December 02, 2024 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and White House National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby En Route Luanda, Angola Aboard Air Force One En Route Luanda, Angola 2:45 P.M. CVT

December 02, 2024

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and White House National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby En Route Luanda, Angola

Aboard Air Force One

En Route Luanda, Angola

2:45 P.M. CVT

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, just one note at the top before I hand it over. I know you’ve all seen the president’s statement on the pardon he signed for his son, Hunter. The president’s statement was quite comprehensive, but I’ll take your questions on this after my NSC colleague, Admiral John Kirby, previews the president’s trip to Angola and takes your question on foreign policy news of the day. And after — after that, we’ll — we’ll continue.

Go ahead, Admiral.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure.

MR. KIRBY: Just two things.

One, I think you may have seen the statement issued by the first lady and the president following reports of the death of Omer Neutra. This is a young, 21-year-old Israeli soldier who was apparently killed on — or during the 7th of October attacks, and only now have the Israelis been able to confirm his death. So, it’s a terrible, devastating loss for the family. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them. Our condolences go out to them.

As you may remember, the — they were two of the parents that the president had a chance to — to see personally in the Oval Office just about a month ago.

So, terrible news and wanted to pass that along. You’ll see that condolence letter.

Now, if I could just jump real quick to what we’re doing here on the trip. We’re obviously en — en route to Luanda right now, where President Biden will have a couple of days of several important meetings and discussions.

It’s a historic visit, not just because he’s — it’s the first time a U.S. president has visited Angola, but because it’s really emblematic of President Biden’s priority to strengthen global alliances and partnerships and, really, of our strategic approach to — when it comes to U.S.-Africa policy.

We have absolutely transformed this relationship, working on a range of critical issues together. Angola has been a strategic partner in working to improve security in Eastern DRC, and it’s also helped to advance the Lobito trans-Africa corridor, which, when complete, will connect Africa from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean, making global supply chains more resilient, creating more economic opportunities for communities across the continent and the United States and, quite frankly, around the world too.

The Lobito Corridor epitomizes the model of U.S. international investment and engagement that the president has championed through his signature initiative: the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment — or “PGI,” as you know it.

Since President Biden and G7 leaders launched PGI back in ‘22, the United States has mobilized more than $80 billion in investments through federal financing, grants, and leveraged private-sector investments.

In the Lobito Corridor alone, the United States has committed some $3 billion, and we’re just one member. The EU, the Africa Finance Corporation have all chipped in to many, many mil- — many millions mo- — of dollars more.

You can expect that the president will discuss all of these and other important issues when he meets with President Lourenço in Luanda later tomorrow.

And then, also tomorrow, he’s going to get a chance to deliver some remarks that both acknowledges the horrific history of slavery that has connected our two nations but also looks forward to a future predicated on a shared vision that benefits both our peoples.

He’ll also have the chance to meet separately with members of congress, members of the Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa, and members of the Advisory Council on Africa Diaspora Engagement, which he established during the Africa Leaders’ Summit December of ‘22.

And then, as we’re looking forward, we see this trans-Africa — Lobito trans-Africa corridor — that project as a real game changer for U.S. engagement in Africa. And that’s why, on Wednesday, he’s going to have a chance to go see for himself, talk to leaders of the countries situated along that corridor — Angola, the DRC, Zambia, Tanzania. And during those conversations, he’ll underscore his vision for stronger U.S.-Africa relationships and greater opportunities.

And I think, with that, I can stop.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Will.

Q Okay. I’ve got two on the pardon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no, no. Can you stick to foreign policy? If not, we’ll —

Q All right. I’ll do one — one there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: If not, we’ll go to somebody else.

Q But I don’t want to run out of time.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep.

Q On Syria, Jake suggested on Sunday that this suggests that — that the — the rebel offensive meant that maybe Syrian allies were distracted, which, you know, might not be such a terrible thing for U.S. foreign policy. But it also seems like there might be a chance that things are really destabilized, and there might be a big- — a bigger chance for, like, a global conflict.

MR. KIRBY: Yeah. We’re watching this really closely. And it’s too soon to know how this is all going to shake out.

As Jake said, it clearly is — it demonstrates to us that — that Assad’s biggest backers — Hezbollah, Iran, Russia — they’re all distracted and, quite frankly, we believe they’re weakened.

Now, whether that is the connective tissue here that means there’s going to be a big change in Syria, we just don’t know.

As — as Jake also pointed out, the group that’s moving in on Aleppo is a designated terrorist group by the United States. So, these are not — these are not good folks.

So, we’re — we’re going to watch this closely, but it’s — it’s really too soon to know what kind of impact it’s going to have across the country —

Q John, do you have any reaction —

MR. KIRBY: — or in the region.

