, you guys have been trying to convince me that I am Bernie Sanders.
I'm not.
I like him, but I'm not Bernie Sanders.
I'm not a socialist.
I'm a mainstream Democrat, and I have been.
And mainstream Democrats have overwhelmed me.
If you notice, the 48 of the 50 Democrats supported me in the Senate on virtually everything I've asked.
Yes, sir.
I wanted to clarify.
A moment ago, you were asked whether or not you believed that we would have free and fair elections in 2022 if some of the state legislatures reforms their voting protocols.
You said that it depends.
Do you think that they would in any way be illegitimate?
Oh, yeah, I think it needs to be illegitimate.
Imagine if, in fact, Trump has succeeded in convincing Pence to not count the votes.
Imagine if...
In regards to 2022, sir, the...
Well, 2022.
I mean, imagine if those attempts to say that the count was not legit.
You have to recount it, and we're not going to count.
We're going to discard the following votes.
I mean, sure.
I'm not saying it's going to be legit.
The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed.
But I don't think you're going to see, you're not going to see me, and I don't think you're going to see the Democratic Party give up on coming back at assuming that the attempt fails today.
And then one more, sir.
You know, you campaigned and you ran on a return to civility.
And I know that you dispute the characterization that you called folks who would oppose those voting bills as being Bull Connor or George Wallace, but you said that they would be sort of in the same camp.
No, I didn't say that.
Look what I said.
Go back and read what I said.
And tell me if you think I called anyone who voted on the side of the position taken by Bull Connor that they were Bull Conner.
That is an interesting reading of English.
I assume you got into journalism because you like to write.
So did you expect that that would work with Senators Manchin or Sinema?
No, here's the thing.
There's certain things that are so consequential.
You have to speak from your heart as well as your head.
I was speaking out forcefully on what I think to be at stake.
That's what it is.
And by the way, no one, no one forgets who was on the side of King or Verse or Bull Connor.
No one not done.
The history books will note it.
And when I was making the case, don't think this is a freebie.
You don't get to vote this way, and then somehow it goes away.
This will stick with you the rest of your career and long after you're gone.
And Mr. President, folks.
I'm all on your Ukraine, please, sir.
Okay, well, President.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Hang on, guys.
We've only gone an hour and 20 minutes.
I'll keep going.
But I'm going to go.
Let me get something straight here.
How long are you guys ready to go?
Want to go for another hour or two?
Okay.
I'm going to go.
I tell you what, folks.
I'm going to go another 20 minutes to a quarter of.
Okay?
Yes, sir.
President Biden.
Thank you.
I want to thank my communication staff for the great help here.
Well, President Biden, on the coronavirus, we're tragically approaching nearly 1 million Americans who died.
And I'd like to ask you why it is during your three and a half hour virtual summit in November with the Chinese president, you didn't press for transparency, and also whether that has anything to do with your son's involvement in an investment firm controlled by Chinese state-owned entities.
The answer is that we did.
I did raise the question of transparency.
I spent a lot of time with him.
And the fact is that they're just not being transparent.
Transparency on the coronavirus origins.
Yes.
And you did during the virtual summit.
Is there a reason your press staff was unaware of that?
And what did you say to the Chinese president?
And they weren't with me the entire time.
Look, I made it clear that I thought that China had an obligation to be more forthcoming on exactly what the source of the virus was and where it came from.
Yes.
Mr. President, I would like to ask you about foreign policy.
One of the first priorities that you declared when you came to office was to end the war in Yemen, the catastrophic war in Yemen.
You appointed a special envoy.
Today, one of your allies, United Arab Emirates, is asking your administration to put back the Houthi rebels or militias back on the terror list.
Are you going to do that?
And how are you going to end the war in Yemen, sir?
The answer is it's under consideration, and ending a war in Yemen takes the two parties to be involved to do it, and it's going to be very difficult.
Yes.
Thank you very much for this honor.
James Rosen with Newsmax.
I'd like to raise a delicate subject, but with utmost respect for your life accomplishments and the high office you hold.
A poll released this morning by a Political Morning Consult found 49% of registered voters disagreeing with the statement Joe Biden is mentally fit.
Not even a majority of Democrats who responded strongly affirmed that statement.
Well, I'll let you all make the judge whether they're correct.
Well, so the question I have for you, sir, if you'd let me finish, is why do you suppose such large segments of the American electorate have come to harbor such profound concerns about your cognitive fitness?
Thank you.
I have no idea.
Yes, sir.
Thanks, Mr. President.
I appreciate it.
I wanted to sort of address or ask about attention that's sort of been in this press conference on unifying the country, because you campaigned on two things.
One of them is being able to accomplish big things, and the other is the ability to unify the country.
And even today, you've talked about sort of a different posture with Republicans.
And I wonder if you still think it's possible to do both of those things.
