THE GRAND JURY LOOKING INTO WHITEWATER ISSUES IS SCHEDULED TO MEET. STAKEOUT ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES FROM JOHN MARSHALL PLACE. JANIS KEARNEY DEPARTURE , MATT FOLEY DEPARTURE DESANTIS CAMERA 13:02:04 FOLEY WALKING THROUGH LOT O'SHEA CAMERA 13:03:07 FOLLOWING FOLEY ON STREET 13:03:52 KEARNEY LEAVING SIDE ENTRANCE NORLING CAMERA 13:05:14 KEARNEY EXIT

LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 1: (INTERVIEW) Creators, writers and directors Matt Forde and Sean Foley say "People who have made peoples lives worse are genuine targets. The audience agrees that we have absolutely picked the right targets. There's a responsibility in the irresponsibility" at Phoenix Theatre on June 1, 2023 in London, England. (Footage by Giorgia Young/Getty Images)

The following is a list of David Susskind Shows possibly housed in a number off-site facilities--if they can be located at all. These listed programs HAVE NOT BEEN INSPECTED thus we cannot guarantee the existence, quality, duration or timely delivery of any of the material listed here. We offer access to these tapes on the following basis ONLY: All tapes are on their original 2" video format. The only way to verify the contents is to screen them, thus we will need to pull them from the inventory, ship and transfer them before we are able to verify content and quality. A $500 fee PER TAPE is required when ordering screening material from this collection. This fee is NON-REFUNDABLE. This fee will cover the cost of 2" tape handling, 2" Fed-Ex shipping (2-way) and 2" transfer. PLEASE NOTE THAT MANY SHOWS ARE ON TWO SEPARATE TAPES, THUS IT COULD COST DOUBLE ($1000) TO SCREEN SOME COMPLETE SHOWS. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF YOU ORDER A SHOW BASED ON THE CATALOG NUMBER AND TITLE FROM THIS DATABASE WE CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL GET THE TAPE YOU ORDER. THIS IS BECAUSE THROUGH THE YEARS TAPES MAY HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE INCORRECT CASES AND THE WRITTEN INFORMATION ON THE CASES IS ALL WE HAVE TO ID A TAPE BEFORE IT IS TRANSFERRED. WHILE WE WILL USE ALL EFFORTS TO EXPEDITE YOUR REQUEST, BUT WE CANNOT RUSH THE PROCESS, AND YOU ORDER THESE AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF WE DO NOT LOCATE THE TAPE THERE IS NO CHARGE, BUT IF WE DO AND IT IS REMOVED FROM THE FACILITY FOR TRANSFER, YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE NON-REFUNDABLE FEES. THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1978-1979 06/24/78 09/24/78 PART I: BABIES FOR SALE -- THE BLACK MARKET IN CHILDREN DAVID LEAVITT, BETTY LIPMAN, LINDA, CONGRESSMAN HENRY HYDE, NANCY BAKER, ROBERT BURNS, JUNE MATZ 29243 CHICAGO 05/31/78 09/24/78 PART II: PORTRAIT OF A WELFARE MOTHER RENEE NATTER 29243 09/28/78 10/01/78 JOHN J. O' CONNOR 30703 CHICAGO 09/28/78 10/01/78 PART II: TURNING OFF THE TUBE -- LIFE WITHOUT TELEVISION A. CHILDREN: FRED IFRAH, DAWN KAYNO, DEREK LIPPNER, CHRISSY MAGLIOCCO, LEAH PIKE, DAVID STEINGLASS B. PARENTS & TEACHERS: JOYCE SUSSKIND, NANCY PIKE, BARBARA GOLDFARB, PAT MAGLIOCCO, JUDITY ROHN, TANYA KAUFMAN 30703 05/20/78 10/08/78 PART I: FED UP WITH THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION - SIX ASEXUALS GAIL RACHLIN, BILL PRIEST, DANIELLA GIOSEFFI, RICHARD MILNER, MARIAN TESSA, GARY NULL 29240 CHICAGO, DC 06/24/78 10/08/78 PART II: HOW TO COPE WITH LONELINESS ERICA ABEEL, DR. JAMES LYNCH, BRUCE JAY FRIEDMAN, TERRI SCHULTZ, MARK KLINGMAN 29240 DC 09/23/78 10/22/78 PART I: WE'RE MAD AS HELL -- THE RADIO CALL-IN RAGE JERRY WILLIAMS, ED SCHWARTZ, IRV HOMER, HERB JEPKO, BERNARD MELTZER 30702 CHICAGO 09/23/78 10/22/78 PART II: THINK RICH -- BE RICH JERRY GILLIS, H. STANLEY JUDD, IAN ANDERSON 30702 CHICAGO 10/12/78 10/29/78 PART I: CAN CARTER CUT IT IN 1980 HENRY GRUNWALD, NICHOLAS VON HOFFMAN, JERALD TER HORST, WILLIAM RUSHER 30706 CHICAGO 10/12/78 10/29/78 PART II: PSYCHICS WHO SOLVE CRIME DOROTHY ALLISON, BEVERLY JAEGERS, DAVID HOY, MIKE CASALE, SAL LUBERTAZZI 30706 CHICAGO 10/21/78 11/05/78 PART I: THE SWINGERS' PARADISE -- PLATO'S RETREAT MARY & LARRY LEVINSON, BONNIE & JACK, PHIL NOBILE 30709 CHICAGO, DC 10/21/78 11/05/78 PART II: "THE DOOMSDAY TAPES" BARDYL TIRANA, HERBERT SCOVILLE, LEONARD REIFEL, LEON GOURE 30709 05/31/78 11/12/78 THEY'RE STILL THE FUNNIEST MEN AROUND -- VETERAN COMICS MAC ROBBINS, JIMMY JOYCE, LARRY BEST, MICKEY FREEMAN, JOEY FAYE, LOU MENCHELL 29241 DC 11/04/78 11/19/78 PART I: DRESS FOR SUCCESS -- LOOK LIKE A MILLION -- MAKE A MILLION JOHN WEITZ, JOHN T. MOLLOY, EMILY CHO, WILLIAM THOURLBY, ROBERT L. GREEN 30710 CHICAGO 05/04/78 11/19/78 PART II: SUPER SALESMEN JOE GIRARD, LOIS BECKER, TOM WOLFF, BOB SHOOK 30710 CHICAGO 11/08/78 11/26/78 PART I: STARTLING STORIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH DR. MAURICE RAWLINGS, CHARLES MCKAIG, VIRGINIA FALCY, KENNETH RING, HELEN NELSON, DR. MICHAEL SABOM 30712 CHICAGO 11/08/78 11/26/78 PART II: ANGRY CITIZENS VS THE POST OFFICE JAMES FINCH, BOB GRANT, ROBERT MEYERS, JAMES LAPENTA, PAT BRENNAN 30712 CHICAGO 11/22/78 12/03/78 PART I: SURGEON/SALESMAN -- BILL MACKAY 30714 DC 11/22/78 12/03/78 PART II: LONELY, UNHAPPY & BROKE -- DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS FLORENCE GRIFFIN, JACQUELINE BACHMAN, LESLIE WALD WALDHORN, SANDRA JACOBS, JANE LEE LITTLETON 30714 CHICAGO, DC 12/02/78 12/10/78 PART I: IF BETTY FORD COULD DO IT...ALL ABOUT FACELIFTS RICHARD KIELING, LILLIAM FRASER, D. RALPH MILLARD, M.D., DORIS LILLY, MICHAEL HOGAN, M.D. 30716 CHICAGO 12/02/78 12/10/78 PART II: TO JOG OR NOT TO JOG DAVID BRODY, M.D., DAVID NOONAN, RICHARD A. SCHWARTZ, M.D., RICHARD RESTAK, M.D., PAUL FETSCHER 30716 CHICAGO 09/16/78 12/17/78 WE WANT A BABY -- NEW HOPE FOR INFERTILE COUPLES A. PATIENTS: SUSAN & LEE WELLING, CAROL & ERNEST D'ANGELO, CATHY & JOHN SCOTT B. EXPERTS: DR. WAYNE DECKER, DR. ALVIN GOLDFARB, DR. RICHARD SHERINS, BARBARA ECK MENNING, DR. LUIGI MASTROIANNI 30701 11/29/78 12/24/78 PART I: YOUR PAMPERED PET -- FROM SHRINK TO MINK DR. PETER BORCHELT, DR. DANIEL TORTORA, DR. ALBERT LAMPASSO, MORDECAI SEGAL, LOIS LANDAUER, KAREN THOMPSON, GEORGE JEWEL 30715 CHICAGO 11/29/78 12/24/78 PART II: MIND YOUR MANNERS -- THE NEW ETIQUETTE LETITIA BALDRIGE, JUDITH MARTIN, MARJABELLE YOUNG STEWART 30715 CHICAGO 10/07/78 01/14/79 06/24/79 PART I: THE DIET THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE -- PRO & CON A. PATIENTS: BILL UTTAL, JULIE BREAKSTONE, FRED SILVER, DR. HARRY PARKER, JOE HUME B. EXPERTS: NATHAN PRITIKIN, DR. SAMI SASHIM, DR. ROBERT E. BAUER, DR. STEPHEN SCHEIDT 30704 CHICAGO 10/12/78 01/14/79 06/24/79 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH THE BRILLIANT PETER USTINOV 30704 CHICAGO 12/09/78 01/21/79 PART I: THE PRIEST WHO FIGHTS PIMPS FATHER BRUCE RITTER 30711 CHICAGO, DC 11/04/78 01/21/79 PART II: MAKING INFLATION WORK FOR YOU HARRY BROWNE, DAN DORFMAN 30711 CHICAGO, DC 12/09/78 01/28/79 PART I: LONG LINES, SHORT TEMPERS -- THE AIRPORT MESS KAY SLOMAN, HARRY KLETTER, ROB MANGOLD, FRED FORD, KAREN ZUPKO, STEVE BIRNBAUM 30717 CHICAGO, DC 12/09/78 01/28/79 PART II: ARE YOU REALLY IN LOVE? DR. DEBORA PHILLIPS, DR. CHARLIE SHEDD, DR. STANTON PEELE 30717 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/79 02/04/79 PART I: WE ARE BI-SEXUALS LARRY KANE, TONI TUCCI, DR. FRED KLEIN, "JULIA", "JOANNE" 30720 CHICAGO, DC 01/27/79 02/04/79 PART II: TREASURE HUNTERS MEL FISHER, EUGENE LYON, ART MCKEE 30720 CHICAGO, DC 01/06/79 02/11/79 INSIDE THE CULTS: THE TERRIFYING TRUTH FROM EX-MEMBERS PART 1 - EX-MEMBERS: SUSAN SMITH, CHRIS EDWARDS, MORRIS DEUTSCH, STEVE HASSAN, ANDREW STUBBS PART II - EXPERTS: FLO CONWAY, JIM SEIGELMAN, GALEN KELLY, DR. JOHN CLARK 30718 CHICAGO, DC 01/27/79 02/18/79 PART I: MEN WHO ARE KEPT BY WOMEN: TRUE CONFESSIONS REAL, MICHEL, MARK, PAUL, LOU 30721 CHICAGO, DC 01/27/79 02/18/79 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT ASPIRIN DR. LOUIS ALEDORT, DR. THOMAS KANTOR, DR. DAVID CODDON, PAUL E. SCHINDLER 30721 CHICAGO, DC 02/03/79 02/25/79 PART I: BEAUTIFUL WOMEN SHARE THEIR SECRETS (HOSTED BY JOYCE SUSSKIND) BEVERLY SASSOON, ADRIEN ARPEL, CRISTINA FERRARE 30722 CHICAGO, DC 02/03/79 02/25/79 PART II: WHEN YOUR PARENTS GROW OLD JOHN PERRY, RITA SIGLER, BARBARA FELDMAN, MARIE CARROLL, JERRY ORNSTEIN 30722 CHICAGO, DC 02/10/79 03/04/79 TRUMAN CAPOTE TELLS ALL TRUMAN CAPOTE 30723 CHICAGO (T), UCLA (2"), DC 11/18/78 03/11/79 PART I: WE CAN'T STOP DIETING -- VICTIMS OF ANOREXIA STEVEN LEVENKRON, KATIE, PATRICIA DE POL, ROBERTA, LISA WOLFF 30713 CHICAGO, DC 11/18/78 03/11/79 PART II: WHEN FEAR TAKES OVER -- AGORAPHOBIA JEAN ESTERBROOK, JOEL GREENBAUM, EILEEN WEBBER, MARIA WEBBER, DR. MANUEL ZANE 30713 CHICAGO, DC 02/28/79 03/18/79 PART I: WILD & CRAZY PAPARAZZI -- PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO SHOOT THE STARS RON GALELLA, ADAM SCULL, DICK CORKERY, GENE SPATZ 30725 CHICAGO, DC 02/28/79 03/18/79 PART II: IT'S NOT SO GREAT IN BRITAIN FRED HIFT, REX BERRY, ROBIN DUTHY, VALERIE WADE 30725 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/79 03/25/79 PART I: THINGS TO COME -- LIFE IN THE YEAR 2000 ISAAC ASIMOV, FRANK KENDIG, DR. JERRY POURNELLE 30719 DC 02/28/79 03/25/79 PART II: HAPPINESS IS A POSSIBLE DREAM DR. JONATHAN FREEDMAN, LYNN CAINE, JOAN, BOB DRESNER, BOB GOODRICH 30719 CHICAGO, DC 03/24/79 KHJ-TV, LA 04/01/79 THE TELEVISION CRISIS MICHAEL DANN, PAUL KLEIN, GRANT TINKER, NORMAN LEAR, DAVID GERBER 30726 CHICAGO, DC 02/10/79 04/08/79 HOT GOSSIP ABOUT THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE RUDY MAXA, CLAUDIA COHEN, NEAL TRAVIS 30724 CHICAGO 03/31/79 04/08/79 PITY THE HAPPY HOUSEWIFE JUDITH VIORST, MARY KUCZKIR, ANN TOLAND SERB, JOAN WESTER ANDERSON 30724 CHICAGO 04/15/78 04/15/79 MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL -- THE BEAUTIFUL AND THE UGLY TELL ALL GUESTS -- MODELS AND SELF-PROCLAIMED UGLIES: MATT COLLINS, CATHY MORRIS, DANNY LEE MCCOY, JEAN SOKOL, SUZANNE FELZEN, SUSAN BRECHT EXPERTS: FRANCESCO SCAVULLO, MICHAEL HOGAN, M.D., ADRIEN ARPEL, SUSAN GREEN, PH.D 29232 CHICAGO, DC 04/14/79 04/22/79 IS CARTER A CATASTROPHE? ELIOT JANEWAY, WILLIE L. BROWN, JR., ROBERT H. MALOTT, WILLIAM W. WINPISINGER 30728 CHICAGO, DC 04/28/79 05/06/79 PART I: LEE MARVIN, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? MARVIN MITCHELSON, MELVYN HABER, SUNNIE SOBEL, NORMAN M. SHERESKY, HERBERT A. GLIEBERMAN 30730 CHICAGO, DC 04/28/79 05/06/79 PART II: THE INCREDIBLE TRUTH ABOUT HOWARD HUGHES JAMES B. STEELE, DONALD L. BARTLETT 30730 DC 03/31/79 05/13/79 PART I: DEAR ANN LANDERS... ANN LANDERS 30727 CHICAGO, DC 03/31/79 05/13/79 PART II: THE CULTS ANSWER BACK GADDAHAR PANDIT DAS, RABINDRA SWAROOP DAS, DIANE KETTERING, ARTIE MAREN 30727 CHICAGO, DC 05/11/79 KCOP, LA 05/20/79 THE MAN WHO WOULD BE PRESIDENT: JERRY BROWN GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, CALIFORNIA 30732 CHICAGO (T), UCLA, DC 05/19/79 06/03/79 PART I: WATCH OUT! HOWARD JARVIS IS COMING HOWARD JARVIS, JOHN L. LOEB, JR., JAMES FARMER, STEPHEN BERGER 30733 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/79 06/03/79 PART II: HOW TO SLASH YOUR FOOD BILLS IN HALF ARLENE STOLARSKI, PATTI UMLAND, MARY ANNE HAYES, SUSAN SAMTUR 30733 05/27/79 06/10/79 PART I: SHOULD YOU BUY A HOUSE NOW -- OR NEVER? DONALD I. HOVDE, BENNY KASS, WILLIAM WOLMAN, MICHAEL SUMICHRAST 30734 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/79 06/10/79 PART II: MALE SECRETARIES DONALD HARLEY, CHARLES W. BARKER, JOSEPH R. LICCARDO, ANTHONY ZATTI, KEITH M. WHITE 30734 DC 06/03/79 06/17/79 PART I: HOW TO LIVE WITH CONSTANT PAIN PATIENTS: HERBERT A. DIAMOND, BARBARA B. WOLF, ROSALIE TERRAVECCHIA DOCTORS: DR. GERALD ARONOFF, DR. DONALD M. DOOLEY, DR. NELSON H. HENDLER, DR. HAROLD CARRON 30736 CHICAGO, DC 06/03/79 06/17/79 PART II: THE MAN WHO GIVES ADVICE TO ANN LANDERS DR. EUGENE KENNEDY 30736 CHICAGO, DC 06/23/79 07/01/79 PART I: OUT OF GAS -- WHO'S TO BLAME? LESLIE J. GOLDMAN, JAMES F. FLUG, CHARLES KITTRELL, SENATOR HOWARD M. METZENBAUM 30738 CHICAGO, DC 06/23/79 07/01/79 PART II: "THE FLYING WHITE HOUSE" COLONEL RALPH ALBERTAZZIE 30738 CHICAGO, DC THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1979-80 05/26/79 04/14/79 10/07/79 04/19/81 DAVID SUSSKIND MEETS THE MARTIANS A. LYDIA STALNAKER, BRYCE BOND B. RUTH NORMAN, THOMAS MILLER 30729 CHICAGO, DC 09/22/79 10/14/79 PART I: ORGANIZED CRIME: THE BIGGEST BUSINESS IN AMERICA HANK H. MESSICK, RICHARD E. JAFFE, RALPH F. SALERNO, JACK KEY, THOMAS RENNER 32101 CHICAGO 09/22/79 10/14/79 PART II: BATTLE OVER BLACK ENGLISH MICHAEL MEYERS, DR. GENEVA SMITERMAN, DR. ELAINE LEWNAU, ETTA LADSOM 32101 CHICAGO 10/13/79 10/28/79 THE BLACK-JEWISH CRISIS DR. JOSEPH E. LOWERY, ARNOLD FORSTER, RANDALL ROBINSON, HOWARD M. SQUADRON 32105 CHICAGO 11/03/79 10/28/79 THE KENNEDY-CARTER SHOWDOWN ALLARD K. LOWENSTEIN, ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JR., STUART EIZENSTAT, GERALD M. RAFSHOON 32109 CHICAGO, DC 10/27/79 11/11/79 09/07/80 03/28/82 PART I: SEX FOR SALE...4 "JOHNS' TELL ALL TOM, MARK, HUGH, GEORGE 32107 CHICAGO (T), DC 10/17/79 11/11/79 09/07/80 03/28/82 PART II: IS STRESS KILLING YOU? JOHN J. PARRINO, PH.D, KENNETH GREENSPAN, M.D. 32107 CHICAGO, DC 04/28/79 11/18/79 09/28/80 05/31/81 THE BARE FACTS: QUEENS OF BURLESQUE GEORGIA SOTHERN, ZORITA, SHERRY BRITTON, HOPE DIAMOND 30731 CHICAGO, DC 06/23/79 11/18/79 09/28/80 05/31/81 SUPER SALESWOMEN DOT COOK, ANDREA BERRITY, LINDA SCHMITT, SHIRLEY HUTTON 30731 CHICAGO 06/09/79 11/25/79 07/06/80 PART I: RICH & FEMALE - WOMEN WHO MAKE MILLIONS MURIEL SIEBERT, MARY ANN HALMI, EVA HORTON, DAISY TALLARICO, JOAN LEVINE 30737 CHICAGO, DC 06/09/79 11/25/79 07/06/80 PART II: GOTHIC WRITERS ROBERTA ANDERSON & MARY KUCZKIR (FERN MICHAELS), JANET DAILEY, PATRICIA MATTHEWS 30737 CHICAGO, DC 10/06/79 12/02/79 PART I: "BREAKING UP IS HARD TO TAKE" -- CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DON, CAREN, LIZ, GILLIAN, LISA 32102 CHICAGO 09/29/79 12/02/79 PART II: "THE WICKED TRUTH ABOUT STEP PARENTS" WILLIAM NOBLE, SUZY KALTER, MARCIA WYRTZEN, JEANETTE LOFAS, BOB MARTIN 32102 CHICAGO 10/27/79 12/09/79 PART I: LIARS BEWARE -- THE LATEST IN LIE DETECTION CHRIS GUGAS 32108 CHICAGO 10/06/79 12/09/79 PART II: THE RED BERETS -- TEENAGE VIGILANTES CURTIS SLIWA, DINO REYES, KATO, JEFF MONROE, JERRY MONROE, ET. AL. 32108 CHICAGO 11/10/79 12/16/79 07/13/80 PART I: HOW TO TEST YOUR DOG'S I.Q. AND PERSONALITY MATTHEW MARGOLIS 32115 CHICAGO 12/03/79 12/16/79 07/13/80 PART II: DAZZLING WOMEN FROM ABROAD LIVIA SLYVA WEINTRAUB, JACLINE MAZARD (JEAN MAHIE), REGINE, GEORGETTE KLINGER, PRINCESS SUMAIR 32115 CHICAGO 11/17/79 12/23/79 HOW TO PROSPER DURING THE COMING BAD YEARS HOWARD RUFF 32114 CHICAGO, DC 12/15/79 12/23/79 07/27/80 PART II: CHINA TODAY -- A CONVERSATION WITH HAN SUYIN HAN SUYIN 32114 32121 CHICAGO, DC 11/10/79 01/06/80 08/17/80 ARE YOUR TEENAGERS DRIVING YOU CRAZY? HELP IS HERE! DR. THOMAS J. COTTLE, ELIZABETH ROBERTS, DR. DAVID ELKIND, EDITH B. PHELPS, ELIOT DALEY 32110 CHICAGO 11/24/79 01/13/80 10/26/80 PART I: SHORT PEOPLE HAVE FEELINGS TOO! PAMELA BROWN, MIKE PARADINE, BILL GILE, NANCY HENKEL, IRWIN HASEN 32111 CHICAGO 10/17/79 01/13/80 10/26/80 PART II: LAUGHTER IS THE BEST MEDICINE NORMAN COUSINS 32111 CHICAGO 12/15/79 01/20/80 07/20/80 PART I: OWNERS OF GREAT RESTAURANTS TELL THEIR SECRETS SHELDON TANNEN "21"; WARNER LEROY, MAXWELL'S PLUM, TAVERN ON THE GREEN; EDMUND LILLYS, THE GLOUCESTER HOUSE; SIRIO MACCIONE, LE CIRQUE; VINCENT SARDI, JR., SARDI'S; PETER ASCHKENASY, U.S. STEAK-HOUSE, LUCHOW'S, CHARLEY O'S, AND THE AMERICAN CHARCUTERIE. 32117 CHICAGO 01/12/80 01/20/80 07/20/80 PART II: MAITRE D'S OF GREAT RESTAURANTS JOSEPH GARNI, LE CIRQUE; BRUNO MOLINARI, THE PALM; GIANNI GARAVELLI, NANNI AL VALLETTO; JEAN-CLAUDE COUTELLER, LE PERIGORD EAST 32117 CHICAGO 09/29/79 01/27/80 A MEDIUM WHO TALKS TO THE DEAD -- DORIS STOKES DORIS STOKES 32103 CHICAGO 11/17/79 02/03/80 10/05/80 PART I: PROSTITUTES TELL ALL "NINA", "CATHERINE", AND "MELINDA" 32112 CHICAGO, DC 01/12/80 02/03/80 10/05/80 PART II: WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY DOLORES ALEXANDER, JANE MCHUGH, FRANCES PATAI, AND BARBARA MEHRHOF 32112 CHICAGO, DC 01/26/80 02/10/80 WHAT'S NEW WITH JACKIE, SINATRA, STREISAND, BEATTY, MINNELLI AND REYNOLDS, TOO LIZ SMITH, CHICAGO TRIBUNE-NEW YORK DAILY NEWS; TAKI THEODORACOPULOS, ESQUIRE; DAVID SHEEHAN, DIANA MCLELLAN, "THE EAR", IN THE WASHINGTON STAR 32119 11/24/79 02/17/80 09/21/80 12/13/81 PART I: LIFE AT THE TOP -- WIVES OF FAMOUS MEN JOYCE DAVIDSON SUSSKIND, NANCY MEHTA, MARILYN FUNT, NORRIS CHURCH 32113 CHICAGO, DC 11/17/79 02/17/80 09/21/80 12/13/81 PART II: ALL ABOUT THE CIA THOMAS POWERS, "THE MAN WHO KEPT THE SECRETS: RICHARD HELMS AND THE C.I.A." 32113 DC 01/12/80 02/24/80 09/14/80 MOVIE STARS CAME TO DINNER -- GROWING UP IN HOLLYWOOD JILL ROBINSON, "BED TIME STORY" AND "PERDIDO"; MICHAEL KORDA, "CHARMED LIVES"; WARNER LEROY, LINDA JANKLOW, BROOKE HAYWARD, "HAYWIRE". 32118 CHICAGO 02/02/80 02/24/80 09/14/80 PART II: GARBAGE OF THE STARS A. J. WEBERMAN, GARBOLOGIST 32118 CHICAGO 02/02/80 03/02/80 07/27/80 PART I: WE'RE HIGH ON BEING TALL GEORGE ANDREWS - 6'6", JUDY VOGEL - 6', CECILIA GARDNER - 6'1", KERRY KEANE - 6'6", TERRY LEE - 5'11", ALICE WHITE - 6' 32121 CHICAGO 02/02/80 03/02/80 PART II: SIZING UP THE NEWSCASTERS PHILIP MCHUGH 32121 12/03/79 03/09/80 08/24/80 PART I: 5 NEW YORK CABBIES TELL ALL MEL BENDOWITZ, EZRA CHITYAT, JAMES MORRIS, RICHARD CHEROL, LOIS DOYLE 32116 CHICAGO (T) 12/15/79 03/09/80 08/24/80 PART II: GOING BANANAS IN BEVERLY HILLS ELAINE YOUNG, JACK STARTZ, M.D., RONALD RICE, JUDY MAZEL 32116 CHICAGO 02/23/80 03/16/80 05/03/81 11/13/83 PART I: WE TAKE IT ALL OFF -- MALE STRIPPERS JACK THE STRIPPER, SEBASTIAN, CAREY GORDON, SUNSHINE, BERNARDO 32123 CHICAGO, DC 03/01/80 03/16/80 05/03/81 11/13/83 PART II: MUSCLES AND CURVES -- WOMEN BODY BUILDERS DORIS BARRILLEAUX, LYNDE JOHNSON, LYNN CONKWRIGHT, APRIL NICOTRA 32123 DC 03/01/80 03/23/80 08/03/80 PART I: THE DATING SERVICE FOR WINNER 'THE GODMOTHER' , ABBY HIRSCH CLIENTS: BARBARA WRENN, DOUGLAS RIPPETO, MITCHEL MITCHEL, BABTTE GLADSTEIN 32126 CHICAGO 02/23/80 03/23/80 08/03/80 PART II: THE GIRL WHO HAD EVERYTHING - DORIEN LEIGH DORIAN LEIGH 32126 CHICAGO 01/26/80 02/09/80 03/30/80 08/10/80 THE NEW REVOLUTION IN FOOD AND FUEL - A CONVERSATION WITH DWAYNE ANDREAS MR. DWAYNE ANDREAS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY 32120 CHICAGO, DC 02/09/80 04/06/80 PART I: OUR HIDDEN SHAME: DYSLEXIA ARTHUR BIRSH, DELOS SMITH, EILEEN SIMPSON -- REVERSALS: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF VICTORY OVER DYSLEXIA, LYNNE HACKER, EMILY LANDAU, DANIEL GILDESGAME 32122 CHICAGO 02/23/80 04/06/80 PART II: THE NATIONAL LAMPOON P.J. O'ROURKE, GERALD SUSSMAN, TOD CARROLL, JOHN HUGHES 32122 CHICAGO 03/22/80 04/13/80 GORE VIDAL UNCENSORED 32130 CHICAGO, DC 03/08/80 04/20/80 PART I: APOCALYPSE SOON: A CONVERSATION WITH WILLIAM SIMON WILLIAM SIMON, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY 32127 CHICAGO 03/22/80 04/20/80 PART II: BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS CARL LEWIS, DETECTIVE ROBERT MAGONE 32127 CHICAGO 03/15/80 04/27/80 01/31/82 PART I: THE SHAME OF OUR HOSPITALS -- FIVE ANGRY NURSES 'CAROL', 'REBECCA', 'ELEANOR', 'RUTH' AND 'HELEN' 32129 CHICAGO, DC 03/29/80 04/27/80 01/31/82 PART II: DR. WILLIAM NOLEN WILLIAM A. NOLEN, M.D. 32129 CHICAGO 04/26/80 05/04/80 SEX IN AMERICA -- AN INTERVIEW WITH GAY TALESE GAY TALESE, AUTHOR: THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE 32135 CHICAGO 03/29/80 05/11/80 PART I: SOFT, SWEET AND SOUTHERN -- 6 BELLES FROM DIXIE PHYLLIS MACBRYDE, REBECCA SINGLETON, NANCY BELLE BRASS, MARY MCMILLAN, ROSEMARY DANIELL; AUTHOR: FATAL FLOWERS; MARY VANN HUNTER; AUTHOR: SASSAFRAS 32132 CHICAGO 04/19/80 05/11/80 PART II: SOUTHERN JOURNALISTS TALK ABOUT JIMMY CARTER AND OTHER GOOD OLE BOYS LARRY KING, AUTHOR: OF OUTLAWS, CON MEN, WHORES, POLITICIANS AND OTHER ARTISTS; MARSHALL FRADY, AUTHOR: SOUTHERNERS; ROY BLOUNT, JR., AUTHOR: CRACKERS 32132 CHICAGO 05/10/80 05/18/80 HOW DID IT HAPPEN -- CARTER VS REAGAN TOM WICKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES; ALBERT R. HUNT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL; WILLIAM A. RUSHER, NATIONAL REVIEW; HAYNES JOHNSON, THE WASHINGTON POST 32137 CHICAGO (T) 04/26/80 05/25/80 PART I: THE SPORTS EMPIRE OF SONNY WERBLIN SONNY WERBLIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN CORPORATION 32134 CHICAGO, DC 05/03/80 05/25/80 PART II: THE LAST OF THE COWBOYS -- 5 TRUCKERS RUSSELL "CAPTAIN ZIG-ZAG" PATE, GEORGE "WILDMAN" RAWLS, ED "SKY PILOT" WINTERSTEEN, MIKE "DOUBLE R" CRAKER, JAMES "BUCKY" BUCKOWSKI 32134 CHICAGO, DC 03/08/80 06/01/80 PART I: BEAT INFLATION WITH DIAMONDS, ART, STAMPS AND COINS NICOLA BULGARI, RICHARD L. FEIGEN, RAYMOND WEIL AND HARVEY STACK 32128 CHICAGO 03/15/80 06/01/80 PART II: HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER -- JENNINGS LANG JENNINGS LANG 32128 CHICAGO 04/19/80 06/08/80 PART I: INFLATION IS KILLING US! 5 ANGRY VICTIMS NITA DENNIS, JOE CURLEY, JOSEPH MULHOLLAND, ANNE AND GEORGE ANDREWS 32133 CHICAGO 04/19/80 06/08/80 PART II: MIND OVER BODY -- A DEMONSTRATION OF THE MARTIAL ARTS LINDA LUTES AND NELSON HOWE 32133 CHICAGO 05/24/80 06/15/80 PART I: UPDATE ON MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS -- DR. ISADORE ROSENFELD ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D. 32140 CHICAGO, DC 05/24/80 06/15/80 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH CORINNA MARSH CORINNA MARSH 32140 CHICAGO, DC 06/07/80 06/22/80 WHY ARE THE BULLS RUNNING ON WALL STREET JOSEPH GRANVILLE, BURTON MALKIEL, DAVID DREMAN, RAYMOND DEVOE, JOHN NEFF 32142 CHICAGO, DC 06/04/80 06/29/80 PART I: WORKAHOLICS ON THE JOYS OF WORKING FLORENCE HASELTINE, M.D., RICHARD ROYCE, LIZ FILLO, FRANK S. BERGER, LAWRENCE A. SUSSER, M.D. 32141 CHICAGO 05/24/80 06/29/80 PART II: THE TWO PAYCHECK MARRIAGE JUDY HUNT, CHARLES MITCHELL, MEG WHITCOMB, JEANNE CANTEEN, PRATT 32141 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1980-81 10/06/80 10/12/80 A DESPERATE TIME -- WILLIAM SIMON ON THE STATE OF THE UNION FORMER TREASURE SECRETARY, WILLIAM E. SIMON 33605 CHICAGO, DC 10/18/80 10/19/80 A CONVERSATION WITH HAL GULLIVER HAROLD GULLIVER, EDITOR, ATLANTA CONSTITUTION 33606 CHICAGO 09/17/80 11/02/80 07/05/81 PART I: BIG, BEAUTIFUL WOMEN -- NO SIN TO BE A SIZE 18 MADALINE SPARKS, ILVIRA TORTORA, BARBARA BETZA, STELLA REICHMAN, LILLIAM NILSON 33602 CHICAGO, DC 10/06/80 11/02/80 07/05/81 PART II: IS THIN STILL "IN"? SUZIE BERTIN, JILL DIRKS, JOHNA JOHNSON, BARBARA PEARLMAN 33602 CHICAGO, DC 05/17/80 11/09/80 10/04/81 PART I: MEET AND MARRY THROUGH THE PERSONAL ADS JUDI MCMAHON, BILL JAMES, STEPHEN T., HEYMANN, STEPHANIE KAPILIAN, BOB EVANS 32139 CHICAGO, DC 05/17/80 11/09/80 10/04/81 PART II: NO KIDS FOR US PLEASE ANNE SEIFERT, WALTER CALLAHAN, BARBARA COFFEY, DOROTHY WILSON, IVAN MENDELSON 32139 CHICAGO, DC 09/17/80 11/16/80 07/12/81 PART I: LIFE AFTER DARK -- NIGHT PEOPLE TELL ALL RICHARD WEXLER, CINDY CAPALDO, BLEECKER BOB PLOTNIK, ABLE ABEL, SAVARIO COSTANZA 33601 CHICAGO, DC 10/18/80 11/16/80 07/12/81 PART II: SUPER FANS OF THE STARS BETTY BRINKENHOFF (FRANK SINATRA), DENIS FERRARA (ELIZABETH TAYLOR), DOLORES TRANDAHL (ELVIS PRESLEY), NEAL PETERS (ANN MARGRET) 33601 CHICAGO, DC 05/03/80 11/23/80 09/20/81 PART I: WOMEN RATE MEN: LOVERS AND LOSERS NAN ROBERTSON, SUSANNA HOFFMAN, CAROL BOTWIN 32136 CHICAGO, DC 06/04/80 11/23/80 09/20/81 PART II: MEN ANSWER BACK ANTHONY HADEN-GUEST, MARTIN SAGE, WILLIAMS HOOTKINS, HARRY STEIN 32136 CHICAGO, DC 09/27/80 11/30/80 PART I: THE JEANING OF AMERICA -- MODELS, MOGULS AND MAKERS JOSEPH NAKASH (JORDACHE), PAUL GUEZ (SASSON), WARREN HIRSH (GLORIA VANDERBILT) 33603 CHICAGO 11/19/80 11/30/80 PART II: NOT FOR WOMEN ONLY -- MEN'S COSMETICS TONY CARVETTE (GEORGETTE KLINGER), TOM DAY (CLINIQUE), JAN STUART (JAN STUART), CHIP TOLBERT (MEN'S FASHION ASSOCIATION), PAUL WILMOT (HALSTON) 33603 CHICAGO 11/24/80 12/07/80 08/02/81 PART I: A MAN FOR ALL REASONS: YALE PRESIDENT, A. BARTLETT GIAMATTI 33609 CHICAGO 11/24/80 12/07/80 08/02/81 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH MICHAEL THOMAS MICHAEL THOMAS, AUTHOR GREEN MONDAY 33609 CHICAGO 11/24/80 12/14/80 07/18/81 PART I: ARE LAWYERS RUINING OUR LIVES? PHILIP M. STERN, GEOFFREY C. HAZARD, FRANK R. ROSINY, ALAN B. MORRISON, JUDGE WILLIAM B. LAWLESS 33607 CHICAGO, DC 11/16/80 12/14/80 PART II: NORMAN DACEY, ROSEMARY FURMAN 33607 12/17/80 12/21/80 08/30/81 PART I: FEELING GOOD ALL UNDER -- THE ELEGANT NEW LINGERIE REBECCA ASPAN, BELL TICE, ORA FEDER, DAVID STIFFLER, SAMI 33613 CHICAGO 12/17/80 12/21/80 08/30/81 PART II: BEST FRIENDS AND BEST SELLERS CONSUELO BAEHR, SUSAN ISAACS, HILMA WOLITZER 33613 CHICAGO 12/14/80 12/28/80 THE REMARKABLE JONATHAN SCHWARTZ -- A SPECIAL PERFORMANCE JONATHAN SCHWARTZ 33612 CHICAGO, DC 12/03/80 01/04/81 PART I: A HOUSE IS NOT A HOME -- CONGRESSMEN WHO QUIT OTIS G. PIKE, JAMES P. JOHNSON, JOE WYATT, JR. 33610 CHICAGO (T) 12/17/80 01/04/80 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH STUDS TERKEL STUDS TERKEL 33610 CHICAGO (T) 01/07/81 01/11/81 09/13/81 PART I: THE INCREDIBLE WORLD OF MOTHER TERESA JOYCE DAVIDSON SUSSKIND 33608 CHICAGO, DC 11/19/80 01/11/81 09/13/81 PART II: HOW TO SUCCEED? GO TO BUSINESS SCHOOL SUSAN THOMAS, JED DALY, ROBERT FRIEDMAN, JAY ESSEY, ELIZABETH CLOSTERMAN 33608 CHICAGO, DC 01/12/81 01/18/81 04/15/84 PART I: WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE JOHN SIMON, RICHARD MITCHELL, EDWIN NEWMAN 33611 CHICAGO 12/03/80 01/18/81 PART II: WHERE THE BODIES ARE BURIED -- WASHINGTON LOWDOWN DONALD LAMBRO, CHARLES PETERS, MICHAEL J. MALBIN, FRANK SILBEY 33611 CHICAGO 01/21/81 01/25/81 PART I: JUNK FOOD JUNKIES RICHARD SMITH, DAVID NOONAN, MAGGIE MULHEARN, BUFFALO GEORGE TOOMER 33616 CHICAGO (T) 01/21/81 01/25/81 PART II: HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR EATING HABITS RICHARD S. RIVLIN, M.D., RICHARD PASSWATER, DR. ROBERT PALMER, JOSEPH RECHTSCHAFFEN, M.D. 33616 CHICAGO 01/24/81 02/01/81 THE BEST AND WORST MOVIES: FILM CRITICS JANET MASLIN, ANDREW SARRIS, JACK KROLL, GENE SISKEL 33617 CHICAGO (T) 01/07/81 02/08/81 08/23/81 PART I: TAKE THOSE INCHES OFF! SHAPE UP WITH EXERCISE MARJORIE CRAIG, LYDIA BACH, CHARLES GAINES, MARUSCHKA 33614 CHICAGO 01/24/81 02/08/81 08/23/81 PART II: THE ESTABLISHMENT LEONARD AND MARK SILK, STEPHEN BIRMINGHAM 33614 CHICAGO 02/11/81 02/15/81 CELEBRITY WATCHING WITH LIZ SMITH, TAKI, JAMES BRADY AND JODY JACOBS 33620 CHICAGO 02/18/81 02/22/81 HOW TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER IN THE 80s HOWARD RUFF, DOUGLAS CASEY, JEROME SMITH, THOMAS HOLT 33621 CHICAGO 02/11/81 03/01/81 08/09/81 PART I: PRETTY BABIES -- THE NEW TEEN-AGE MODELS BETTINA, LORI LOUGHLIN, CATHLEEN ESS, FELICE SCHACHTER, LENA REID 33619 CHICAGO 02/07/81 03/01/81 08/09/81 PART II: ARE YOUR CHILDREN BECOMING ADULTS TOO SOON? DR. AARON HASS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ARTHUR KORNHABER, M.D., ADELE HOFFMAN, M.D. 33619 CHICAGO 02/21/81 03/08/81 BIGOTRY RIDES AGAIN WILLIAM SLOANE COFFIN, ARNOLD FORSTER, WILLIAM A. FUSHER, CONGRESSMAN JOHN CONYERS, DR. M. MORAN WESTON 33622 CHICAGO 03/07/81 03/15/81 THE BATTLE FOR SURVIVAL -- THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY WENDELL H. MILLER, STEPHEN I. SCHOLSSBERG, TOM HANNA, JERRY FLINT, DAVID HEALY 33623 CHICAGO 01/12/81 03/22/81 07/26/81 PART I: POURING OUT YOUR TROUBLES: BARTENDERS TELL ALL PADDY QUINN, CHARLIE SCHOENEMAN, RAY FOLEY, JOHN "SHIRTS" HUGHES, KITTY FITZKE 33615 CHICAGO, DC 03/18/81 03/22/81 07/26/81 PART II: TWINS WHO MARRIED TWINS BARBI GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., BRUCE GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., CHERYL GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., BARRY GOLDENBERG, M.D. 33615 CHICAGO, DC 03/18/81 03/29/81 09/27/81 THE MORAL MAJORITY ON THE WARPATH DR. TIM LA HAYE, DR. DAN C. FORE, SENATOR FRANK CHURCH, DR. DANIEL C. MAGUIRE 33624 CHICAGO, DC 03/28/81 04/05/81 08/16/81 PART I: WOMEN AND SUCCESS -- MAKING IT TO THE TOP JUDY MELLO, ANNE P. HYDE, SUSAN HOROWITZ, PAULA D. HUGHES, JO FOXWORTH 33625 CHICAGO, DC 03/28/81 04/05/81 08/16/81 05/06/84 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT SENILITY ROBERT N. BUTLER, M.D., DENNETH L. DAVIS, M.D., DR. PETER DAVIES, DR. ROSE ROBROF 33625 CHICAGO, DC 04/04/81 04/12/81 PART I: BANKS ON THE BRINK MURIEL SIEBERT, LEE GUNDERSON, H. ERICH HEINEMANN, WILLIAM E. DONOGHUE, DR. SAUL B. KLAYMAN 33626 CHICAGO 04/04/81 04/12/81 05/20/84 PART II: DOCTORS' WIVES CARLA FINE, LINDA SHIPLEY, LINDA SEDA, LORI TAYLOR 33626 CHICAGO 4/25/81 04/26/81 THE AMERICAN MILITARY MACHINE: ARE WE READY FOR BATTLE? CONGRESSMAN JIM COURTER, BARRY R. POSEN, BRIGADIER GENERAL ALBION KNIGHT, JR., EDWARD LUTTWAK, GENERAL VOLNEY F. WARNER 33628 CHICAGO, DC 05/02/81 05/10/81 FROM HOLLYWOOD TO BROADWAY - PART I: DUDLEY MOORE 33631 CHICAGO (T), UCLA 05/04/81 05/10/81 FROM HOLLYWOOD TO BROADWAY - PART II: MC CANN AND NUGENT NELLE NUGENT , ELIZABETH MCCANN 33631 CHICAGO (T) 05/09/81 05/17/81 PART I: HOMELESS AND HELPLESS -- PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS ANN MARIE ROUSSEAU, WILLIAM KUEHNE, ANTON GALENOS, SELMA (MARIE) PRICE, SYD ROLFS, VERONICA (VIRGINIA) WILLIAMS, GENE PALMER 33632 CHICAGO, DC 05/04/81 05/17/81 PART II: SPORTS AMERICAN STYLE: BIG, BRUISING BUSINESS DICK SHAAP, PETER BONVENTRE, MIKE LUPICA, DAN JENKINS 33632 CHICAGO, DC 05/09/81 05/24/81 PART I: SURVIVALISTS: PREPARING FOR DOOMSDAY KURT SAXON, JOSEPH RUSTICK, M.D., ROBERT FIRTH, GENE AND PEARL TARMAN 33633 CHICAGO, DC 04/25/81 05/24/81 PART II: DELAYED MOTHERHOOD -- HAVING CHILDREN AT AGE THIRTY FIVE JULIE HOUSTON, LYNN POVICH, JACQUELINE PESUT, LUISA LA VIOLA, DR. PEGGY EWING 33633 CHICAGO, DC 05/18/81 06/07/81 12/09/84 PART I: WITHOUT TEARS -- CHILDREN COPING WITH CANCER CHILDREN: STEPHANIE ROBSON, JIM VOLPE, DOLLY MICONI, CRAIG HETZER, JENNIFER DALSEY MOTHERS: SHARON ROBSON, PEGGY VOLPE, BRITTA HETZER, MARTHA SMENTEK (JENNIFER DALSEY'S MOTHER) 33635 CHICAGO (T), DC 06/06/81 06/07/81 PART II: A VANISHING BREED -- THE PROFESSIONAL VOLUNTEER VIVIAN HARRIS, MARY LINDSAY, JEAN DELAFIELD, ISABELLE STEVENSON, GLORIA W. MILLIKEN 33635 CHICAGO, DC 06/14/81 PART I: THE MAGNIFICENT $20 MILLION YANKEE -- DAVE WINFIELD 33636 CHICAGO, DC 06/14/81 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TONY AWARDS ALEXANDER H. COHEN, HILDY PARKS 33636 CHICAGO, DC 05/02/81 06/21/81 PART I: REPORT FROM THREE DOCTORS: THE LATEST IN MEDICINE ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D., DR. JOHN H. LARAGH, DR. JOSEPH WILDER 33630 CHICAGO, DC 05/18/81 06/21/81 PART II: HOW TO SUE WITHOUT A LAWYER JOHN STRIKER, ANDREW SHAPIRO 33630 CHICAGO, DC 06/13/81 06/28/81 PART I: SHOW BUSINESS COUPLES RENEE TAYLOR, JOSEPH BOLOGNA MARGE REDMOND, JACK WESTON 33634 CHICAGO 05/18/81 06/28/81 PART II: WHO REMEMBERS CARTER -- JOSEPH CALIFANO DOES, THAT'S WHO 33634 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1981-82 06/06/81 06/13/81 10/11/81 08/08/82 STARTING OVER AFTER DIVORCE: MIDDLE AGED SINGLES RICHARD SCHICKEL, ANNE PARK, MARTHA HUGHES, STEVEN BRALOVE, RITA MCDOWELL 33637 CHICAGO, DC 06/08/81 10/18/81 08/01/82 PART I: THE REAL CHORUS LINE: BROADWAY DANCERS DONNA DRAKE, BOB HEATH, MARYBETH KURDOCK, DAVID EVANS, RON SCHWINN, JOAN BELL, DEAN BADOLATE, MARYANN NILES 33638 CHICAGO, DC 06/13/81 10/18/81 08/01/82 PART II: FACES IN THE CROWD: MOVIE EXTRAS ROZ BRAVERMAN, ANDREW MURPHY, BARRY WISEMAN, SHANNON SORIN, VELA CERES 33638 CHICAGO, DC 09/30/81 10/25/81 PART I: MAKING MARRIAGE WORK: MARRIAGE COUNSELORS LAURA SINGER, DR. ROBERT RYDER, DR. MEL KRANTZLER, DR. FREDERICK HUMPHREY 35451 CHICAGO, DC 09/30/81 10/25/81 PART II: DIVORCE MEDIATORS DR. JOHN M. HAYNES, LAWRENCE GAUGHAN, SAMUEL MARGULIES, VIRGINIA STAFFORD 35451 CHICAGO, DC 10/24/81 11/01/81 WHAT PLASTIC SURGERY CAN DO FOR YOU DR. RALPH MILLARD, DR. CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLEY-WHITE, DR. BRUCE CONNELL, DR. MICHAEL HOGAN 35452 CHICAGO, DC 10/07/81 11/08/81 07/18/82 06/05/83 PART I: MODELS OVER 50 WHO LOOK GREAT KAYLAN PICKFORD, LILLIAN MARCUSON, CARMEN DELL 'OREFICE 35453 CHICAGO (T), DC 10/28/81 11/08/81 07/18/82 PART II: THE MYSTERY OF SLEEP DR. RICHARD BOOTZIN, DR. QUENTIN REGESTEIN, DR. ELLIOT WEITZMAN 35453 CHICAGO, DC 11/07/81 11/15/81 PART I: MOTHERS WITHOUT CUSTODY ELLEN KIMBALL, "JACKIE", "BARBARA" 35455 CHICAGO, DC 11/07/81 11/15/81 PART II: CAMPUS CONSERVATIVES KEENEY JONES, JOHN GOODWIN, BENNETT COOPER, TERRY QUIST 35455 CHICAGO, DC 11/18/81 11/22/81 PART I: A TALK WITH FATHER THEODORE HESBURGH 34556 CHICAGO 11/18/81 11/22/81 PART II: UPDATE ON THE RADICAL LEFT LEWIS COLE, JOANNE LANDY, JANE ALPERT 34556 CHICAGO 11/21/81 11/29/81 07/04/82 PART I: THE SWINGERS PARADISE OF CLUB MED ROD FRANKEL, DOREEN WOODRUM, SUSAN FRAYTUS, RICKY DETRES, BOB LEIGHTON, CLAUDE KEBBE 35454 CHICAGO, DC 10/28/81 11/29/81 07/04/82 PART II: RETURN TO THE NEST STEPHANIE GANGI, TOM RIPP, FRANK SCHIRALLI, SCOTT MARTONE, ANGELA DIVERGILIO 35454 CHICGO, DC 11/25/81 12/06/81 08/22/82 WOMBS FOR RENT JULIE GALLIMORE, DR. WILLIAM MARRA, NOEL KEANE, DR. PHILLIP PARKER 35458 DC 12/05/81 12/20/81 06/27/82 PART I: DON'T GO NEAR THE WATER! ELEGANT NEW SWIMMER LIZA BRUCE, ANNE COLE, STANLEY REGENBOGAN, FRANK FRIEND, MIRIAM RUZOW 35459 CHICAGO 12/05/81 12/20/81 06/27/82 01/08/84 07/22/84 02/16/86 PART II: ALL ABOUT HANGOVERS DAVID OUTERBRIDGE, NELSON DEMILLE, PETER WALSH, HERBERT GOULD, M.D. 35459 CHICAGO 12/19/81 01/03/82 PART I: AN INTERVIEW WITH GLADYCE BEGELMAN: CO-AUTHOR OF "NEW YORK ON $1,000.00 A DAY" 35457 CHICAGO, DC 12/19/81 01/03/82 08/29/82 04/01/84 PART II: CAN YOU ERASE THOSE WRINKLES? THE TRUTH ABOUT SILICONE AND COLLAGEN DR. LEWIS FEDER, DR. ROBERT AUERBACH, DR. JAMES LEYDEN 35457 CHICAGO, DC 12/05/81 01/20/82 07/25/82 PART I: TOUGHLOVE: PARENTS FIGHT BACK PHYLLIS AND DAVID YORK, LANE PEER, RICHARD SURVING, JEAN BAKER WUNDER 35459 CHICAGO, DC 12/19/81 01/10/82 07/25/82 PART II: ALL ABOUT CATS ANITRA FRAZIER, SIMON BOND, SAMANTHA SUSSKIND, JERRY BENISATTO, PATRICIA NELL WARREN, RICHARD GEBHARDT 35459 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/82 01/17/82 08/15/82 PART I: WEIGHT LOSS NORMA SKOPIN, STEVE SLIVA, GERALDINE O'CONNOR, ANNE MCCARTHY, IRENE CURTIN 35462 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/82 01/17/82 08/15/82 03/25/84 09/16/84 02/09/86 07/06/86 PART II: 'LISA H.' OPERATION LINTON WHITAKER, M.D., JAMES KATOWITZ, M.D., DEREK BRUCE, M.D., CH.B 35462 CHICAGO, DC 01/20/82 01/24/82 "NO, MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE NOT BETTER OFF" PART I: VICTIMS OF THE BUDGET CUTS MATILDE COLON, ZELDA WEINER, MARY GARBUTT, MURIEL ZGARDOWSKI, MARY GALE 35463 CHICAGO 01/20/82 01/24/82 PART II: FACING PERMANENT LAYOFF DAN SULLIVAN, DOUG FORD, BOB LONGWORTH, BILL AHSCROFT, (RON CARVER-P.R.) 35463 CHICAGO 01/27/82 02/07/82 09/26/82 PART I: BACHELORS OF THE MONTH MICHAEL JEFFREY GRIFFITH, PETER KUHN, O. STEVEN FREDERICKSEN, JIM ZERBE, JOEL DIAMOND 35465 CHICAGO, DC 12/16/81 02/07/82 09/26/82 PART II: CHIROPRACTORS VS. M.D.'S DR. STEPHEN BARRETT, LOUIS SPORTELLI, D.C., CHESTER WILK, D.C., REUBEN HOPPENSTEIN, M.D. 35465 CHICAGO, DC 01/30/82 02/14/82 LOOKING FOR LOVE: A GUIDE FOR SINGLES DR. MARTIN GALLITAN, JOE O'CONNELL, MARCY BOUCHER, GAYLE BOARD, KEN NELSON, MITCHEL MITCHEL 35466 CHICAGO, DC 02/10/82 02/21/82 WHO'S HOT, WHO'S NOT -- WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT -- THE LATEST GOSSIP MADELLEINE SCHAAP, MAXINE MESSINGER, LIZ SMITH JAMES BRADY, BOB COLACELLO 35467 CHICAGO, DC 02/28/82 PART I: ASTROLOGERS PREDICT WHATS IN THE STARS FOR 1982 