Q John, do you have any reaction to some of the comments by Ukraine’s Zelenskyy over the past couple of days, kind of hinting at a phase post this hot stage of the war, talking about the idea of NATO membership in exchange for giving up the territory that they’ve already lost to — to Russia, diplomatic solutions inst- — to retaking some territory? Does any of that make sense? And — and are we getting closer to the end of this conflict?

MR. KIRBY: You know, Trevor, since the very beginning, we’ve made — we’ve made very, very clear that how — if and however this war ends, it’s got to end in a way that is commensurate with the — the aspirations of the Ukrainian people and, quite frankly, with President Zelenskyy and the policies that — and — and pursuits that he is — that he’s after. He gets to decide if and when he’s ready to negotiate, and he gets to decide what, if anything, he’s willing to negotiate.

Our job has been and will continue to be throughout the rest of this administration making sure that we’re putting him and his army in the best position of strength we possibly can so that when negotiations begin, he — he has leverage, he has some — some power at the table. And that’s what we’re focused on.

Q And one more. Over the Thanksgiving holiday, the president was seen exiting a bookshop with a copy of a book by a Columbia historian, Rashid Khalidi, who has referred to the Palestinian conflict essentially as being an ethnic cleansing operation. Why did the president choose to read that book at this point in his presidency?

MR. KIRBY: Look, when you say something like that, it reminds me of what Mark Twain said, that the — the — a man who refuses to read good books has no advantage over a man who cannot or won’t read those books.

I can’t speak to why the president made that particular purchase. Wasn’t with him. Haven’t had a chance to ask him. But he reads broadly, and he’s fascinated by history and the lessons of history and where that can take us going forward.

So, it doesn’t surprise me that he would go into a bookstore and get a book of history, particularly about the Middle East, to try to imbibe and to try to keep learning.

I mean, he really does believe in speaking, learning, thinking broadly, and that’s what that tells me.

Q And he was — he was actually reading it? He’s actually reading it?

MR. KIRBY: I don’t — I don’t know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Anita.

Q Can we talk about Angola and the security cooperation aspect of this trip? What are some of the priorities for this administration? What are the areas that Angola has identified?

MR. KIRBY: I mean, I me- — I mentioned a big one, which is getting this Lobito Corridor and this — this rail corridor, economic corridor completed. nd it’s going to take years, but there’s already been a lot of work went into it.

And it’s going to l- — reduce, literally by days, the amount of time that it takes to move crops and goods from one side of the continent to the — to the other. It’s going to create incredible economic opportunities here on the continent, and it will help also continue to drive towards this clean energy transition that — that he knows President Lourenço is very interested in.

Q So, the average Angolan is, like, 19 years old. They don’t relate to, like, this cold war sort of, balance of power struggle on the continent that we’re seeing with China and the U.S. And, likewise, this colonial narrative of exporting raw materials from the continent doesn’t resonate with them. What are you offering to them — young Angolans?

MR. KIRBY: I’d say there is no cold war on the continent. We’re not asking countries to choose between us and Russia and China. We’re simply looking for reliable, sustainable, verifiable investment opportunities that the people of Angola and the people of the continent can rely on, because too many countries have relied on spotty investment opportunities and are now racked by debt.

And what the president is trying to put forward with the — with the other leaders of the G7 is a series of programs and opportunities that allow them to build out their infrastructure, improve their economic livelihoods — and the livelihoods of those young people, by the way; give them opportunities to rise and grow and develop without having to be racked by debt.

Q The trip is coming towards the end of President Biden’s administration. You touched on China and Russia. But do you think this trip is enough to, I guess, establish that

level of, you know, interest that the U.S. has in the African continent? Like, the trip is coming so late towards the end, so is this essentially, you know, showing African nations that the U.S., really, you know, is serious about committing to —

MR. KIRBY: I mean, since — since we launched the summit — the African Leaders Summit in ‘22, there have been

more than 20 Cabinet-level officials that have visited the continent. The president will be, obviously, the last of the administration to do that, but he has been preceded by a whole heck of a lot of travel — travel which, by the way — visits, which, by the way, delivered some 40-million-plus dollars of investment and — and assistance into Africa.

So, I — I just kind of push back on the premise that this is sort of a Johnny-come-lately trip at the — at the very end. This is something he’s been focused on since he became president of the United States, and he’s grateful for the opportunity to round out his time as president with a — with a trip to Angola.

Q Can you — are you able to touch on what some of the deliverables might be for President Biden this trip? Are you able to kind of highlight what we can expect in terms of, I don’t know, investment numbers? Is there anything you can share on that?

MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of him and his announcement. You’ll hear more from him on this tomorrow. But I think you’ll hear from him — you’ll hear him talk about additional U.S. commitments to the Lobito Corridor, additional U.S. commitments to global health, additional U.S. commitments to clean energy transition and climate programs here, as well as people-to-people exchanges.

I mean, I — he’ll have a whole raft of things — range of things that he will be speaking to about in terms of current and future U.S. commitment to the continent.

Q John, with the limited amount of time that you have left in office at this point, can you give an assessment of the likelihood of a ceasefire deal in Gaza and Israel?

MR. KIRBY: We’re working on it every single day. And I wish I could give you odds. I can’t do that. But I can tell you, without a doubt, 100 percent of our energy and effort is being put to try to getting this. And it’s really — the — the main stumbling block continues to be Hamas.

And we believe that as they look at the world right now, they ought to see just how isolated and weakened they are. Iran is no longer there for them. Hezbollah is no longer there for them. You know, the — the Houthis aren’t doing anything materially to support what they’re trying to do. They’ve lost their leader, Mr. Sinwar. It’s time for Hamas to come to the table. And we’re going to keep — we’re going to keep doing that.

We’re working with ta- — Qatar, Egypt, Turkey. Even as we speak, there are active conversations that our team is having with them to see if we can get this on the table. There’s no reason why we — we can’t do it. We just have to — we just have to bring it home.

Q John, on Lebanon. Is it concerning to you that Israel has continued to strike Lebanon even after the ceasefire deal was agreed to? Does that raise any concerns about the deal coming to fruition?

MR. KIRBY: So, we are seeing some sporadic strikes in the last few days. This was expected. This is why — I mean, you’re talking about a war that’s been raging now for, actually, many years, if you think about it — certainly, since October 7th. We went from hundreds of rocket attacks to basically zero by Hezbollah and dozens of air strikes by Israel to one or two per day. So, there’s been a dramatic reduction in the violence.

We did put in place a mechanism to actually work out and deconflict and to try to stop these attacks. That mechanism is in — in full force and is working.

There’s a U.S. Army general who is basing himself out of the embassy in Beirut as part of this mechanism process, as we announced that we would do. And that’s — that’s ongoing.

Q What is that mechanism? Can you expand on what that is?

MR. KIRBY: Yeah, we have a — in Amos, we have a civilian and, in the military, we have a one-star general who are sort of operating as our connective tissue to the parties to try to monitor and keep the ceasefire implemented. And that deconfliction process, that system is in place.

So, again, largely speaking — sorry —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no. It’s okay.

MR. KIRBY: Largely speaking, though, the ceasefire is — is holding.

Q I’ll continue on — on the cease- — or, on Lebanon. So, as far — other than the fact that Hezbollah is severely weakened now, what makes this ceasefire different in terms of its chances of succeeding compared to all the other previous Lebanon ceasefires?

MR. KIRBY: Well, again, we believe we have a mechanism in place, a system in place to monitor it and to implement that. And, again, so far, it largely is doing that.

Q Has it stopped any Israeli strikes?

MR. KIRBY: There have been sporadic strikes. No question about it. As the president said when he announced it, Israel has the right — inherent right of self-defense, so I’ll let them speak to what they’re targeting.

But we’ve gone from, you know, dozens of strikes, you know, down to one a day, maybe two a day. That’s a tremen- — tremendous reduction, and we’re going to keep trying to see what we can do to — to get it down to zero so that both sides are fully implementing it.

But this is a — this is the — only a — what? — a week or so old. So, there’s a lot more work to do.

Q Is that — is that due to the mechanism working? As in, is the U.S., through this mechanism, restraining Israel?

MR. KIRBY: I think it’s part — it’s part — it’s part and parcel of the mechanism working, but also the leaders on both sides are committed to this. They are in a — both — both sides in a different place after months and months of going after one another, and we think they both are, you know, still committed to this.

Q Can I ask one about Lobito? On the Lobito Corridor project. Obviously, Trump has a very different foreign policy view from this administration, so how — how Trump-proof is this project, this investment? And, you know, could — could he come in and, you know, if this doesn’t work with his “America First” vision — he obviously thinks that there is a cold war ongoing on the continent, so if this doesn’t jive with that, could — could he — could we see this whole thing fall apart?

MR. KIRBY: I’ll let President Trump and his team speak for what they will or won’t do once they get into office.

We are still in office. We still have 50 days. This is a — a key, major development not just for the United States and our foreign policy goals in Africa but for Africans, for, you know, the countries across the continent, particularly those involved in the — in the corridor itself, those four countries. And it will bring real opportunity to them.