We have to.
We have to.
And as long as I hold public office, I'm going to continue to attempt to do both things.
One more follow-up.
Around this time last year when you were campaigning in Georgia, I think one of the things you told people was the power is literally in your hands.
If voters give Democrats the House and the Senate and the presidency that all these big things can get accomplished.
And we've seen stalemate, we've seen things being stymied.
Why should folks believe you this time around?
Can you think of any other presidents done as much in one year?
Same one for me.
I'm asking you.
I'm serious.
You guys talk about how nothing's happened.
I don't think there's been much on any incoming president's plate that's been a bigger menu than the plate I had given to me.
I'm not complaining.
Do that running in.
And the fact of the matter is we got an awful lot done.
An awful lot done.
And there's more to get done.
But look, let me ask a rhetorical question.
No, I won't.
Anyway.
Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Figure.
Be careful.
Don't get hurt, man.
No, no, I'm going to take care.
Mr. President, thank you.
Sebastian Smith from AFP.
Another question on Ukraine.
Ukraine borders four NATO member countries.
How concerned are you, are you concerned, that a real conflagration in Ukraine, if the Russians really go in there, that it could suck in NATO countries that are on the border and you end up with an actual NATO-Russia confrontation of some kind?
And secondly, are you entertaining the thought of a summit with Vladimir Putin as a way to perhaps try and put this whole thing to bed, address that concerns, and negotiate a way out of this?
The last part, the last question, yes.
When we talked about whether or not we'd fake the three meetings we talked about, and we talked about we would go from there, if there was reason to, to go to a summit.
We talked about a summit as being before the Ukraine item came up in terms of strategic doctrine and what the strategic relationship would be.
So I still think that is a possibility, number one.
Number two, I am very concerned.
I'm very concerned that this could end up being, look, the only war that's worse than one that's intended is one that's unintended.
And what I'm concerned about is this could get out of hand, very easily get out of hand because of what you said, the borders of Ukraine and what Russia may or may not do.
I am hoping that Vladimir Putin understands that he is short of a full-blown nuclear war.
He's not in a very good position to dominate the world.
And so I don't think he thinks that.
But it is a concern.
And that's why we have to be very careful about how we move forward and make it clear to him that there are prices to pay that could in fact cost his country an awful lot.
But of course you have to be concerned when you have, you know, nuclear power invading.
If he invades, it hasn't happened since World War II.
This is the most consequential thing that's happened in the world in terms of war and peace since World War II.
Yes.
Nearly two years have passed since the beginning of the global coronavirus outbreak, and you again today acknowledge that Americans are frustrated and they're tired.
Based on your conversations with your health advisors, what type of restrictions do you imagine being on Americans this time next year?
And what does the new normal look like for social gatherings and travel to you?
Well, the answer is I hope the new normal will be that we don't have still have 30-some million people not vaccinated.
I hope the new normal is people have seen and what their own interest is and have taken advantage of what we have available to us.
Number two, with the pill that is a problem that appears to be as efficacious as it seems to be, that they're going to be able to deal with this virus in a way that after the fact you have the ability to make sure you don't get very sick.
Number three, I would hope that what happens is the rest of the world does what I'm doing and provides significant amounts of the vaccine to the rest of the world, because it's not sufficient that we just have this country not have the virus or be able to control the virus, but that we can't build a wall high enough to keep a new variant out.
So it requires one of the things that I want to do and we're contemplating figuring out how to do, we are contemplating how to get done, and that is how do we move in a direction where the world itself is vaccinated.
It's not enough just to vaccinate 340 million, fully vaccinate 340 million people in the United States.
That's not enough.
It's not enough to do it.
We have to do it and we have to do a lot more than we're doing now.
And that's why we have continued to keep the commitment of providing vaccines and available cures for the rest of the world as well.
And if I could, sir, and I should have said this before, Francesca Chambers McClatchy, how do you plan to win back moderates and independents who cast a ballot for you in 2020, but polls indicate aren't happy with the way you're doing your job now?
I don't believe the polls.
Well, why don't you just go down the road?
Thank you, Mr. President.
To follow up on some of the questions about the vaccination program, you've given dozens of speeches this year urging Americans to get vaccinated.
You've talked to reluctant Republicans.
You've said it's people's patriotic duty.
There have been very few mentions of the fact that young children under the age of five still in the third year of this pandemic in this country don't have access to the vaccine.
Can you speak to frustrated parents a little bit about why that continues to be the case and when that might change?
Because the science hasn't reached the point where they're convinced that, in fact, it is safe.
So that's what they're doing now.
You could have asked me that.
I got asked that question about three months ago about people between the ages of 7 and 12.
Well, it finally they've got to the point where they felt secure in the number of tests they had done and the tests they had run that it was safe.
So it will come.
It will come.