MARIA ELISA CRUMMERE, MARTIN SCHULMAN, DARRELL MARTINI, MAE WILSON-LUDLAM 35464 CHICAGO 02/28/82 PART II: SABINA SHALOM 35464 CHICAGO 02/24/82 03/07/82 THE WILD WORLD OF SPORTS DICK SCHAAP, DAN JENKINS, MIKE LUPICA, DAVE ANDERSON, MIKE DOWNEY 35469 CHICAGO 02/27/82 03/07/82 TRAVELING SALESMEN JIM O'CONNOR, JOEL KATZ, JIM PRENDERGAST, DICK ORNSTEIN 35469 CHICAGO 02/13/82 03/14/82 07/11/82 CRIMINALS ARE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER PHIL SEELIG, BILL CLARK, JUDGE EDWIN TORRES, SEYMOUR WISHMAN 35468 CHICAGO 03/10/82 03/21/82 09/12/82 PART I: ARE WOMEN THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES? MARY VANN HUNTER, MONIQUE VAN VOOREN, KATHRYN LIVINGSTON, DORIS LILLY 35471 DC 03/13/82 03/21/82 09/12/82 PART II: NICE GIRLS DO DR. IRENE KASSORLA 35471 DC 02/27/82 04/04/82 TROUBLED SKIES: THE AIRLINE MESS WILLIAM HOWARD, DON BURR, MEL BRENNER, MICHAEL ARMELLINO, SECOR BROWNE 35470 CHICAGO, DC 03/24/82 04/04/82 08/29/82 SUPERMOMS COLETTE ROSSANT, KATHRYN DARROW, MEG WHITCOMB, PENNY HAWKEY 35470 CHICAGO, DC 03/13/82 04/11/82 PART I: LIFTING THE BAMBOO CURTAIN: THE URGENT NEED TO UNDERSTAND CHINA DR. JOHN KING FAIRBANK 35472 CHICAGO, DC 03/10/82 04/11/82 PART II: COLLEGE GRADS IN MENIAL JOBS CHAS HICKEY, JANE HANSTEIN, ED CRICHIO, MARK NUNBERG, CAREY HUNTER 35472 CHICAGO (T), DC 04/14/82 04/18/82 PUBLIC SERVICE OR PUBLIC RIP OFF? -- UTILITIES EDWARD LARKIN, EDWARD HYNES, THOMAS FITZPATRICK, KAREN BURSTEIN, CAROL BARGER, ALFRED NARDELLI 35473 CHICAGO 04/25/82 ON THE VERGE OF RUIN: AMERICA'S DESPERATE FARMERS NITA GIBSON, WAYNE CRYTS, JOHN STULP, PETER CURRA, VAREL BAILEY 35476 CHICAGO, DC 04/24/82 05/02/82 COUNTDOWN TO DOOMSDAY: THE NUCLEAR ARMS DEBATE ADMIRAL ELMO ZUMWALT, DR. DANIEL MAGUIRE, DR. SCOTT THOMPSON, JACK GEIGER, M.D. FRITZ ERMARTH, CONGRESSMAN THOMAS DOWNEY 35477 CHICAGO, DC 03/24/82 05/09/82 PART I: FAST AND FUNNY: COLLEGE DEBATERS DAVID BAILIN, HARRY WALTERS, LARRY EICHENFIELD, EDWARD O'TOOLE, DAVID KIDD, J.J. GERTLER, GRANT OLIPHANT, RICHARD SOMMER 35473 CHICAGO, DC 05/08/82 05/16/82 GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS ABOUT THE ECONOMY DR. WILLIAM NISKANEN, JR., LEONARD SILK, DR. OTTO ECKSTEIN, DR. ALAN GREENSPAN, DR. JOSEPH PECHMAN 35479 CHICAGO (T) 05/05/82 05/23/82 10/03/82 "I'M ON WELFARE AND I HATE IT" -- A WELFARE MOTHER SHARON HUNT 35478 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/82 05/30/82 PART I: NOT FOR MEN ONLY -- BLUE COLLAR WOMEN TINA NANNARONE, LAURA SCHWARTZ, JANE KELLEY, SHARON HOLMES, JUDY HUGHES 35480 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/82 05/30/82 PART II: OUT OF CASH? TRY BARTER ANNIE PROULX, JERRY WEINER, GENE HOLTZMAN, CONNIE STAPLETON 35480 CHICAGO, DC 05/22/82 06/06/82 09/19/82 AN INTERVIEW WITH THE REMARKABLE VIDAL SASSOON VIDAL SASSOON 35481 CHICAGO, DC 06/13/82 WHO CAN AFFORD COLLEGE ANYMORE? -- PART I: ADMINISTRATORS JAMES POWELL, STEPHEN TRACHTENBERG, WILLIAM MAXWELL, HARVEY GROTRAIN 35482 CHICAGO 06/13/82 WHO CAN AFFORD COLLEGE ANYMORE? -- PART 2: PARENTS JOSEPH ZULLO, JOHN KAUFMAN, FREDERIC KRAMER, GLORIA GATTI, ALEXANDRA GREELEY 35482 CHICAGO 06/20/82 NO MORE LAND OF PLENTY NORMAN BERG, KREKEL KARCH, NEIL SAMPSON 35484 CHICAGO 06/20/82 CAREER COUNSELORS JOHN CRYSTAL, STANLEY HYMAN, ROBERT SWAIN, IRENE ANSHER 35484 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1982-83 10/06/82 10/10/82 THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW -- 25TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL - PART I 35486 CHICAGO, DC 10/09/82 10/17/82 THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW -- 25TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL - PART II MAUREEN STAPLETON, ANTHONY QUINN, NORMAN MAILER, TRUMAN CAPOTE 37027 CHICAGO (T), UCLA, DC 07/16/82 10/24/82 08/28/83 TOP TRIAL LAWYERS DEMONSTRATE THE ART OF JURY SELECTION PHILIP CORBOY, HAROLD PRICE FAHRINGER, AARON BRODER, BILL COLSON 35483 CHICAGO, DC 04/17/82 10/31/82 07/17/83 PART I: COCAINE: A 30 BILLION DOLLAR EPIDEMIC ROBERT MILLMAN, M.D., ANDY KOWL, TOM HENDERSON, "AMY", "A.J.", "LIZA" 35475 CHICAGO, DC 04/17/82 10/31/82 07/17/83 02/03/85 11/17/85 PART II: PARTY CRASHERS GARY WATSON, STEVE GOLDSTEIN, FRANK FUSARO, MIKE BURKE 35475 CHICAGO (T), DC 10/30/82 11/07/82 HERPES: THE VENEREAL DISEASE THAT CAN'T BE CURED PART 1: VICTIMS: OSCAR GILLESPIE, PHD., JANE RUBINSKY , RUSSELL WOOD, "SCOTT" PART II: DOCTORS: ANDRE NAHMIAS, M.D., HERBERT BLOUGH, M.D., JOHN GROSSMAN, M.D., DR. CARLOS LOPEZ 37028 CHICAGO (T), DC 11/03/82 11/14/82 08/21/83 PART I: WHY DON'T PEOPLE DATE ANYMORE? DOUG FOSTER, DOUG BERNSTEIN, SERENA BLISS, MICHAEL SELBY, LIZ CASTELLS, MAGGIE PETERS, SIGNE WARNER, BOB POLLAK 37029 CHICAGO (T) 11/03/82 11/14/82 08/21/83 PART II: AN INTERVIEW WITH HAMILTON JORDAN HAMILTON JORDAN 37029 CHICAGO 11/06/82 11/21/82 01/26/86 05/25/86 08/17/86 PART I: DOLLAR A DANCE -- TAXI DANCERS ARIEL LUCAS, PAUL PRICKETT, PENNY PRUCHA, ELLEN STOKES, CAROL SUNDQUIST 37030 CHICAGO 11/06/82 11/21/82 03/18/84 PART II: THE MYSTERY OF THE FULL MOON ARNOLD L. LEIBER, M.D., CHARLES S. MIRABILE, M.D., DR. RALPH W. MORRIS, DR. DONALD P. LASALLE 37030 CHICAGO (T) 11/20/82 11/28/82 CONGRESSMEN WHO WERE DEFEATED DON CLAUSEN, GENE ATKINSON, TOBY MOFFETT, JOHN LEBOUTILLIER 37031 CHICAGO (T) 11/20/82 12/05/82 02/17/85 PART I: HOW TO MARRY A RICH MAN JACQUELINE THOMPSON, RITA LACHMAN, DIANE ACKERMAN 37032 CHICAGO 06/19/82 12/05/82 PART II: LONG DISTANCE MARRIAGE BRYNA SANGER, HARRY KATZ, KAREN AKERS, CATHERINE AND JIM FOSTER 37032 CHICAGO (T) 11/27/82 12/12/82 07/10/83 PART I: GROWING UP IN THE DEPRESSION WITH RUSSELL BAKER, ANNE JACKSON, ELI WALLACH AND ED KOCH 37035 CHICAGO (T) 11/20/82 12/12/82 07/10/83 01/20/85 01/19/86 PART II: THE EFFECT OF COLOR ON OUR LIVES JOHN OTT, DR. JAMES D'ADAMO, IRENE AUSTIN 37035 CHICAGO (T) 12/08/82 12/19/82 06/26/83 PART I: CHOCOLATE TOM KRON, LAURA BRODY, MILTON ZELMAN, AL PECHENIK, RUDOLF SPRUNGLI 37036 CHICAGO (T) 12/08/82 12/19/82 06/26/83 PART II: ENTERTAINING CHARLOTTE TREE, SANDRA KASPER, MARY MCFADDEN, GEORGE LANG 37036 CHICAGO 11/27/82 12/26/82 07/24/83 PART I: TV ANCHORWOMEN ROBIN YOUNG, MONICA KAUFMAN, SUE SIMMONS, PAT HARPER 37034 CHICAGO (T) 12/11/82 12/26/82 07/24/83 PART II: AMBASSADOR MALCOLM TOON 37034 12/11/82 01/02/83 10/16/83 07/29/84 02/16/86 07/13/86 PAR I: SELF DEFENSE FOR WOMEN: HOW TO FIGHT BACK DR. MARY CONROY 37039 CHICAGO 12/11/82 01/02/83 PART II: THE CAREER WOMAN'S DILEMMA: JOB VS. BABIES CAROL MASIUS, ANDREA DUNHAM, NANCY EVANS, MARIA CAMPBELL, SERINE HASTINGS 37039 CHICAGO (T) 12/18/82 01/09/83 HOW TO LIVE WITH ARTHRITIS PART I: PATIENTS DR. ROBERT GOULD, BOB NIRKIND, ROBIN MAY, JOHN MURPHY, MARTHA SCHORTTMAN PART II: DOCTORS GERALD WEISSMAN, M.D. FREDERIC MCDUFFIE, M.D., GEORGE EHRLICH, M.D., THOMAS KANTOR, M.D. 37038 CHICAGO (T) 01/05/83 01/16/83 PART I: WOMEN OF THE YEAR: BROADWAY'S LEADING LADIES ELIZABETH ASHLEY, ELLEN BURSTYN, JUDITH IVEY, BETTY BUCKLEY 37040 CHICAGO (T) 01/05/83 01/16/83 PART II: BANKS ON THE BRINK: THE FOREIGN LOAN MESS C.W. CARSON, JR., RICHARD ERB, JOHN G. HEIMAN, PETER KENEN, REP. CHARLES E. SCHUMER 37040 CHICAGO 01/15/83 01/23/83 PART I: WAITRESSES DEBORAH GRISORIO, KATHLEEN MCLANE, PAULA MURRAY, NANCY YOUNGBLUT 37041 CHICAGO (T) 01/15/83 01/23/83 PAR II: NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN ROME, NY EDWARD BURTON, ED CALLAHAN, COL. JOHN ENGELMANN, EMLYN GRIFFITH, IRWIN REDLENER 37041 CHICAGO 01/27/83 01/30/83 PART I: IS THIS BULL MARKET FOR REAL? STEVEN EINHORN, ELIOT FRIED, JOHN HINDELONG, THOMAS STILES, JOHN TEMPLETON 37044 CHICAGO 01/19/83 01/30/83 12/11/83 PART II: COOKIES ARE BIG BUSINESS DAVID LIEDERMAN, BARBARA KAFKA, MARNI MILLER, JAN VERDONKSCHOT 37044 CHICAGO 01/22/83 02/06/83 THE RICH AND FAMOUS -- THE LATEST GOSSIP LIZ SMITH, DIANA MCLELLEN, TAKE AND MAXINE MESINGER 37043 CHICAGO 02/02/83 02/13/83 AMERICAN WOMEN WHO MARRY FOREIGN MEN JANA JAFFEE, KATHRYN JASON, SHARON COSTA DE BEAUREGARD, COUNTESS DE ROMANONES, MARTHA BURKE-HENNESSY 37045 CHICAGO 02/02/83 02/13/83 DOWNWARD MOBILITY -- THE END OF THE AMERICAN DREAM BOB SACCO, DAN RASUMSSEN, RHONA DROSSMAN, LLOYD SAVEL, HOPE POKRESS 37045 CHICAGO (T) 02/16/83 02/20/83 WHAT'S IN THE STARS FOR 1983 ASTROLOGERS POPE HILL, PATRIC WALKER, MARIA CRUMMERE, DEBBI KEMPTON-SMITH, JOELLE MAHONEY 37046 CHICAGO 02/16/83 02/27/83 12/02/84 05/04/86 PART I: STOPPING THE CLOCK? GEROVITAL EMILY WILKINS, BILL TICE, DORIS WHITEHEAD, JOHN COFFMAN, BARRY REISBERG, M.D. 37042 CHICAGO (T) 01/19/83 02/27/83 THE MYSTERY OF THE COMMON COLD STEVEN MOSTOW, M.D., R. GORDON DOUGLAS, M.D., SANFORD CHODOSH, M.D., HYLAN BICKERMAN, M.D., JOHN ABELES, M.D. 37042 CHICAGO 02/23/83 03/06/83 PART I: ANGRY CRIME VICTIMS DIANI MONTENEGRO, SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, GUILIA PAGANO, ROBERT GRAYSON, DR. MICHAEL ROBINSON 37047 CHICAGO (T) 02/23/83 03/06/83 PART II: CRIME FIGHTERS SGT. JOSEPH DUNNE, DET. BILL CLARK, DET./LT. ROBERT GALLAGHER 37047 CHICAGO 03/05/83 03/13/83 FILM CRITICS PREDICT THE OSCARS DAVID DENBY, JANET MASLIN, REX REED, HOWARD KISSEL, STEWART KLEIN 37048 CHICAGO (T) 03/09/83 03/20/83 06/10/84 PART I: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES JAMES IRVIN GLOVER, GRADY O'CUMMINGS III, LESTER BYERLEY, GERARD HIMMELMAN 37049 CHICAGO 03/09/83 03/20/83 06/10/84 PART II: IS PSYCHIATRY IN TROUBLE? STEPHEN SONNENBERG, M.D., LAYTON MCCURDY, M.D., ALLEN FRANCES, M.D., STUART YUDOFSKY, M.D. 37049 CHICAGO (T) 03/19/83 03/27/83 06/24/84 PART I: SEMINARY AND CONVENT DROP-OUTS CATHERINE BRUNO, PAUL HENDRICKSON, THOMAS SMITH, MARY GILLIGAN WONG, CHARLES DEVLIN 37050 CHICAGO (T) 03/19/83 03/27/83 PART II: MID-LIFE VOCATIONS SARAH B. TAYLOR, THOMAS H. GAINER, JR., REV. FRANK KILCOYNE, REV. JAMES F. HINCHEY, REV. FRANCIS J. FAJELLA, MSS.A 37050 CHICAGO 03/23/83 04/03/83 10/02/83 A CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT S. STRAUSS 37051 CHICAGO (T) 04/06/83 04/10/83 09/18/83 DEAR ANN LANDERS... ANN LANDERS 37052 CHICAGO 04/06/83 04/10/83 09/18/83 PART II: THE NEW YOUNG IMMIGRANTS CHRISTINA WACHTMEISTER, WILLIAM LEWIISHAM, ASHA PUTHLI, GIANNINA FACIO, FELIPTE PARAUD 37052 CHICAGO 04/13/83 04/17/83 09/25/83 S.R.O. HOTELS NAYNA VALDEZ, JOSEPH HOFFLER, LLOYD SMITH, ISMAEL RIVERA, ROBERT HAMBURGER, ALFRED GUNTHER, "ALICE" 37053 CHICAGO (T) 04/14/83 04/24/83 11/20/83 PART I: ANTHONY BURGESS 37054 CHICAGO (T) 04/23/83 04/24/83 06/08/86 PART II: BARBARA CARTLAND 37054 CHICAGO (T) 04/23/83 05/01/83 PART I: MEN WHO WANT TO MARRY RICH JEAN MORBELLI, DARIUS DE LA ROUCHEFOUCAULD, PATRICK KELLY, ROWEN NEGRIN 37055 CHICAGO (T) 04/23/83 05/01/83 03/11/84 08/05/84 04/13/86 06/22/86 08/24/86 PART II: BEST PLACES TO LIVE DAVID SAVAGEAU, RICHARD BOYER, DR. RONALD MINGE, DR. THOMAS BOWMAN 37055 CHICAGO 04/27/83 05/08/83 05/13/84 10/14/84 WE USED TO BE GAY - FORMER HOMOSEXUALS WILLIAM ATHERTON, DAVID TWOMEY, REV. WAYNE PLUMSTEAD, BRUCE BLAUSTEIN, JOSEPH MEGLINO 37056 CHICAGO (T) 04/27/83 05/08/83 BURN OUT - HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND DEAL WITH IT MICHAEL CRAWFORD, DR. HERBERT FREUDENBERGER, GAIL NORTH, CONNIE DE NAVE, SYLVESTER KARAGIS 37056 CHICAGO 04/30/83 05/15/83 10/09/83 BASEBALL WIVES DANIELLE TORRES, NANCY MARSHALL, BOBBIE BOUTON, KAROLYN ROSE, DIANE PEPITONE 37057 CHICAGO 05/07/83 05/22/83 08/07/83 PART I: LONLINESS JANE ADAMS, JOAN GOULD, JOHN HOLLANDER, MURRAY KELLMAN, MAURA SWANSON 37058 CHICAGO 05/07/83 05/22/83 08/07/83 PART II: PEOPLE MAD AT THE BANKS ALISON ROSENFELD, RON BANYAY, PAGE MELLISH, CALVET HAHN, GAYLE ESSAREY 37058 CHICAGO 05/25/83 05/29/83 07/31/83 01/27/85 BALLET - THE WORLD'S TOUGHEST SPORT CHRISTINE SPIZZO, MERRILL ASHLEY, CHRISTOPHER D'AMBOISE, KEVIN MCKENSIE 37060 CHICAGO (T) 05/25/83 05/29/83 07/31/83 02/12/84 12/22/85 06/15/86 THE LATEST WORD ON FOOTCARE JAMES PARKES, M.D., A. LOUIS SHURE, D.P.M., JOHN WALLER, M.D., MURRAY WEISENFELD, D.P.M. 37060 CHICAGO (T) 05/21/83 06/05/83 