So, our sense is — and you’ll see this for yourself when you all go there the day after tomorrow — that the leaders of those four countries are absolutely dedicated to seeing this through, because they see the value to their young people, to their population, to their economies. And that’s what we’re really trying to do, is drive a lasting investment opportunity that truly has a generational effect on — on prosperity on the continent.

Q So, this can and will go forward — sorry — witho- — without U.S. investment if U.S. investment is pulled?

MR. KIRBY: I can’t speak for those leaders and what they will do or won’t do, and I certainly don’t want to hy- — hypothesize about what President Trump might or might not do.

It’s our fervent hope that as the new team comes in and takes a look at this that they see the value too, that they see how it will help drive a more secure, more prosperous, more economically stable continent.

Q Speaking of there being only one president at a time, we saw that Canada’s premier met with Donald Trump. Did he speak to President Biden? Has Mexico’s president engaged with President Biden over this debate over tariffs? And do you feel that’s appropriate?

MR. KIRBY: I’m — I’m not aware of any follow-on conversations that President Biden had with Prime Minister Trudeau since his meeting with — with President-elect Tr- — Trump on this. And is it appropriate for foreign leaders to speak to an incoming president-elect? Yeah, of course it is.

Okay.

Q Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY: All right. Over to you.

Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Okay. Go ahead, Will. I know you had two.

Q Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. No, no. It’s okay. I just wanted to —

Q So, two questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — to give the Admiral and NSC their time.

Q Fair enough. Fair enough.

Topic of the day: You — you have said repeatedly yourself since the election, the president has said for months no pardon was coming. I just — you know, I wanted to ask you: Could those statements now be seen as lies from the American people? Is there really a credibility issue here, given now this announcement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: First of all, one of the things that the president always believes is to be truthful to the American people. That is something that he always truly believes.

And if you see the end of his — I’m — I assume that you’ve read his — his statement — and you look at the end of that statement, and he actually says that in the first line in the last paragraph and — and respects the thinking and how the American people will actually see this in his decision-making.

And I would encourage everyone to read in full the president’s statement. I think he lays out his thought process. He lays out how he came to this decision. He came to this decision this weekend. So, let’s be very clear about that.

He says it himself. It’s in his voice. He said he came to this decision this weekend, and he said he wrestled with this and — because he believes in the justice system, but he also believes that the (inaudible) politics infected the process and led to a — a miscarriage of justice. This is his words. I’m just repeating what the president said.

He also said that no reasonable person, if you are looking at this in a good-faith way, if you are looking at the facts of Hunter’s cases and can reach — you can’t reach any other conclusion, right? And what we have seen — and not just us; there’s other people who have commented on the president’s actions in the last 24 hours — I’ve lost track of time — and could see that Hunter was si- — singled out and — because he — his last name was Biden, because he was the president’s son. That’s what we saw.

And so, the president believed enough is enough, and the president took action. And he also believes that they tried to break his son in order to break him. That’s what we saw.

And this — again, I am just repeating what the president said. I think the statement in full really lays out his thought process. He said that he came to this decision this weekend, and — and he wrestled with it. It was not — it wasn’t an easy decision to make.

Q But, Karine —

(Cross-talk.)

Q So, when — when he says —

Q One — one other —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Okay.

Q Sorry. Just a re- — just real quick on that. The — the two of them were together this weekend. Did the president and Hunter discuss this possibility? Did they talk about this happening?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, what I can say is he made this decision hi- — this weekend. He made it himself. I don’t have anything else to discuss beyond that.

Q Karine —

Q Do you know if he talked about it with Hunter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I just don’t have anything to discuss. I — I’ve been pretty consistent in — in not talking about private conversations that the — he’s had with his family. I just don’t have anything to say besides the president made this decision this weekend, as he said in his statement, and he made this deci- — this decision himself. Once he made s- — this desic- — this decision, he shared it with his senior

staff.

Go ahead.

Q What changed, though? What ch- — the — the reasons y- — he laid out in his statement, if we assume those to be correct, that’s been correct. The — those are not changes that occurred this weekend. So, what changed his mind this weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, again, it’s in — it’s in his statement. He wrestled with it. He thought about it. And he tr- — he believed and what he saw was that his son was singled out. And so, he made the decision. And once he made the decision, which was this weekend, he decided to move forward with it and not to — not to wait.

And, you know, I think he truly believed enough is enough. This is — this is — we have seen, in last five years or so, the president’s political opponents say this. Not even — I mean, this is not the president saying it; they said it themselves. They were going after Hunter Biden.

Q So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, he made this decision.