But I'm not a scientist.
I can't tell you when, but it is really very important that we get down to that next piece.
One more follow-up on Build Back Better.
When you said it's going to likely be broken up into chunks, you mentioned that the climate pieces seem to have broad support.
You mentioned that Senator Manchin is a supporter of early child care.
You left out the child tax credit.
And I wonder if it's fair to read between the lines and assume that that is a piece, given Senator Manchin's opposition to it, that the extension of that is likely one of those components that may have to wait until sometime.
There are two really big components that I feel strongly about that I'm not sure I can get in the package.
One is the child care tax credit, and the other is help for cost of community colleges.
They are massive things that I've run on, I care a great deal about.
I'm going to keep coming back at whatever for I get to be able to try to get chunks or all of that done.
Yes, sir.
Next man next to you left.
Thank you, Mr. President.
My name is Pedro Rochas Abu Universia National News.
Ah, this is actually my first press conference here.
It's good to meet you in person.
We always have long press conferences.
Awesome.
Awesome.
I got a couple of questions for you.
Number one, you said that you want to convey your message by getting out there in the country.
I wonder if you're planning on traveling also to South America and other countries in the Western Hemisphere, given the fact that China has gained a lot of influence in the region.
And the second question is, what will be your message for residents in this country that are struggling every time they go to the gas station, every time they go to the grocery store and see the prices going high and the pharmacy?
I happen to come from South Texas, where I saw a lot of people struggling financially in the last few months.
And so I think you, I wonder what is the message you want to spread to them.
Well, I try to express, I've asked, I try to answer that seven different ways today about how to deal with inflation.
But let me answer the first question.
I spend a lot of time in South America and in Latin America.
When I was vice president, I spent the bulk of my eight years basically in Europe and or in Latin America.
I'm in contact with the leaders of the countries in the South America.
We're working closely with making sure that we do everything, for example, to deal with helping the countries in question, particularly those in Central America, to be able to help them with their ability to deal with the internal.
People don't sit around in Guatemala and say, I got a great idea.
Let's sell everything we have, give the money to a coyote, take us across a terribly dangerous trip up through Central America and up through Mexico and drop us, sneak us across the border, drop us in the desert.
Won't that be fun?
People leave because they have real problems.
And one of the things I've done when I was a vice president, got support with, although I don't have much Republican support anymore, is provide billions of dollars to be able to say to those countries, why are people leaving and how are you going to reform your own system?
And that's we've worked on a long time.
It still needs a lot more work, and we're focusing on that.
I also believe I've spent a lot of time talking about and dealing with policy having to do with Maduro, who is little more than a dictator right now.
And the same thing in Chile and Afghan, and not the same thing, but with Chile as well as Argentina.
So, look, I made a speech a while ago when I was vice president saying that if we were smart, we have an opportunity to make the Western Hemisphere a united, not united, a democratic hemisphere.
And we were moving in the right direction under the last administration, the Obama-Biden administration.
But so much damage was done as a consequence of the foreign policy decisions the last president made in Latin America, Central America, and South America that we now have, when I call for a summit of the democracies, I call that, and a number of nations showed up for this summit of democracy.
What is it that's going to allow us to generate?
We've actually had a reduction in the number of democracies in the world.
And it seems to me there's nothing more important.
We used to talk about when I was a kid in college about America's backyard.
It's not America's backyard.
Everything south of the Mexican border is America's front yard.
And we're equal people.
We don't dictate what happens in any other part of this continent or the South American continent.
We have to work very hard on it.
But the trouble is we're having great difficulty making up for the mistakes that have been made the last four years, and it's going to take some time.
Yes, sound on the back.
And then I'll go to this side, okay?
Thank you, Mr. President, Alexander Nazarian, Yahoo News.
And thank you for holding this press conference.
I hope there's more of them.
Anytime you have extra three hours, we can do it.
We'll stay for a couple more.
You said you were surprised by Republican obstruction of your agenda, but didn't the GOP take exactly the same tactic when you were vice president to Barack Obama?
So why did you think they would treat you any differently than they treated him?
First of all, they weren't nearly.
All right, the president, well, there's about five minutes left that we're not going to get to because we took a break at the top of the final hour of the program today.
This is the longest, most painful interview I have ever seen or press conference in my life.
It is beyond humiliating.
It is embarrassing.
I am just, I don't even want my mind to go where world leaders are watching this and what they're thinking about this.
And there's so much, so many details that I will deal with.
James Rosen's questions about, yeah, majority don't think you're mentally fit.
Why do people feel this way?
Just watch this press conference and listen to it.
And he got cognitively worse as it went on throughout the two hours.
We'll have full coverage tonight, 9 Eastern on Hannity.
Full coverage here tomorrow.
Thank you for being with us.
And wow, we have a lot to talk about.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
▲
Export Selection