DAVID SUSSKIND AND FRIENDS JEAN KENNEDY, DAN BERKOWITZ, SAMANTHA SUSSKIND 37059 CHICAGO (T) 06/08/83 06/11/83 08/14/83 DR. CHARLES CLEMENTS, AN AMERICAN DOCTOR IN EL SALVADOR 37061 CHICAGO (T) 06/11/83 06/19/83 09/11/83 MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS DEANE W. LORD, MARY CAMERON LORD, LOIS WYSE, KATHERINE GOLDMAN 37062 CHICAGO (T) 06/11/83 06/19/83 09/11/83 PEOPLE WHO HAVE MOVED TO NEW YORK RAYNE BEAUDOIN, BONNIE KOLOC, KEVIN METHENY, MARY SUE MORRIS, KIM STEELE 37062 THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1983-1984 06/22/83 10/16/83 PART I: WHY CAN'T MEN SHOW AFFECTION?: MALE FRIENDSHIP RICHARD SCHICKEL, HERBERT GOULD, LARRY LEEDS, DAVID MICHEALIS 37063 CHICAGO (T) 10/17/83 10/23/83 07/15/84 A CONVERSATION WITH ANTHONY QUINN 37066 CHICAGO (T) 10/25/83 10/30/83 A MODERN MARK TWAIN: MAYOR ALFRED E. VELLUCCI OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 37068 CHICAGO (T) 10/15/83 11/06/83 FRIENDSHIP AMONG WOMEN JOANNA SIMON, CATHY CASH SPELLMAN, DEANE LORD, ALICE WHITE 37065 CHICAGO (T) 10/17/83 11/20/83 PART I: ANTHONY QUINN CONTINUED 37067 CHICAGO 11/23/83 11/27/83 PART I: HELEN GALLAGHER 37072 CHICAGO (T) 11/19/83 11/27/83 PART II: THE MAKING OF CARMEN PETER BROOK, ALEXANDER COHEN, HILDY PARKS 37072 CHICAGO 11/19/83 12/04/83 09/30/84 A PROBING LOOK AT THE RUSSIANS HEDRICK SMITH, DAVID SHIPLER 37071 CHICAGO (T) 11/23/83 12/11/83 07/29/84 PART I: BROADWAY AND HOLLYWOOD LAID BARE MILTON GOLDMAN, ANNA SOSENKO, RADIE HARRIS 37073 CHICAGO 12/10/83 12/18/83 09/09/84 PART I: RESTAURANTEURS SHELDON TANNEN, LELLO ARPAIA, SIRIO MACCIONI, ROBERT MEYZEN, GIANNI GARAVELLI 37069 CHICAGO (T) 10/29/83 12/18/83 09/09/84 PART II: PHOTOGRAPHER NORMAN PARKINSON 37069 CHICAGO (T) 12/17/83 12/25/83 PART I: CARD SHARK FRANK GARCIA 37077 CHICAGO (T) 12/17/83 12/25/83 PART II: SPECTACULAR EVENING GOWNS BY JANA JANA JAFFE DE ROSSELL 37077 CHICAGO (T) 11/30/83 01/01/84 PART I: BETTER THAN EVER: SHOW BUSINESS GREATS JOYCE BRYANT, SHERRY BRITTON 37075 CHICAGO 10/29/83 01/01/84 PART II: NOUVEAU IS BETTER THAN NO RICHE AT ALL MARYLIN BENDER, MONSIEUR MARC 37069 12/10/83 01/08/84 07/22/84 PART I: THE LATEST BREAKTHROUGHS IN THE TREATMENT OF HEART DISEASE MICHAEL DE BAKEY, M.D., ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D. 37074 CHICAGO (T) 12/14/83 01/15/84 DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL OURSELVES? VALERIA, DEREK HUMPHRY, DR. WILLIAM MARRA, PROFESSOR MARVIN KOHL, PROFESSOR DAVID BLEICH, DORIS PORTWOOD 37076 CHICAGO 01/11/84 01/22/84 08/19/84 WARNING: MEDICAL CARE MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR WEALTH SENATOR LOWELL WEICKER, MARTIN CHERKASKY, M.D., JOHN LARAGH, M.D. 40029 CHICAGO (T) 01/21/84 01/29/84 NEW YORK: A WONDERFUL TOWN MAYOR EDWARD KOCH, LEWIS RUDIN, ANTHONY BLISS 40030 (NY TV MUSEUM) 01/25/84 01/29/84 PART II: "NO NICE GIRL SWEARS" - ALICE-LEONE MOATS 40030 CHICAGO(T) 02/04/84 02/12/84 PART I: FORGET THE FEAR OF FLYING CAPTAIN T.W. CUMMINGS, ANNA GILHULEY, BETSY BYRNE, CAROL LAWSON, FRANK SINK 40033 CHICAGO (T) 02/08/84 02/19/84 WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT - WHO'S HOT, WHO'S NOT: THE LATEST GOSSIP LIZ SMITH, MAXINE MESINGER, TAKI, SHIRLEY EDER 40034 CHICAGO (T) 02/22/84 03/04/84 FORMER CONGRESSMEN GIVE THE LOWDOWN ON POLITICS 40035 01/25/84 03/11/84 08/05/84 PART I: THE MAN WHO SAVED NEW YORK: FELIX ROHATYN 40032 CHICAGO (T) 01/21/84 03/18/84 PART I: FORECASTING THE FUTURE WITH "RUNES" RALPH BLUM, BRONWYN JONES, DR. ROBERT LORENZ 40031 CHICAGO (T) 03/03/84 03/25/84 09/16/84 PART I: CANCER PATIENT VOLUNTEERS KATHRYN STEIN, GERRY GEORGE, ALAN MATCOVSKY 40036 CHICAGO (T) 03/03/84 04/01/84 PART I: CLASS: WHAT IS IT? WHO HAS IT? BENITA EISLER, PAUL FUSSELL, TERRY NOEL TOWE 40038 CHICAGO 03/21/84 04/08/84 08/12/84 PART I: BIG TIME SPORTS ARE NOT FOR MEN ONLY DONNA DEVARONA, KATHERINE SWITZER, GINNY SEIPT, PATRICIA HALL 40037 CHICAGO (T) 03/24/84 04/08/84 08/12/84 PART II: "THE ULTIMATE SEDUCTION": AN INTERVIEW WITH CHARLOTTE CHANDLER 40037 CHICAGO 03/31/84 04/15/84 TOUGH JUDGES TALK ABOUT CRIME AND PUNISHMENT JUDGE BURTON ROBERTS, JUDGE HERBERT STERN 40039 CHICAGO (T) 04/16/84 04/22/84 PART I: EVERYTHING'S UP TO DATE IN KANSAS CITY MAYOR RICHARD L. BERKLEY, SANDRA DAY BERKLEY, ELLIS G. BRADLEY, BEVERLY BRADLEY, J.C. NICHOLS, JR., MARY NICHOLS 40043 CHICAGO (T) 04/16/84 04/22/84 PART II: AN INTERVIEW WITH SIR JAMES MURRAY 40043 04/09/84 04/29/84 09/16/84 AN INTERVIEW WITH A. BARTLETT GIAMATTI, PRESIDENT OF YALE UNIVERSITY 40042 CHICAGO (T) 03/31/84 05/06/84 PART I: YES, MR. MEESE, THERE ARE HUNGRY PEOPLE TOBEY BERMUDEZ, MAGDA MARTIS, AUDREY MINNS, ERNESTINE ROYSTER, FRANK MONTGOMERY, CHARLES TAVENNER, NICK, MORRIS HACKNEY 40040 CHICAGO (T) 03/24/84 05/13/84 10/14/84 PART I: REAL LIFE TOOTSIES: MEN WHO DRESS AS WOMEN ARIADNE KANE, NAOMI, EILEEN, CHERYL 40041 CHICAGO (T) 04/28/84 05/20/84 PART I: SEX IS THEIR BUSINESS DR. IRENE KASSORLA, SHIRLEY LORD, DR. LONNIE BARBACHN 40045 CHICAGO 05/09/84 05/27/84 10/07/84 BRILLIANT MINDS, BRILLIANT CONVERSATION ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JOHN SIMON, BERNARD LEVIN 40047 CHICAGO (T) 04/25/84 06/03/84 08/26/84 VIETNAM: THE NIGHTMARE NEVER ENDS JOHN CATTERSON, THOMAS LECKINGER, THOMAS BRINSON, LAWRENCE SMITH 40044 CHICAGO 05/23/84 06/17/84 10/28/84 PART I: WOMEN BEHIND BARS - FEMALE EX-CONS FRAN O'LEARY, CONNIE FLYNN, BARBARA JORDAN, ANN MARIE DELONE 40050 CHICAGO (T) 06/12/84 06/17/84 10/28/84 PART II: ALL ABOUT ICE CREAM JOHN R. LESAUVAGE, REUBEN MATTUS, NANCY ARUM, CAROL T. ROBBINS 40050 CHICAGO (T) 06/12/84 06/24/84 A CONVERSATION WITH ROSALYNN CARTER 40052 CHICAGO (T) 06/04/84 07/01/84 PART I: BIG BUSINESSMEN TALK ABOUT EAST-WEST TRADE AND THE CORPORATE IMAGE DWAYNE ANDREAS, DONALD KENDALL 40051 CHICAGO (T) 05/23/84 07/01/84 06/01/86 PART II: OLDER WOMEN FIGHT AGE DISCRIMINATION JEAN PHILLIPS, BETTY ROSEN, DR. JANE PORCINO, SHIRLEY KARNES 40049 CHICAGO (T) 11/16/83 07/08/84 THE POPE OF MODERN ADVERTISING - DAVID OGILVY 37070 CHICAGO (T) THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1984-1985 10/20/84 11/04/84 STRICTLY PERSONAL: MEETING AND MATING THROUGH THE PERSONAL ADS ANNE ROSEN, HY FINKELMAN, RICHARD KATZ, RITA HALLEY, LOU SPIER, JOAN LERNER, DON FEAREY, URSULA GARRISS 40054 CHICAGO 05/16/84 11/11/84 TOP DIVORCE LAWYERS A. ROBERT ZEFF, WILLIAM G. MULLIGAN, JULIA PERLES, MARVIN MITCHELSON, ROY COHN 40048 CHICAGO (T) 04/28/84 11/18/84 PART I: GLAMOROUS MODELS FROM THE 50s DORIAN LEIGH, NANCY BERG, DOVIMA, CARMEN 40046 CHICAGO (T) 10/13/84 11/18/84 PART II: RISING STARS OF THE 80s CINDY WAITE, VICTORIA PROUTY, CAROL ALT, SAMANTHA PHILLIPS, CARRIE MILLER 40046 CHICAGO 10/27/84 11/25/84 IS THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION OVER? THE RETURN TO CHASTITY SUE ATCHESON, BOB POLLAK, ROBERT MASELLO, SARA NELSON, PAT SKIPPER 40055 CHICAGO (T) 10/27/84 11/25/84 PART II: EXPERTS DR. JUDITH KURIANSKY, DR. CAROL FLAX, ARTHUR KORNHABER, M.D. 40055 10/31/84 12/02/84 PART I: THE MALE MID-LIFE CRISIS: AN INTERVIEW WITH WILLIAM A. NOLEN, M.D. 41000 CHICAGO (T) 11/10/84 01/05/86 04/06/86 AN INTERVIEW WITH HAROLD GENEEN - AUTHOR OF "MANAGING" 41001 CHICAGO 11/10/84 12/09/84 10/27/85 PART I: CHILDREN OF WAR RONNY AL-ROY, DANNY KUTTAB, MAO PANHA, ANNA MARIA LOPEZ, ARN CHORN 41002 CHICAGO (T) 11/28/84 12/16/84 PART I: BOXERS' WIVES TELL ALL VIKKI LA MOTTA, REBA SMITH, JANE COSTELLO, EDNA MAE ROBINSON 41004 CHICAGO (T) 11/28/84 12/16/84 01/12/86 04/27/86 PART II: HOW TO MEASURE LOVE - AN INTERVIEW WITH DR. ROBERT STERNBERG 41004 CHICAGO (T) 10/31/84 12/23/84 PART I: "TAKE MY WIFE, PLEASE": AN INTERVIEW WITH HENNY YOUNGMAN 40053 CHICAGO (T) 10/13/84 12/23/84 PART II: AN INTERVIEW WITH ARTIE SHAW 40053 CHICAGO (T) 11/13/84 01/06/85 02/02/86 PART I: THE EXERCISE MYTH HENRY SOLOMON, M.D., RALPH ORISCELLO, M.D., GEORGE SHEEHAN, M.D., RICHARD STEIN, M.D. 41003 CHICAGO (T) 11/13/84 01/06/85 11/10/85 02/02/86 08/03/86 PART II: THE NEW OFFICE ETIQUETTE MARJABELLE YOUNG STEWART, LETITIA BALDRIGE, GEORGE MAZZEI 40113 CHICAGO 12/01/84 01/13/85 THE TRAGEDY OF ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PART I: CHILDREN AND SPOUSES BERNARD NATHANSON, MILLIE SEIDEN, MARION ROACH, LONNIE WOLLIN, MARILYN HERMAN PART II: DOCTORS MIRIAM K. ARONSON, M.D., ROBERT N. BUTLER, M.D., KENNETH L. DAVIS, M.D., JOHN P. BLASS, M.D., PHD. 41005 CHICAGO 01/12/85 01/20/85 TOP ASTROLOGERS PREDICT WHAT'S IN STORE FOR 1985 POPE HILL, JOELLE K.D. MAHONEY, NAN HALL LINKE, MARY ORSER, HENRY WEINGARTEN 41009 CHICAGO (T) 12/19/84 03/02/86 07/20/86 BIG-TIME DRUG SMUGGLERS "RICHARD DICKMAN", TOM KIMBALL, WAYNE GREENHAW 41006 CHICAGO (T) 12/19/84 01/27/85 05/18/86 07/27/86 GET RID OF YOUR FAT - SUCTION LIPECTOMY NORMAN HUGO, M.D., DICRAN GOULIAN, JR., M.D., EUGENE CURTIS 41007 CHICAGO (T) 12/22/84 02/03/85 11/17/85 PART I: SEX FOR SALE - MALE PROSTITUTES JOE, ANTHONY, BILL, PATRICK, ANTONIO 41008 CHICAGO (T) 01/12/85 02/17/85 PART I: YOLANA - A PSYCHIC DEMONSTRATION 41010 CHICAGO (T) 01/15/85 02/24/85 SOME PEOPLE STAY MARRIED LARRY AND NORMAN STORCH, JOEY AND CINDY ADAMS, DAN AND JUNE JENKINS 41011 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1985-1986 09/24/85 10/20/85 06/29/86 THE MARILYN MONROE STORY - AN INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR ANTHONY SUMMERS 41034 CHICAGO (T) 05/11/85 10/27/85 PART I: HOW TO GET YOUR TEENAGERS OFF DRUGS JOHN WHITE, LOIS WHITE, BRIAN MAZZIA, JOHN MAZZIA, ANN, ROBERT 41028 CHICAGO (T) 10/22/85 11/03/85 EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT PORNO MOVIES SAMANTHA FOX, CANDIDA ROYALLE, JACK WRANGLER, MARC STEVENS, GLORIA LEONARD 41036 CHICAGO (T) 10/17/85 11/10/85 08/03/86 PART I: OUR CHILDREN ARE HOMOSEXUALS AMY ASHWORTH, BOB BENOV, "ARTHUR", "GLORIA", "JOE" 41035 CHICAGO (T) 11/06/85 11/24/85 THE FIRST AMENDMENT COMEDY TROUPE BARBARA CONTARDI, PAT BAILY, JANE BRUCKER, NANCY LOMBARDO, BILL MCLAUGHLIN, JOE PERCE, MICHAEL SHAFFER, ELLEN MANDEL, STEPHEN PATTERSON 41038 CHICAGO (T) 10/29/85 12/01/85 04/20/86 09/07/86 HOW YOU CAN PREVENT ALMOST EVERY DISEASE ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D. 41037 CHICAGO 12/03/85 12/08/85 PART I: THE LAST TABOO - OLDER WOMEN AND YOUNGER MEN BOB MERRILL, JUDY CARNE, CHRISTOPHER KADISON, ROSEMARY ROGERS, JACK WRANGLER, MARGARET WHITING 41040 CHICAGO (T) 12/10/85 12/15/85 PART I: HAVE YOU EVER LIVED BEFORE - REINCARNATION JUNE WHITAKER, CAREY WILLIAMS, ALAN VAUGHAN, SHALA MATTINGLY, PROF. HANS HOLZER 41041 CHICAGO (T) 04/17/85 12/15/85 PART II: DETAILS ON AVENUE MAGAZINE - UPTOWN AND DOWNTOWN JUDITH PRICE, MICHAEL SHNAYERSON, ANNIE FLANDERS, STEPHEN SABAN, BEAUREGARD HOUSTON-MONTGOMERY 41041 12/19/85 12/22/85 PART I: CREATORS OF THE HOTTEST NEW DIETS BARBARA EDELSTEIN, M.D., STUART M. BERGER, M.D., SYBIL FERGUSON, LAURA STEIN 41044 CHICAGO (T) 10/20/85 01/05/86 PART I: TAIWAN - THE OTHER CHINA JOSEPHINE WANG, DOUGLAS TONG HSU, LIN YU-HSIANG, DR. WEI YUNG, DR. WU JING-JYI 41045 CHICAGO (T) 12/14/85 01/12/86 PART I: MARRIED WOMEN - EXTRAMARITAL LIASONS "MARILYN", "JEAN" 41042 CHICAGO (T) 01/11/86 01/19/86 PART I: ASTROLOGY - WHAT THE STARS SAY ABOUT 1986 POPE HILL, MARY ORSER, JOELLE K.D. MAHONEY, DEMO DI MARTILE, DIANE WEBB 41046 CHICAGO 12/14/85 01/26/86 08/17/86 PART I: STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF AIDS, TOO SYDNEY ANDERSON, ELAYNE KAHN, TOM DOE-BARE, URSULS GARRISS, GARY NULL 41043 CHICAGO (T) 01/25/86 02/09/86 07/06/86 PART I: MY SON COMMITTED SUICIDE SUSAN WHITE-BOWDEN 41049 CHICAGO (T) 01/16/86 02/16/86 PART I: THE BATTLE AGAINST SMOKING BOB GREENE, EVA BRENT, JOHN BANZHAF, FRAN LEE 41048 CHICAGO (T) 02/04/86 02/23/86 07/13/86 PART I: THE WAR AGAINST THE MAFIA EDWARD MCDONALD, NICHOLAS PILEGGI, BOB LUCCI, RONALD GOLDSTOCK, TOM SHEER 41991 CHICAGO (T) 02/04/86 03/02/86 07/20/86 PART II: THE WAR AGAINST THE MAFIA EDWARD MCDONALD, NICHOLAS PILEGGI, BOB LUCCI, RONALD GOLDSTOCK, TOM