Q So, Karine, when the — when the president says that — that the justice system is “infected” with politics, how deep is the rot? And how much of the blame does the president take on himself for the fact that his — his own Justice Department, his appointees, have allowed to — have — have allowed it to get this bad?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Let me just — le- — and I’m going to get to your answers, but I do want to just share a couple of things from — for example, former Attorney General Eric Holder said, “No U.S. attorney would have charged this case given the underlying facts. After a five-year investigation, the facts as discovered only made that clear. Had his name been Joe Smith, the resolution would have been fundamentally and more fairly a decl- — a declination. Pardon warranted.”

Former U.S. attorney to the Eastern District of Michigan, Barbara McQuade, said, “Pardon of Hunter Biden is the best interest of justice. Based on the facts, most federal prosecutors would have declined to charge him. The botched mis- — misdemeanor guilty plea and sentence of the diversion were a tell that the special counsel had the same assessment.”

One more. Former deputy chief of — of the Criminal Division Southern District of New York said, “As SDNY Criminal Division deputy chief, I was responsible for approving charges and non-prosecution requests. I wouldn’t have approved Hunter Biden’s tax or gun cases. If Hunter’s last name wasn’t Biden, I don’t believe he would have ch- — he would have been charged. His pardon is justified.”

And the president says it — I’m going to pull out his statement — to your — to your question. And this — this plays into what I just read with the SDNY deputy chief, which is, look, there was a deal on the table — “a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the courtroom, with a number” — this is the president’s voice — “with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.” This is the president saying this.

Q Yeah, he’s saying his own Justice Department is broken, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He believe- — he believes — he’s — he believes in the Justice Department. He believes that there was —

Q After saying all of that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He believes —

Q He believes in the Justice Department?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: This is his words. He said this. This is the president saying this.

Q He just said it’s “infected” with politics.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — he believes — “I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively and unfair[ly] prosecuted.”

Q So, how deep is the rot?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not —

Q How many selective —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — I —

Q — prosecutions are there at the DOJ?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I — what I can speak to — what I can speak to is this particular case, which is Hunter Biden, who has the last name of the president, who, I just said, there were political opponents who were very clear and very vocal about going after his son. And I just laid out — and there’s more — multiple people who are part of that — who are part of that system — right? — who have either worked in the justice system or currently do so, and they have been very clear on how they feel about this particular case — the cases against Hunter Biden.

Q So, can other — can other —

Q But, Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t —

Q — the judge was also clear in this case. The judge said it wasn’t political pressure when it came to the plea deal. They said this was a process issue, that you basically had two agreements in one and that you can’t have side deal.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep.

Q There were basic questioning —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — in this case that both lawyers could not really answer the questions of.

So, the president, in his statement, is he not undermining the judge and a judicial system that he promised would be independent? The judge in this case did not say —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hold on.

Q — it was political pressure.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And I — and I just talked about the SDNI [SDNY] Criminal Division deputy chief who said he was responsible for th- — for approving the charges and not prosecuting requests. I just also quoted him and what he said, right?

And there are others who have said — former White House counsel said, “If — if I were his White House counsel, I would encourage him to pardon his son. The clemency power has few limitations and certainly would extend to a Hunter Biden — Hunter Biden pardon.”

Former Watergate Assistant Special Prosecutor Jill Weinberg: “This was one of those cases that called out for clemency. Hunter Biden, first of all, would not ever be prosecuted for the gun crime but for his last name. Hunter has now been sober for many years, and this — and this is a time when it is really appropriate to grant a clemency.”

Look —

Q Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — the president — wait. Wait. Two things could be true. The president does believe in the justice s- — system and — and the Department of Justice, and he also believes that his son was singled out politically. And this is what we saw over and over and over again over the last couple of years.

And when his deal — that deal that — that fell apart, which the president said in his statement he thought would have been fair — the president said this — that the Desh- — the Department of Justice agreed with — he said if that had gone through, he believed it would have been fair. When that fell apart, his own political opponents just continued to revel in it.

And one of the reasons the president did the pardon is because they didn’t seem like — his political po- — opponents would let go of it. It didn’t seem like they would move on.

Q Is —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, this is why this president took this action.

Q But is it the same argument —

Q Is the president seeking —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, guys. Okay.

Q Karine —

Q Is the president seeking the resignation of the attorney general?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No.

(Inaudible.)

Q Is — do you think this would have happened if Harris hadn’t lost the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I’m not going to — I’m not going to get into — into the election. It is a no. I can answer that. It is a no.

And what I can say —

Q It’s a no, this would not have happened if Harris hadn’t lost the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, would — what would have not happened?

Q The pardon would not have happened —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, I’m not —

Q — if Harris hadn’t lost the election?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, it’s hap- — what I can speak to — where we are today. And so, I can’t speak to hypotheticals here.

Where we are today: The president made this decision over the weekend. He thought about it. He wrestled with it. And for him, he made this decision because he believed his son was being politically singled out.

Q But we’re wondering what changed his mind. And obviously, the election — in the statement he refers to “enough is enough.” He thinks that there could be further — it sounds like he thinks there could be further prosecution of Hunter under a Trump administration.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He didn’t — he didn’t believe that they would let up. Right? He didn’t think that they would — they would continue to go after his son. That’s what he believed.

And, look, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals, to the original part of your question. The president wrestled with this decision. He made this decision this weekend. And he decided to move forward with pardoning his son.

Q But these systematic —

Q So, does the president believe now — does the president believe now and agree with President-elect Trump that the justice system has been weaponized for political purposes and that it needs r- — root — root and branch reform?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Read the president’s statement. Seriously, read the pr- — the president’s statement. He said he believes in the Department of Justice. He does. He says it in his statement.

He believes — he also believes that raw politics infected the process and it led to a miscarriage of justice. He believes his son was unfairly targeted. He said that what his political opponents have done to my son — that’s his words — is cruel, and enough is enough.

He says he believes in the justice sy- — system. And I said both things —

Q But those are the same arguments —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, but — no, no, no, but —

Q — the Trump camp was making.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, both things — well, I — I’m not going to — I can only speak for — for this president. I’m not going to speak for anybody else. Bo- — both things could be true. Right? And that’s what he says.

He says that the Department of Justice — he believes in the Department of Justice. He also believes that, you know, politics infected the process here. It infected the process. And you saw that when the deal fell apart.

And let’s not forget, the Depart- — the Department of Justice agreed on that deal. The president said if that deal had moved forward, he thought it would be a fair — a fair process. And when that deal fell apart, his political opponents took credit for it. They took credit for it and didn’t seem like they were going to stop.

Q President-elect Trump has likened this to the case of the so-called January Sixers, the people who are in prison because of their role in January 6th. What do you think of that argument? And do you think that that’s a — a fair parallel that he believes he should —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we —

Q — pardon —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Today, I’m going to talk about the pardon. We’ve been very clear about January 6th. The president has been clear about that. He has spoken to that many times before.

What we believe in this particular case is what is unprecedented is the way that his son was singled — singled out.

And this is not the first time a president has granted a pardon before sentended — sentencing. It’s not the first time a president has pardoned a family member. And it’s not the first time a president has pardoned conduct that occurred during a certain time of — time period.

We’ve been very clear where we stand on January 6th. I don’t have anything else to add, but —

Q But, Karine, what —

Q Do you —

Q Karine, what kind of precedent is this setting going forward for American families who, you know, don’t have the president as their dad? You know, is the president taking advantage of his position by doing this? Because not everyone, like I just said, has President Biden as their dad, who can, you know, do this — do this.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me — let me go back to the last thing that the president said. He said, “For my entire career, I followed a simple principle: just to tell the American people the truth. They’ll be f- — fair-minded. Here’s the truth: I believe the justice system — I believe in the justice system, but I — as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice. And once I made this decision this weekend, there was a no sen- — they were no — there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision.”

And as I’ve stated, and I read a couple of — a couple of — a couple of quotes from folks who said, incor- — including Eric Holder, who said, “If his last name was Joe Smith, this would not have happened.” “This would not have happened.”

Q So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: They targeted him — hold on. I’m answering this question. They targeted him because his last name was Biden.

And, again, I think the way the president ended his statement, I think, clearly states where his head — where he was at, how he feels about this process, how he feels about being truthful to the American people. And so, that’s why he put out the statement. And we encourage everybody to — to really take a look about this.

And the last line is, “I think the American people will understand a father and a president” — “why father and a president would come to this decision.”

Q Karine, the United States has more people in prison than any country on Earth. Some are facing a death penalty that the president himself said he would get rid of, has not gotten rid of.

Can we expect that other people who are in prison whose clemency petitions are sitting at the White House are going to have their cases see the same care and attention that the president gave his own son?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, as you know, when it comes to the criminal justice system and really making sure we get to a place where it’s equal and fair, this is a president has taken this very seriously, and you know that by executive actions that he took very early on in his administration.

And he understands what certain communities go through. He has been very clear about that. He has talked about that.

As it relates to pardon- — pardoning or any clemency, the president, as you know, at the end of the year, makes announcements. He’s thinking through that process very thoroughly.

There’s a process in place, obviously. And so, once — I’m not going to get ahead of — of the president on this. But you could expect more announcement, more par- — pardons and clemency at the end of — at the end of — at the end of this term.

Okay.

Q But, Karine —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — why was it the case that both you and the president said well after the plea deal fell apart that there wouldn’t be a pardon and now there is a pardon?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, I’d refer you to his statement. He thought about this this weekend. This is a decision that he made this weekend. He agonized over it.

Q Were there any new details that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, what I can tell you is what the president said himself. He made this decision this weekend. And I think — again, encourage you to read the statement and — really, just the first paragraph and what he’s watched his son go through — an unfair process, being singled out.

And let’s not forget, even in the last two th- — parts of his first paragraph here says “people are almost never brought to trial on fenoly — felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.”

And so, he wrestled with it this weekend, and he made a decision this weekend on how to move forward with this. And so, I’ll leave it there.

Q So, was he not wrestling with it before this weekend?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What I can le- — tell you is that the president himself said he wrestled with it, and he made this decision this weekend.

(Cross-talk.)

Q If he was st- — if he was still — if he was still wrestling with this decision — I guess, two things. Is there anything in that statement that is a new detail in the case that would be a factor in him changing his mind here?

And then, two, if he was still wrestling with this — which, I mean, clearly he was — he wa- — like, we talked to the president’s allies; he was still wrestling with this decision — then why would he declare it off the table? Why would he say, “I’m not going to do this,” if, clearly, there was an intention to do this, unless you can point me to a new detail in the case for which he changed his mind?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He made this decision this weekend. That’s what I can tell you. He wrestled with it, and he made this decision this weekend.

It is a decision that he came to terms with and made it and shared it with all of you, obviously, by — by offering the — his son a pardon.

Q I guess what we’re struggling with is that — his statement basically is a contradiction. It says, “I believe in this system. Enough is enough.” I — I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, I don’t think it’s a contradiction. I don’t. Two things could be true. You can believe in the Department of Justice system, and you could also believe that the process was infected politically. And that’s what the president says.

Remember, there was a deal on the table that the Department of Justice agreed on, and it fell apart. And his political opponents praised that deal falling apart.

And so, in that regard, yes, he believes in the Department of Justice and he believes in the system. But there was a — there was a political singl- — singling out of his son. And other people have said this. I just read through a bunch of folks who are — who are — who’ve been part of the justice system — if not currently, in the past — who have said — you know, I keep going back to what Eric Holder said, because he said if his last name was Joe Smith, he wouldn’t be going through this. His last name is Biden.

Q So, how do you fix that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, he went through this.

Q How do you fix that? How do you fix that problem?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, this is one case, because this is the son of the president. Right?

Q How do we make sure this never happens again?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I — I’m not going to go into — into the future and — and how — and un- — and go- —

Q The president doesn’t have any systemic solutions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.) (Laughs.) Let me finish — let me finish my — my answer.

I just don’t have anything more beyond that. What I can speak to is this particular action that he’s took. What I can speak to is this — the decision that he made. And that’s where I’m going — that’s — that’s where I’m going to stay.

And — and I think — you know, I think that it will be very clear to the American people why he made this decision as a father, as a president. And we all saw — we all saw what was going on for the past couple of years when it came to Hunter Biden, when it came to the cases.

And so, the president took an action because of the pol- — how politically infected these cases were and what the political opponents — what his political opponents were trying to do. And if you look at the cases, there wouldn’t have — it wouldn’t have gone as far as it did. It wouldn’t have.

Go ahead.

Q You’re telling us that — you — you’ve been telling us that he has complete faith in the justice system, except for in the cases where his son was concerned, and in those cases, politics corrupted the system. But you can’t tell us any other instance in which the president believes that politics corrupted the justice system. Is this literally the only time that this has happened, or — or the — the limit of this problem, to get to Trevor’s question?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, “If his name had been Joe Smith, the resolution would have been, fundamentally and more fairly, a dec- — a dec- — a declination. Pardon warranted.” That’s Eric Holder. It is because, from — from what I’ve just read to you, and from what other people, other experts, people who are smarter than I have said, because he wa- — he is Hunter Biden — his last name is Biden, that there were —

Q So, this (inaudible) —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — actions — there were actions that were taken that were far and — and beyond. And so, they said pardon warranted, right? And I read a bunch of y- — I think I read almost all of them that I had for you to share about how people felt about this.

Again, “As a prosecutor, I doubt that these charges would ever have been brought against a guy named Hunter Smith. It was because he is the son of the president.” That’s state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Aronberg. That’s what he said.

Q So, the system works for people — the system doesn’t get corrupted by politics for people whose name is not Biden?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re twisting and misrepresenting what I’m saying. I’m talking about a particular issue right now. I’m talking about the president’s action on his son, pardoning his son, Hunter Biden. And that’s what I’m going to stick to, and that’s what I’m talking about right now.

Q The statement is almost asking American families to understand why President Biden did what he did with the pardon. But for families who have a child who — or don’t have the same resources as President Biden, is that fair to ask them to understand, if they’re not sitting in this position?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.) I mean, let’s take a step back. For the past five minutes, I’ve been talking about why there was a polit- — political infection on this particular case. It’s because it was Hunter Biden. That’s why we’re — we are where we are and why the president provided a pardon. And he believes that his son was singled out, and because — Hunter Biden was singled out because his dad is the president.

That’s what we’re talking about here, and that’s what we have been seeing for the past several years. And that’s what the president was speaking to, and that’s why the president took the action that he did.

Q How soon could the next round of, you know, pardons of — could come? For those who are waiting and have been waiting for some time and aren’t Hunter Biden, how soon could we expect to see those?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have a timeline for you. As you know, this usually happens towards the end. And so, the president is going through that process, thinking through that process. I’m not going to get ahead of him. But you can expect more announcements to come.

All right. I think we’re supposed —

Q What was the —

Q Is the president con- —

Q What was the White House counsel and clemency officer’s advice on how to handle this particular case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have anything beyond the president making this decision. As this — when the president —

Q What advice did he get from the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I’m — I’m not going to get into private conversation that the president has. The president made the decision to pardon his son. The White House informed they have to be — pardons, as you know, have to be filed with the DOJ. The White House informed the DOJ. They filed it with the DOJ, and that’s how the process went.

I’m not getting into a private conversation. This is a decision that the president made himself. Again, he wrestled with it. He made the decision this weekend, and we’ve laid out pretty clearly of what he was thinking. His statement lays out pretty clearly.

He believes in the Department of Justice, but he also believes that his son was singled out politically. And so, he made — he made this decision.

Guys, all right. Thanks, everybody.

Q Do you have time for another topic?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What’s the other topic? (Laughs.)

Q So, there is — there is a — there’s a DNC race going on right now —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — to be the new chair of the — the party. What direction does Biden want to see the party go after he steps off the stage?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’m not going to weigh in on — on the — on the DNC chair election. Not something that I’m going to do from here.

What I will say is the president certainly — what he has seen the 52 years of his career — what you have seen from him is a — is someone who has always put the American people first when it comes to issues that matter to them — right? — when it comes to the economy, when it comes to health care, when it comes to where we stand on the global stage, as we’re doing on our way — as we’re — as you’re all going to see in the next 24, 40 hou- — 48 hours in Angola and as you have seen many times before when he’s traveled.

And the president is very proud of what he’s been able to do on behalf of the American people, whether it’s beating Big Pharma, whether it’s getting ou- — us out of a pandemic and making sure that schools were open, businesses were back open, and that we were able to — to get out of this in a way that was comprehensive, in a way that didn’t leave any communities behind.

And so, the president is going to continue to focus on that: What else can we do to lower costs? What else can we do to make Americans’ lives better? He wants us to run through the tape. So, every day — we have 50 days left. Every day is going to be an important day, just like the next, certainly, 48 hours are going to be.

You saw what the president did on the South Lawn with the first lady, talking about World AIDS Day, making — making announcements there. This is what the president cares about: How do we make lives better? And he hopes that — he hopes, you know, that’s continue — we continue to do that as a party.

As it relates to, certainly, the chairs, I — I can’t weigh in on that or step in — into that — into — into that. But I think what you have seen from the last four years, what you have seen — the president’s leadership in the last 52 years, I think, is a clear indicator at how he sees his role as a — as a leader of this party and how he sees the future of this country.

And he always talks about possibilities, and certainly that’s something that he continues to believe, is that — how important that is.

Q What is your experience of the transition? Have you met with the next team that’s coming in? What tangible changes do you think we’ll see at the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, that’s up to them. You know? What we —

Q Have they come in already and had meetings with you?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: What — what I can say is that we want an efficient, effective transition of power. We want it certainly to be peaceful, ri- — right? — as the president, I think, showed himself when he — when he invited President-elect Trump to — to the White House. You saw them sit together in — in the Oval Office, and that is something that President Biden wanted to —

Q But have there been more lower-level meetings?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — what I can say is we’ve been in touch with the Trump transition team. Those conversations continue. We are going to make this as smooth as possible. That’s what we want. And certainly, that’s what we will continue to do.

And teams — to your question, the teams have been talking. And I don’t have anything beyond that.

Q Is the president planning on having a press conference during this trip?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have a press conference to announce for this trip, but I’m pretty sure and — you know, the president likes to engage with you all, and I’m — I’m sure he’ll — he’ll continue to do that.

Thanks, everybody.

Q Thanks, Karine.

3:30 P.M. CVT