SHEER 41992 CHICAGO 02/06/86 03/09/86 SHOULD YOU HAVE A FACE LIFT? LET THE COMPUTER TELL YOU ROO BROWN, DORIS WHITEHEAD, FRANK OLIVE, CHICKEE JAMES, ELLIOT JACOBS, M.D. 41993 CHICAGO (T) 05/01/85 03/09/86 PART II: TRENDY RESTAURANTS ELAINE KAUFMAN, HOWARD STEIN, JIM MCMULLEN, BRIAN MCNULTY 41993 02/09/85 03/16/86 08/10/86 PART I: THE JOY OF ITALIAN FOOD LAURA MAIOGLIO, GIANNI GARAVELLI, NICOLA CIVETTA, ADI GIOVANETTI, SIRIO MACCIONI, GAEL GREENE 41014 CHICAGO 03/13/85 03/16/86 08/10/86 THE ART OF FINE DINING JAMES VILLAS, DAVID SCHOENBRUN, JOHN MARIANI 41014 CHICAGO 03/13/86 03/23/86 GAY RIGHTS: PRO AND CON MATT FOREMAN, PASTOR JESSE LEE, RABBI YEHUDA LEVIN, DR. WILLIAM A. MARRA, DAVID P. ROTHENBERG, THOMAS B. STODDARD 41994 CHICAGO (T) 01/16/86 03/30/86 PART I: FOREIGN WOMEN RATE AMERICAN MEN LILIANE MONTEVECCHI, HELGA WAGNER, JOANNA KIMBERLEY, ASHA PUTHLI 41047 CHICAGO 05/01/85 03/30/86 PART II: TITLED EUROPEANS PRINCE MICHAEL OF GREECE, COUNTESS DONINA CICOGNA MOZZONI, PRINCE DIMITRI OF YUGOSLAVIA, BARON FRANCOIS DE SAMBUCY, PRINCESS KATALIN ZU WINDISCH-GRAETZ 41047 CHICAGO 03/19/86 04/06/86 PART I: HOW TO BECOME A MILLIONAIRE TOM FATJO, JR., VICTOR KIAM, LANE NEMETH, THOMAS MONAGHAN, RICHARD THALHEIMER 41995 CHICAGO (T) 02/04/86 04/13/86 PART I: DIVORCED BUT FRIENDLY MARTI SCHULZ, BRYCE BOND, EDWARD BOTWIN, CAROL BOTWIN 41050 CHICAGO (T) 03/25/86 04/27/86 DOCTORS REVEAL THE LATEST IN SEX THERAPIES HELEN SINGER KAPLAN, M.D., HAROLD LIEF, M.D., CLIFFORD SAGER, M.D., MAJ-BRITT ROSENBAUM, M.D. 41996 CHICAGO (T) 03/31/86 05/04/86 THE MALE POOL - OLDER WOMEN SHARE THEIR RESOURCES LYNN TENDLER GILBERT, FRAN MANDELL, DEANNA WALLACH, DORIS BASS, GLORIA NEUWIRTH 41997 CHICAGO 04/22/86 05/11/86 CATCH A RISING STAR: NEW COMEDIANS MICHAEL HAMPTON-CAIN, BARRY STEIGER, TAYLOR MASON, RICHARD MORRIS, RANDY KLEIN 41999 CHICAGO (T) 05/01/86 05/18/86 07/27/86 THE WORLDS GREATEST SPAS RICHARD SCHMITZ, DR. SIGRUN LANG, DEBORAH SZEKELY, TONI BECK 42001 CHICAGO 03/13/85 05/25/86 ARE WOMEN FOOLS FOR LOVE? DIANE ACKERMAN, CAROL BOTWIN, ALEXANDRA PENNEY, DR. MELVYN KINDER, DR. CONNELL COWAN 41017 CHICAGO (T) 04/29/86 06/01/86 AN INTERVIEW WITH JOSEPH A CALIFANO, JR.: WHO LIVES, WHO DIES, WHO PAYS 42000 04/26/86 06/08/86 BADINAGE WITH BILL COSBY AND GIANNI GARAVELLI 42002 CHICAGO (T) 04/10/86 06/15/86 I DO, I DO, I DO - MANY TIMES MARRIED BARBARA TOBER, DIANA HUFF, SY KABACK, FRANKLIN B. ZIMMERMAN, RUTH BATCHELOR, "CARMEN" 41998 CHICAGO (T) 06/05/86 06/22/86 08/24/86 GROWING UP IN BROOKLINE MIKE WALLACE, JOHN D. SPOONER, RCHARD N. GOODWIN 42003 CHICAGO (T)

"BEYOND THE MAT" COMES TO THEATERS FRIDAY MARCH 17.

***THIS IS A PRELIMINARY SCRIPT FOR THE 9:30pmET PKG***\n\n THIS IS NOT THE FINAL SCRIPT\n\n THIS PKG HAS THE FOLLOWING EXPECTED EMBARGO: \n\nHouston, TX\n\n ***FINAL EMBARGOES AND FINAL SCRIPT WILL BE IN ITEM PY-21TU AT 9:30pmET***\n\n\n --ANTICIPATED SUPERS--\n\nSheriff Ed Gonzalez\nHarris County, TX\n\nJudge Lina Hidalgo \nHarris County, TX\n\nPilar Davis\nKMCO Operations Specialist\n\nMatt Loesel\nEPA Federal Onscene Coordinator\n\nJohn Foley\nKMCO President\n\n --LEAD IN--\nAN EXPLOSION AT A TEXAS CHEMICAL PLANT KILLED ONE PERSON AND SENT TWO OTHERS TO THE HOSPITAL.\nIT'S THE SECOND TIME IN LESS THAN A MONTH A FACILITY IN THE HOUSTON-AREA CAUGHT FIRE.\nCREWS SAY THIS FIRE -- IN CROSBY, TEXAS -- IS OUT -- \nBUT FIREFIGHTERS ARE WORKING TO KEEP HOT SPOTS FROM SPREADING TO COMBUSTIBLE CHEMICALS.\nMARY MOLONEY EXPLAINS.\n\n --REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS--\nTHICK BLACK PLUMES OF SMOKE FILL THE SKY --\nAS A DEADLY FIRE BURNS A CHEMICAL PLANT BELOW.\nSheriff Ed Gonzalez / Harris County, TX: "We don't know the extent of this."\nTHREE WEEKS AGO -- FIREFIGHTERS WORKED TO PUT OUT A CHEMICAL FIRE IN DEER PARK, TEXAS --\nNOW SOME OF THE SAME CREWS BATTLE FLAMES ABOUT 25 MILES AWAY AT THE KMCO PLANT IN CROSBY.\nJudge Lina Hidalgo / Harris County, TX: "It's disturbing and it is problematic that we are seeing this incident in a facility, especially on the heels of ITC."\nINVESTIGATORS BELIEVE THE FIRE STARTED WITH A CHEMICAL TRANSFER LINE -- AND SPREAD TO A WAREHOUSE.\nPilar Davis / KMCO Operations Specialist: "The fire initially ignited with isobutylene. It was then further fueled by ethanol and ethyl acrylate."\nISOBUTYLENE -- IS COLORLESS -- ODORLESS -- AND HIGHLY FLAMMABLE.\nEXPOSURE CAN CAUSE DIZZINESS -- UNCONSCIOUSNESS -- AND POTENTIALLY -- DEATH.\nTHE E-P-A SAYS -- DESPITE THE SMOKE -- NO HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS HAVE BEEN DETECTED IN THE AIR\nMatt Loesel / EPA Federal Onscene Coordinator: "At this point, we have not seen any detections at action level."\nTHE FIRE FORCED PEOPLE WITHIN A MILE TO SHELTER IN PLACE -- \nAND SURROUNDING SCHOOLS TO LOCK DOWN.\nABOUT SEVEN HOURS AFTER THE FIRE STARTED -- THE LOCK DOWNS LIFTED -- AND THE FIRE WAS EXTINGUISHED.\nJohn Foley / KMCO President: "We want to apologize for the inconvenience to the residents in the vicinity. And the worry that the incident has caused."\nBUT CONCERNS ABOUT HOT SPOTS IGNITING OTHER COMBUSTIBLE CHEMICALS REMAIN.\nKMCO'S PRESIDENT SAYS THE EXPLOSION IS UNDER INVESTIGATION -- \nAND THE COMPANY WILL TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT FUTURE FIRES.\nJohn Foley / KMCO President: "The well-being of our people, our neighbors, the environment are our top priorities."\nI'M MARY MOLONEY REPORTING.\n -----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----\n\n --KEYWORD TAGS--\nTEXAS MANUFACTURE FIRE BLAZE EXPLOSION DEER PARK CROSBY KMCO ITC BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT\n

President Clinton rallies the gun control troops as Congress resumes the fight over what should be done to protect our children.

LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 1: (INTERVIEW) Creators, writers and directors Matt Forde and Sean Foley say "We have really hit on what makes Meghan and Harry funny. We hope they come and see it. We have invited every single person who's a puppet and we hope they come!" at Phoenix Theatre on June 1, 2023 in London, England. (Footage by Giorgia Young/Getty Images)

GRAND JURY LOOKING INTO WHITEWATER ISSUES IS SCHEDULED TO MEET. STAKEOUT ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES JANIS KEARNEY ( SPEICAL ASST TO PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON FOR RECORDS AND RECORDS MANAGER ), MATT FOLEY DEPARTURES. CUTS

<p>Third-party material is not owned or cleared by CNN. It is the sole responsibility of each affiliate to decide whether to use the material.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>EST</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>1. bottom 1st, no score...Spencer Torkelson doubles to drive in Riley Greene...1-0 DET</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>2. Kerry Carpenter follows that with a triple to drive in Torkelson...2-0 DET</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>3. top 3rd, 2-0 DET...Tigers pitchers took over from there....Matt Manning strikes out Kevin Kiermaier....then gets Brandon Belt to end the inning</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>4. top 4th, 2-0 DET...Matt Chapman hits a hard grounder to 3rd; Zach McKinstry makes a great diving stop; pops up and throws him out</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>5. top 6th, 2-0 DET...Jays still without a hit....Bo Bichette pops up behind short; Javier Baez makes the great running catch to preserve the no hitter</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>6. top 7th, 2-0 DEt...Manning walks Cavan Biggio...he would leave the game without giving up a hit</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>7. top 8th, 2-0 DET....Jason Foley came on to replace Manning and got all 4 batters he faced including striking out Daulton Varsho</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>8. Foley gets Kevin Kiermaier to ground out to end the inning...Tigers still tossing a no hitter</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>9. top 9th, 2-0....Blue Jays down to their final out and still have not gotten a hit....Alex Lange gets Vladimir Guerrero Jr to ground out to third to end the game.....TIGERS TOSS A COMBINED NO-HITTER; 20TH COMBINED NO-HITTER IN MLB HISTORY</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>FINAL SCORE 2-0 DETROIT TIGERS</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>

TAPE_NUMBER: EF00/0896 IN_TIME: 12:21:06 // 15:03:19 // 20:36:43 LENGTH: 03:26 SOURCES: All ITV Thailand except shots 16-20 = BBC RESTRICTIONS: FEED: VARIOUS (THE ABOVE TIME-CODE IS TIME-OF-DAY) SCRIPT: English/Nat XFA PLEASE NOTE THIS PACKAGE INCLUDES GRAPHIC AND SENSITIVE FOOTAGE Thai police have questioned an Australian man in connection with the murder of a British tourist on Thursday and are looking for another foreigner as part of their investigations. The woman - Kirsty Sara Jones, 24, from Wales - was found strangled to death after being raped in a backpacker's guesthouse in a northern hill resort. The man, Nathan Foley, has been released but has been told he cannot leave the country. Kirsty Jones had checked in at the Aree Guesthouse in the town of Chiang Mai on Monday. On Thursday, her body was discovered, semi-naked, lying on the bed in her room. The police put out an alert after the discovery of Jones' body and were tipped off by another backpacker that the suspect was in a disco. Police say the suspect, Nathan Foley, was born in Sydney and has dual British and Australian nationality. Foley has admitted knowing Miss Jones but denied that they had had a relationship, and is protesting his innocence. The body was found by other guests and the guesthouse owner, who became suspicious at not seeing Jones come out of her room on Thursday morning. The previous night the guests had heard sounds of a struggle from Jones' room and had heard screams but no one had interfered. SOUNDBITE: (Thai) "There are people who are staying next door who heard help me, help me and that time was at one in the morning. So we believe that the incident happened at one o'clock." SUPER CAPTION: Police Lt. General Aram Chanten According to British diplomats Foley turned himself in to the police. They now have several days to question him. Meanwhile, at their family home in Breconpowys, Wales, the parents of the murdered woman spoke of her love of travel and her determination to go on this trip to Thailand. SOUNDBITE: (English) "It was her decision, it was Kirsty's decision to go. She's 23 years old. You can't tell her not to go. She was determined. Wild horses couldn't have stopped her going on this trip." SUPER CAPTION: Glyn and Sue Jones, parents of Kirsty Jones SOUNDBITE: (English) "No, no, we don't want to go to Thailand. We just want Kirsty back here where she'll be safe, where no one will be able to harm her again." SUPER CAPTION: Glyn and Sue Jones, parents of Kirsty Jones SHOTLIST: Chiang Mai, Thailand and Breconpowys, Wales - August 10 & 11 2000 ITV MATERIAL August 11 1. Wide shot of suspect leaving car and walking 2. Wide shot of suspect walking into guesthouse where he and murdered Briton stayed 3. Suspect and police in victim's room 4. Suspect giving card to police 5. Various close ups of policeman collecting evidence in bag 6. Suspect crying 7. Suspect being questioned by police August 10 8. Shot through window of body on bed 9. Close up of feet of murder victim 10. Body being photographed 11. Body being taken out of room 12. Body being placed in vehicle 13. Press outside 14. SOUNDBITE: (Thai) Police Lt. General Aram Chanten August 11 15. Suspect walking from police station with Australian consul Matt Brown BBC MATERIAL August 11 - Breconpowys, Wales 16. Exterior of family farmhouse 17. SOUNDBITE: (English) Parents of Kirsty Jones 18. Cutaway hands 19. SOUNDBITE: (English) Parents of Kirsty Jones 20. Exterior of farmhouse?

LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 1: (INTERVIEW) Creators, writers and directors Matt Forde and Sean Foley say "We aren't worried about anyone famous seeing the show. In the end, it's a show, they're puppets, people laugh and it's really on the side of the angels. People leave here elated and laugh their heads off at the state of the world. People have the right to take the mick out of politicians" at Phoenix Theatre on June 1, 2023 in London, England. (Footage by Giorgia Young/Getty Images)

<p>Third-party material is not owned or cleared by CNN. It is the sole responsibility of each affiliate to decide whether to use the material.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p>TIME: 00-18<tab /><tab /><tab />ITEM: TOP OF THE 5TH, 1 OUT</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>MATT VIERLING (D) REACHES 1ST OFF THE BOBBY WITT JR (K) THROWING ERROR, PARKER MEADOWS (D) SCORES</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>SCORE: 5-2 ROYALS</p>\n<p>====================================================================</p>\n<p>TIME: 18-32<tab /><tab /><tab />ITEM: TOP OF THE 5TH INNING, 2 OUTS</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>COLT KEITH (D) HITS A 2 RUN HOMER THAT SCORES MATT VIERLING (D)</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>SCORE: 5-4 ROYALS</p>\n<p>====================================================================</p>\n<p>TIME: 32-45<tab /><tab /><tab />ITEM: BOTTOM OF THE 5TH INNING, 1 OUT</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>BOBBY WITT JR (K) REACHES 1ST SAFELY OFF THE INFIELD SINGLE, SCORING KYLE ISBEL (K)</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>SCORE: 6-4 ROYALS</p>\n<p>====================================================================</p>\n<p>TIME: 45-103<tab /><tab /><tab />ITEM: TOP OF THE 6TH INNING, 1 OUT</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>WENCELL PEREZ (D) HITS A DOUBLE INTO LEFT FIELD SCORING ANDY IBANEZ (K) AND JAKE ROGERS (K)</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>SCORE: 6 ALL</p>\n<p>====================================================================</p>\n<p>TIME: 103-115<tab /><tab /><tab />ITEM: TOP OF THE 6TH INNING, 1 OUT</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>MATT VIERLING (D) HITS A SINGLE INTO RIGHT FIELD TO SCORE WENCELL PEREZ (D)</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>SCORE: 7-6 DETROIT</p>\n<p>====================================================================</p>\n<p>TIME: 115-123<tab /><tab /><tab />ITEM: BOTTOM OF THE 9TH INNING, 2 OUTS</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>J FOLEY (D) STRIKES OUT TOMMY PHAM (K) SWINGING TO END THE GAME</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>SCORE: 7-6 DETROIT FINAL</p>\n<p>====================================================================</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>

LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 1: (INTERVIEW) Creators, writers and directors Matt Forde and Sean Foley say "It's been difficult to keep up with society. It's been crazy. People are desperate to laugh" at Phoenix Theatre on June 1, 2023 in London, England. (Footage by Giorgia Young/Getty Images)

STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR DAILY PRESS BRIEFING State Department Briefing with Spokesperson Jen Psaki Subject: Regular Press Briefing Location: Briefing Room, The State Department, Washington, D.C. Time: 2:00 pm EDT, Date: Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 JEN PSAKI: Good afternoon, everyone. Q: Hello. MS. PSAKI: Thank you all for the understanding of the later briefing time. James had a birthday yesterday. So we'll start with that -- belated, but -- Q: Very kind of you. MS. PSAKI: If you note for us, we'll recognize all of your birthdays for the transcripts, without the age unless you ask. (Laughter.) Q: I don't know why he would be embarrassed about 27. MS. PSAKI: It's true. You look great for 27. Q: Back at you. MS. PSAKI: Thank you. (Laughter.) I have one items for all of you at the top. It is not only ISIL targeting innocent civilians in Syria. As the -- it is also the regime. As the international community works to counter the threat of ISIL, the regime is targeting communities that are also confronting the danger of ISIL and other extremist groups. We condemn in the strongest terms of the Syria regime's indiscriminate bombing of a densely populated neighborhood in Damascus. According to eyewitness reporting, hundreds of rockets have struck the neighborhood of Jobar over the past six days. This de facto carpet bombing has utterly destroyed entire city blocks of a neighborhood that has already been targeted by the regime before. We call on the Syrian regime and their patrons to immediately stop the indiscriminate shelling of Jobar and countless other towns across Syria. We have been clear that those responsible for such atrocities must be held accountable. Go ahead, Matt. Q: I've got two very brief one. MS. PSAKI: OK. Q: Just the one -- the second one goes into what you were just talking about though. They both have to do with the secretary's remarks at the -- you know, the Diplomacy Center. One, I just want to make sure, there are seven former living secretaries of state, right? Not six? MS. PSAKI: That is correct. Q: OK, so -- MS. PSAKI: And they are all invited. Obviously two were unable to attend. Q: OK. I just wanted to make sure of that -- that nothing had happened to one of the other two overnight or whatever. And secondly, the secretary in his comments paid tribute to former Secretary Baker and his diplomacy in the lead-up to the first Gulf War. He said that it was the gold standard of modern coalition building and one that he would be personally using as he -- in the coming days as he goes around the Middle East trying to build a coalition against ISIL. That struck me as interesting because, of course, one of the main accomplishments of that coalition in -- back in the first Gulf War was that Syria was on board in it. I presume that that particular element of the secretary's use of Secretary Baker's gold standard is not -- is not part of it. Is that -- is that -- is that correct? Syria -- there's no way that Syria can be part of your coalition against ISIL. MS. PSAKI: Nor is that what the United States is pursuing. But let me just give you a little context of the secretary's remarks. The secretary, before he became secretary -- or when he was named secretary, I should say, spoke a great deal -- he reached out to all of the secretaries. He looks at their records, their accomplishments and how they went about diplomacy and thinks history has a big role to play in how you pursue things moving forward. And I think certainly today was an appropriate day to recognize, he also tweeted quite a few times about different accomplishments of different secretaries and their role and reputations -- Q: I just -- I just wanted -- I just wanted to make sure I understand, that by calling the -- Baker's coalition building the gold standard of it and saying he's going to follow it does not indicate that he's going to be trying to get Syria, this current Assad regime as opposed to the father's regime, on board. MS. PSAKI: That is a correct assumption, yes. Q: OK. MS. PSAKI: However, building a coalition, the United States is obviously not going to go it alone in the fight against ISIL. That is what he is sticking to. Q: All right. I will yield. MS. PSAKI: OK. Ladies? Q: (Off mic.) MS. PSAKI: Hmm? Sure. Q: The coalition? MS. PSAKI: OK, go ahead, Lalit (sp). Q: Which are the countries that you are approaching to be part of the coalition? MS. PSAKI: Well, Lalit (sp), it is not limited by geography. There are a range of countries that the secretary is reaching out to, that administration officials are reaching out to. There are already a number of countries that may not be in the Arab world or aren't in Europe who are already contributing resources and offering assistance to fight ISIL and to address the humanitarian situation Iraq. So it's a broad range of countries. Just yesterday he spoke with his Australian counterparts, his Emirati counterparts, Jordanian counterpart, Qatari. He spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, which I know I mentioned yesterday. He spoke with the Saudi ambassador a well as the Italian foreign minister. So these calls will continue, as will our travel, which is an important part of diplomacy as well. Q: Have you asked India also to be part of the coalition of -- MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Lalit (sp), that as we engage in this effort, which we're just in the beginning of building this coalition, that's certainly reaching out to a range of countries that have a desire to be a part of this coalition is certainly something that the secretary and others in the administration will be doing. Q: Thank you. Q: (Off mic) -- what kind of resources and assets you might be asking them to contribute. MS. PSAKI: Well, I think this is not as much a demand or a "we ask you to do X." It is a determination of what resources and assets that any country has. And every country has different capabilities, so it's a discussion back and forth. I think what we saw with Iraqis over the past several weeks is a good example because there are countries that were able to participate or assist in areas like humanitarian aid drops, which require a range of assets that every country may not have. Australia, France, the U.K., all were assisting in that. There are counties that made decisions to provide arms to the Kurds. So moving forward -- but there are also countries that may not have those capabilities or may not choose to go that route. And so there are a range of ways that countries can contribute to the coalition. Q: You're not talking about putting people on the ground, though, in that sense. MS. PSAKI: We are not talking about that, as you know. Obviously every country makes their own decision, but the focus of our discussion now is about using the resources and the capabilities that a range of countries have to coordinate as we take on the threat of ISIL. Q: And to touch on Matt's questioning yesterday about Syria, what is it that the United States is hoping that the coalition could actually do in Syria, given that ISIL doesn't respect the border between Syria and Iraq? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the president and the administration have also been clear that we're not going to be limited by geography. Obviously there are a range of decisions and discussions that are ongoing -- or decisions that are ongoing in that -- in the administration, I should say, and decisions that still need to be made. But I'm not going to get into specifics other than to convey that there are a range of ways to take on the threat. There are certainly military steps that can be taken. There are also financial targeting. There is also efforts to fund engagements that we may be participating in. There also is humanitarian assistance. And so a discussions about all of these issues is what -- Q: But you're not just focusing on Iraq. You're also looking at the situation in Syria. MS. PSAKI: We're looking at the threat of ISIL as it relates to the global community, certainly the region, but obviously there are a range of countries that are concerned about this but don't even live in the region. Q: Are you finding that any of the countries that the United States is approaching is seeking any reciprocal gestures or measures by the United States? MS. PSAKI: No. I think, James, that I would point you to the public comments made by a number of the countries that the secretary even spoke with just yesterday. The threat of ISIL, what we're seeing in terms of their capabilities, their growth is of concern not just to the United States but to Italy, to Germany, to Australia, to Saudi Arabia, and I think that these discussions are about how we can best coordinate to address it. Q: Can you say as a matter of policy that the United States is unwilling to pay any other country to join this coalition? MS. PSAKI: I'm not even sure if you're -- what you're referring to, James. So that's not what the discussions are about. Q: Could I ask a -- going back to the video, the beheading of -- MS. PSAKI: Yes. Q: -- Mr. Sotloff. Is there anything more? MS. PSAKI: Yes, I have a little bit more. Q: You do? Can you give us what more you have on that, as long as it goes beyond what the White House said, what the United States said this morning? I mean, well, you can repeat that if you want. MS. PSAKI: Sure. I will repeat what I know, and obviously, there have been a range of remarks made by different people today, so we did learn about the video when it was made public; I know that was a question that was asked yesterday. They may have already confirmed that. We have already determined - while the intelligence committee is - a community is analyzing the video to learn as much as we can about what happened, where it happened, when it happened and who was involved, we've already determined that the videos were not shot at the same time, with the video of Mr. Sotloff being filmed after the Foley video. Obviously, this video was just made public yesterday, so there are additional questions, I'm certain, that we're still looking into that I don't think I'm going to have more to say. Go ahead. Q: Can you say how it is that you - that the intel community ascertained that this latest video was filmed at a different time than the Foley one? And does that mean, also, that the images of Mr. Sotloff that were in the first video - was that - were those taken at a separate time as well? MS. PSAKI: I can't go into more detail. I can just confirm for you, as you already know, that before we make a public statement, we certainly do our due diligence in ascertaining it's accurate. Obviously, that's why I made that comment. But - Q: OK. So the answer is, you don't know or you can't say, or that determination hasn't been made yet? MS. PSAKI: Well, ask your second question again. Q: Well, I'm curious to know if the - you've determined, or you just said that the intel community has determined that the videos were shot at - this latest one that came out yesterday was shot at a different time than the Jim Foley video, is that correct? MS. PSAKI: Yes - yes. Q: The bit of the Foley video that showed Mr. Sotloff - was that contemporaneous with the more recent one, or was that all - do you think that that was - Q: Are there two videos or three videos, is what he's asking, in essence. MS. PSAKI: Well, OK, just so I understand what you're asking - and I'll see if I can answer this - are you asking whether the video that showed him in the video - that was at the same time as the - Q: I'm asking - the Foley video had Foley and Sotloff in it. MS. PSAKI: Yes. Q: That was all shot at the same time, you believe, or was the Sotloff part of that video shot at a separate time? MS. PSAKI: I would have to double check on that; I just want to be extra careful. Q: OK - but - so what you're saying now is that the video that appeared yesterday was shot at a different time - you're not prepared to say sooner or later than the - MS. PSAKI: I said after. Q: Oh, you said after? OK. And does that - does that mean anything to you in terms of whether Mr. Sotloff was alive after the Foley video? MS. PSAKI: I'm just - I don't have any more analysis at this point in time. I expect we'll have more as each - as the intel community announces. (Cross talk.) Q: Just to clarify Matt's question for one moment - MS. PSAKI: Said, one moment. Let's go one at a time. Go ahead, James. Q: Just to clarify Matt's question, Mr. Sotloff appeared in two videos. And I think Matt's question was aimed at finding out whether those two appearances of Mr. Sotloff were shot at different times, or whether one video taping session with Mr. Sotloff was used in two separate videos. Does that make sense? MS. PSAKI: But you're talking about the first two videos, not - you're talking - Q: You have two videos, in each of which, Mr. Sotloff can be seen. The question I think Matt was posing was whether those two appearances from Mr. Sotloff were recorded in the same session or reflect two different recorded sessions. MS. PSAKI: I understand - I understand. I just have to check with our intel community and see if there's more we can say in that specific regard. Q: And are you - are you able to say whether or not the two videos appear to have been shot in the same place? MS. PSAKI: I don't have any more - I think - when I said that, obviously, there's a lot we're looking at - where it happened, when it happened, those are some of the questions - (inaudible) - Q: You don't know in terms of location? Because I think the secretary alluded to Syria - like, the location where these videos were filmed was in Syria. So you don't have - you don't know whether it was actually Syria or Iraq or elsewhere - (inaudible) - MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly know where he was kidnapped, and we know a lot of details, Said. But again, this video just came out yesterday; I don't want to guess, as you know. Did you have a question on the video, or can we finish that? Go ahead, Jo. Q: I have one more, actually. Yesterday, I asked a question about the Briton - the British who was shown in the second video about Mr. Sotloff. Have you had any contact - again, I asked yesterday - with Britain about that? Do you know about his condition? MS. PSAKI: We certainly remain in touch with the UK about any of these issues. I am not going to have more specifics to read out for you. I would point you to them for any more questions about one of their citizens. Q: When you say "all of these issues," that would include not just the hostage but also but also the guy who's doing the killing, correct? MS. PSAKI: Oh, sure. Of course. Of course. I think Jo was asking specifically about the importance of the individual -- yeah. Q: Yeah, I know, but I wanted to make sure -- (off mic). Q: Do you happen to know whether the U.S. intelligence community has access to video from these particular recording sessions involving Misters Foley and Sotloff more extensive than what has been released or posted online? MS. PSAKI: Not that I'm aware of, James. Q: I have one more, I'm sorry, on -- MS. PSAKI: Mmm hmm. Go ahead. Q: -- the guy who's supposedly a British guy who does the killing. Do you believe in both videos it is the same person? MS. PSAKI: We just don't have any more to offer at this point in time. Q: As far as the location of these videos and of these hostages and of these terrorist groups, do anybody like Syrian government or -- and in groups, do they know the location where they are? MS. PSAKI: You'd have to ask the Syrian government that question. Q: I mean -- MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Q: Thank you. On global coalition against ISIL, on Turkey, as we all know, 49 diplomats are still being held captive by ISIL. How do you deal with that? I mean, how do you find Turkish government willingly to join this coalition while their 49 diplomats are being held captive? MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly we remain in touch with the Turkish government. They have -- they certainly share our concern, and I would point you to them about the threat of ISIL. Obviously, every country has different capabilities and different interests in terms of what they will or won't provide. There is a range of factors for that. I'm not going to speak on their behalf, so I'd certainly point you to them. Q: How is dealing with the Turkish government in terms of this coalition goes? Because we haven't heard anything, any supporting statements from the Turkish leadership so far on this issue. MS. PSAKI: Turkey remains an important ally and one we work closely on addressing counterterrorism. Nothing has changed in that regard. And obviously, if they have announcements to make about what type of capabilities or interests they -- or supports they may or may not be offering, we'll leave that to them. Yes. Q: (Off mic) -- secretary staid the gold standard. I mean, you know, that coalition I remember, half a million soldiers were deployed to Saudi Arabia. He doesn't mean anything like this -- he does not mean that, you know, all these countries would send in all of these troops and -- (inaudible) -- deployed in, like, in Turkey or Jordan and so on and then move forward? He doesn't mean that, does he? MS. PSAKI: Look, I think the secretary was not announcing a military strategy for approaching the threat of ISIL. The secretary was referring to the hard work of diplomacy that several of his predecessors undertook. Obviously, every situation is different; a coalition, the capabilities and what will be required is certainly different now than it would have been 20 years ago. Q: (Let me ?) move more broadly to the U.S. approach to ISIS and the president's comments this morning. In just the one appearance in Estonia, the president iterated three times the mission against ISIS, and in all three iterations, it seems strikingly different. At one time he spoke about wanting to destroy and degrade ISIS. At another point he spoke about wanting to roll them back. And at still another point he talked about wanting to shrink its sphere of influence to the point where it would be a manageable problem. Am I correct in identifying those three iterations as markedly different from each other? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it's important for everybody, including people at home who watch Fox, to look at the context of the remarks that the -- that the president made. Certainly our objective here is to degrade and destroy ISIL. And I think the president also said that that's going to require an ongoing effort, that what we want to see if preventing this group from destroying or being an ongoing threat to the region. Q: But how can reducing something to the point where it is a manageable problem be consistent with destroying it? MS. PSAKI: Well, I'd have to look at the full context, James, but I think it's understandable that the White House press corps and others who are asking questions asked in many different ways. And obviously, there are many questions to be discussed and answered on this particular issue. But I think there is no country that has done more than the United States to help Iraq build a coalition to take on -- begin to take on the threat there, to build an international coalition. I think the president's actions are the most important factor for people to look at. Q: I wasn't asking you about what was escaping the lips of the White House press corps in Estonia. I was asking about the pronouncements of the president of the United States. And I think you would agree that it is very important, especially in a situation like this, that the president speak with clarity so that the American people at home and people around the world, not least of all the members of ISIS, understand him. So when he speaks about making something a manageable problem, but also speaks about destroying something, can you understand why people might be confused about that and regard it as mixed messaging? MS. PSAKI: Well, James, with all due respect, I know there sometimes is a desire to twist words or take things out of context, but I think there should be no question that the president desires to degrade and destroy ISIS. He has taken action to do that. I think actions are an important factor, not just a word game of what you think it means. He has been clear he wants to build an international coalition. That's not going to be overnight. We need capabilities from many countries. And I think his actions tell you what you need to know about his commitment to doing this. Q: You -- speaking just back to the coalition for a second, you mentioned the secretary's calls yesterday, Australia, UAE, Jordan, Qatar, Netanyahu, Saudi ambassador, Italian foreign minister. So is it safe to assume that these countries represented here will be -- are prime candidates for the -- for coalition membership? MS. PSAKI: I think that these countries are all countries that have a concern about the threat that we face from ISIL, but I'm not going to speak on their behalf. Many of them have already taken steps in Iraq. Q: Right. And then I just want to go back to one thing. In the conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu, which I'm sure we will get back to later on, did the question of Mr. Sotloff's citizenship come up? MS. PSAKI: I -- let me see what I have on the call, Matt. Q: And even if it didn't, I have a question or two about his Israeli citizenship. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, as you know, the secretary spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu just yesterday, last evening. They discussed issues, of course, related to the Palestinians, including Gaza, as well as ISIS and other regional issues. I'd have to check and see if that level of specificity came up. Q: In terms of his citizenship, do you know, was the U.S. aware pretty much after he went missing that he was an Israeli -- that he had Israeli citizenship, and was this, you know, an extra concern of yours about -- was this an extra -- something else that made you concerned about his safety and that would perhaps, in addition to what you -- your concerns about -- (inaudible)? MS. PSAKI: I know we were aware at some point in time. I don't have a timeline on exactly when we were made aware. I can see if there's more to convey on that. In terms of our level of concern, I think our level of concern was certainly already at a very high point, so -- Q: No, obviously. But I mean, this is another circumstance -- MS. PSAKI: Certainly. Q: -- an extenuating circumstance that may have increased your -- I don't know. Maybe it didn't, maybe it did. That's what I'm asking. MS. PSAKI: I'd have to check with our team and see if raised the bar further than it already was. Q: Can we stay on the Netanyahu-Kerry call? MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead. Q: The secretary certainly raised his concern about (this appropriation ?) of land, correct, for a new settlement? MS. PSAKI: Yes, he did. Q: OK. Now, are you aware that today the Israelis are now further settlement building in East Jerusalem for 2,220 units? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think in our statement just yesterday we -- Q: I'm talking about today. MS. PSAKI: Let me finish. We talked about concerns about upcoming settlements announcements that had been reported, so we had addressed that in some capacity. Now certainly I haven't looked at those specific details, nor have I talked with our team about them. But I think we've been clear about our concern about these type of actions. Obviously different places are slightly different, but that hasn't changed. Q: Will the secretary feel snubbed, I mean, considering that he brought the topic with the Israeli prime minister last night and today they announced another settlement building plans? MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I don't think we expect that when we raise concerns there's always going to be immediate change. What we do have a responsibility to do is raise concerns when we have them, to express the United States' view that we don't recognize the legitimacy of settlements. We think it's unproductive to moving forward towards a two-state solution. And those are all concerns that are worthy of expressing. Q: OK, now you are -- you know, you expressed concern and so on, but -- and you said that they don't have immediate results and so on, but in your recent memory, have the Israelis rolled back any settlement plans as a result of your expression of displeasure? MS. PSAKI: There certainly have been times, and obviously there were times when announcements weren't made as well. But I'm not going to do a history lesson with you here, Said. Q: Is the secretary getting assurance from -- (inaudible) -- that they were going to stop, or? MS. PSAKI: I just don't have any more to readout from the call. I would point you to them if they would choose to say more. Q: Can you tell us a little bit about the tone of the call? The Israeli press, notably Haaretz, is saying that the secretary was highly critical of the decision. It sounds like that is more than just concerned. It sounds like he actually stepped up the tone. MS. PSAKI: I'm just not going to characterize it further. Q: And what about the -- Q: Concerning the administration's view of these recent moves, does the secretary regard them as the kind of moves that he has previously warned the Israeli government would be the kind of moves that would result potentially in boycotts and other adverse measures against the Israeli government? MS. PSAKI: I think you're familiar with not just what has been said in the past, but -- by the secretary, but what others have said outside of the administration. Q: In other words, he warned about this prospect previously if Israel didn't change its course. Now they have announced new moves. Is this the kind of thing the secretary had in mind when he issued that warning? MS. PSAKI: I'm just not going to address that further. Go ahead, Leslie. Q: I was going to ask about the meeting, and -- I guess it's this afternoon, with Erakat (sp), with the Palestinian negotiations. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q: And there are reports out of the region today that he's going to bring a plan to the secretary. Have you -- have they reviewed that plan? I mean, does he know about it? Have they discussed it? What time is the meeting? MS. PSAKI: They don't have -- I believe they're meeting this afternoon. I don't have an exact time for you. It may have been our public schedule. Q: (Off mic.) MS. PSAKI: But -- I'm sorry, Said? Q: (Off mic.) MS. PSAKI: OK, good. Q: I didn't see it. MS. PSAKI: But the focus of the meeting will certainly be on hearing their proposals and, I'm sure, asking some tough questions. We don't have all the details about what they intend to produce or what their plans are. So certainly that will be part of the discussion. They'll also, of course, discuss the negotiations that the Egyptians will convene in Cairo pertaining to Gaza. And so that will be a part of the discussion as well. Q: All right, I want to go back to your description of what you said -- what you said a little while ago about when you raise concerns you don't necessarily expect immediate change. Do you expect change at all? MS. PSAKI: Of course we expect and would like to see change. We ask for decisions to be reversed. But I also think there is a role to -- that we need to play as a government in conveying our concerns when we have them. And that's part of what we do as well. Q: Right, but getting back to what Said was saying, I mean, have you -- in a situation like this, where an announcement has been made, and you come out and say we think this announcement has been reversed -- you know, when do -- so when you expect it? If it's not going to be immediate that they're going to reverse it, when is it exactly that you expect they're going to -- MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, our strong preference would have been that they didn't announce it to begin with, as you know. And that -- (inaudible) -- decisions to begin with. Q: I don't know that you -- you mean, before it was announced you guys -- you guys went to the Israelis and said, hey, it would be a really bad idea if you did this. Don't do that. MS. PSAKI: I think there's no secret about our position and our view on the -- (inaudible) -- of settlements. Q: No, but I mean, specific -- but specific -- MS. PSAKI: That's not what I was saying. I think -- let's -- I think we all know what the United States' position is on settlements. I would not be a surprise to any Israeli government about what our view would be. So my point is that it's not -- that's not a new -- I don't think our concern about this was -- Q: Well, OK, but what might be a surprise to the Israeli government is if you did something about it other than just say you're opposed to it and you should change your mind. I mean, is there -- so if you don't see results or a reversal in the immediate term, or the intermediate term, or even the long term, what happens? MS. PSAKI: Matt, I'm not here to project that. I think it's -- we have an important relationship with Israel. Q: I'm not doubting that. MS. PSAKI: We certainly express our concerns when we have them. There are a range of countries that have expressed their concerns about these type of activities. Obviously we feel it's not just in the United States' interest, it's in Israel's interest to take steps that would be conductive to being able at some point to move towards a two-state solution. And this makes it challenging for the other side. Q: OK. I have a related question. This has to do with Gaza and fishing rights. Are you aware of reports that the Israelis are prohibiting Palestinian fishermen from going out as far as they are -- should be allowed to under the cease-fire agreement? I think -- I believe it's like six miles offshore? MS. PSAKI: I was not aware that that was an issue. I know, obviously, the fishing rights was a part of the agreement, but -- Q: Right, so you're not aware that that's being infringed -- that that is being infringed upon? MS. PSAKI: I had not seen that that had been infringed. Q: OK. MS. PSAKI: I can certainly check on that. Q: Perhaps -- yeah. Q: Can I just -- (inaudible). Q: No, go. Q: Is yours about fishing? Q: No. It's about Israel though. (Laughter.) Q: OK. MS. PSAKI: (Inaudible) -- fishing question. Q: I wanted to find out -- yeah, I just want to make clear, did you -- was the recent announcement of the settlements by the Israelis, did that come as a surprise to you or did you -- were you are of it before and then you warned the Israelis, don't do that? MS. PSAKI:. Well, there were a range of reports in Israeli press. I don't have any other information on whether -- when we knew -- (Cross talk.) MS. PSAKI: -- but there were a range of reports that were happening for days. Q: I wanted to ask, on the -- on the call, did the -- did the prime minister mention to the secretary that Israel is sending a delegation here, I believe next week, to talk about Iran? I guess it's all feeding up towards the (UNHRC ?) sessions that are going to happen later on this month, but they've announced out of Jerusalem this morning that's what they're planning to do is -- was that one of the issues that was raised in the conversation? MS. PSAKI: Not that I'm aware of. I can see if there was more, Jo, about that particular issue that they discussed. Q: Another West Bank question. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q: The Israelis have been using a really heavy hand in the West Bank lately, arresting legislators. You know, it doesn't matter what political color what political party they belong to. Some of them could be communists or Hamas-affiliated -- but also they are killing more people, you know, at checkpoints, at -- you know, on the roads. Today they bombed a dairy in Hebron unnecessarily, and so on. Are you concerned that these things may add sort of the -- they add fuel to the fire so to speak? MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I'm not sure that everything you said is accurate so let me check on that and see if there's more we want to offer from here. Q: Well, I can assure you that there was a dairy that was bombed today. MS. PSAKI: When we have concerns we express them, and if we decide to do that we will do that. Go ahead. Q: Can we go back to Syria to finish Syria questions? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q: Syrian opposition forces in north of Syria and east of Syria have offered targeting information on ISIL positions. What has been the U.S. response to this information? MS. PSAKI: I'm not aware of the report you're referring to or where it appears. You can send it to us, Said. Q: This is by the Syrian FSA spokesman in Washington. They said that they offered this. Let me ask you this way: Is there any active collaboration between the FSA forces and the U.S. against ISIL right now in northern Syria or east Syria? MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly we remain closely engaged with the members of the Free Syrian Army, and obviously we're continuing to provide a range of assistance. And the threat of ISIL and the concern that we have about that is shared but that's not the focus of our efforts at this point in time. Q: Again on Syria, Washington Post over the weekend reported that U.S. State Department denied a visa for 12 Syria refugee women who were supposed to come here. These are Syrian women who were supposed to come Washington for a play in Georgetown University and the State Department rejected these women's applications. MS. PSAKI: They were applying for refugee status -- Q: No. MS. PSAKI: -- or they were applying for visas? Q: For visa as an entertainer to come Washington and -- MS. PSAKI: To enter to be in the play. Q: Yes. MS. PSAKI: I'm not familiar with the circumstances. We can see if there's more we can share on that specifically. Go ahead in the back. Q: And one more on Syria. MS. PSAKI: OK. Q: Last one. In the first 10 months of fiscal year of 2014, it looks like the U.S. admitted a grand total of 63 Syrian refugees while about 3.5 million refugees in countries in the Middle East. It looks like U.S. only accepted 63. Do you think something is wrong with this picture? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we should provide you with a little more information on how the refugee process works, not just in the United States but through the U.N. There are certainly asks that are made to countries to make room for or begin a process. That's something that's relatively new and it's been ongoing. We've indicated our openness here, so why don't we get you a little more information on that and we can talk about it a little bit more? Go ahead. Q: In terms of U.S. coalition building, is there a certain time frame that the U.S. has in mind in which it would like to see enough partners on board to proceed to the next step in terms of Iraq and Syria? MS. PSAKI: Well, I wouldn't equate it as being until we have a coalition of X number of partners there won't be additional action. Obviously we've already taken steps in Iraq, and there are a range of counties that have taken steps. This is a process that will be ongoing. As the president said, this is not a challenge that can be addressed overnight. And so certainly we'll have an ongoing discussion about the capabilities and capacities of different countries in this regard. And, you know, that's one that we're obviously spending a great deal of time focused on over the coming weeks. So we'll see where we end at the end of that period of time. Q: Jen, what about Iran's role? Will you accept Iran to participate in the global coalition? MS. PSAKI: They're not a country -- that's a country that, as we noted in the past, you know, they can play a role by encouraging inclusivity and encouraging all the different political sects to work together in Iraq. But beyond that, no, we're not working with Iran on this regard. Q: I'm trying to drill down a little bit on this coalition thing. But I won't take long, I promise. MS. PSAKI: OK. Q: Of the three most recent coalitions that the U.S. has put together -- the Gulf War coalition is the first one; the post-9/11 coalition, the war on terrorism; and then the coalition of the willing for the second Iraq war -- they were all kind of formalized. There was a list put together by people in this building, at the White House and at the Pentagon. You -- it was a -- is this that same kind of thing? Or is it more of an informal collection of countries that are not going to be identified as a coalition of the willing or a coalition of whatever it is that one decides -- (inaudible)? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we have to see, Matt. I mean, there are countries that -- Q: Well, what's the idea? What's the president -- what is it the president and the secretary want? Do they want that kind of a coalition where you're either signed up, on board, you've checked off the list? Or is it more just a kind of a loose -- (inaudible) -- MS. PSAKI: I don't think a requirement is that a country signs a document. I think there -- Q: You know what I mean. I mean, is it -- is it going to be some kind of grand formal coalition, or is it just kind of a loose association of people -- of like-minded countries? MS. PSAKI: It's really more of the latter, Matt. But obviously, we're at a stage in this where we are, you know, just beginning the discussions about what roles individual countries can play. Q: All right. But you said that -- you said that there is no geographic limit to this, but you ruled out two countries so far as participating, I think -- Syria and Iran. MS. PSAKI: So it's not limited by geography. It doesn't mean that every country in the world -- Q: Unless your geography is Syria or Iran. MS. PSAKI: Well, what I was conveying, which I think I explained in context, was that there are countries in Asia and other parts of the world that are not next to Syria that will play a role. Q: Fair enough. What about Russia? Q: (Off mic) -- Q: Are they -- no, I'm serious. I mean, is -- are Russia -- I mean, the Russians have been allied with President Assad, who you say is not welcome to join. Are they worthy of admission or worthy of consideration for admission? Or should they not even bother to apply, don't write the essay, don't have to -- MS. PSAKI: That's not how we're looking at this, Matt. I think obviously, if countries want to play a constructive role in this fight against ISIL, that that's a discussion we're happy to have. But I think there are a range of countries that have been more constructive in this regard. Q: (Inaudible) -- ultimate goal, is it the destruction of ISIL, is that the ultimate goal? Or is it wider than that, to -- ensuring stability in Iraq and ensuring stability in Syria? What's the ultimate goal of the coalition? MS. PSAKI: Well, it's both. I mean, you want to end the threat that -- from ISIL that is the region it's facing. Obviously, destroying and degrading ISIL would be -- would result in that. But certainly, that's part of an effort to strengthen countries in the region as well. Now, there are steps that countries in the region have to take on their own, even as we're encouraging them -- Iraq and others that are forming a government or taking more productive steps to be more cohesive and united. Q: So the initial -- the initial line would he to try to deal with the threat of ISIL or ISIS -- (inaudible) -- call themselves now -- and then more broadly work towards political stability? Is that -- in both those countries? MS. PSAKI: No, no. It's -- this is -- I think political processes in some countries like Iraq are important to take on this threat of ISIL. Obviously, there are efforts that the United States undergoes and a range of countries undergoes, you know, every day to help promote stability in the region. But certainly ISIL is posing a threat. This is a coalition to address the threat of ISIL. There are a range of causes of that, and there are a range of steps countries can take to address it. Depends on where we're talking about. Q: Jen, a stated position of the GCC countries and Jordan and all these countries and Turkey is really to fight ISIL. Why not formalize it? Why not have, you know, a coalition similar to that that took place in 1990 and '91 -- (inaudible)? MS. PSAKI: Said, I think we think this is the best approach at this point in time, so that's why we're pursuing it. Q: One more? MS. PSAKI: Mmm hmm. Q: Madam, as far as this coalition concerned, this mission will continue to the United Nations next -- I mean, later this month. And second, as far as this group is concerned, many people are asking that -- is this part of -- or with a new name or part of al-Qaida, or, who are really behind this group? I mean, is there new name and in the future, then, we will have another group, maybe going after this group now? So what is the future, people are asking? (Laughter.) MS. PSAKI: Well, that's a big question. Q: What is the future? MS. PSAKI: Well, just briefly, the history is that, of course, al-Qaida and ISIL are no longer affiliated. They were once affiliated. So obviously, we're concerned about the growth of groups like ISIL. There are other terrorist organizations - al-Shabab and others around the world that we are also concerned about. So taking on the threat that we face is not just limited to ISIL, but certainly, given the events of the last several months, it's a primary area of focus. Q: And you will take this to the United Nations later this month as far as building coalition and getting - (inaudible) - MS. PSAKI: Well, I think - I don't want to predetermine what that process will be or what the final outcome will be. Obviously, there will be a meeting that the president chairs on foreign fighters at the U.N. General Assembly meeting, so I'm certain this will be a topic of discussion, but we've got a few weeks till we get there. Go ahead. Q: (Inaudible) - Ukraine and Russia, please? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Yep. Q: So the president was quite tough on Russia in his speech - his various appearances today in Estonia. And I just want to make sure - does that - was he fully aware of, and had he been briefed on - and I realize you don't speak for the White House - but there appears to be some progress towards a cease-fire agreement between the Ukrainians and the Russians after this conversation that Putin and Poroshenko had. Do you know - I mean, have you just - has the administration and the president dismissed that apparent progress, or was it really not settled yet by the time he made his strong comments? MS. PSAKI: Well, just over the course - I think you may have seen President Poroshenko's comments about these reports of an agreed cease-fire, where he indicated that it was a discussion. Our view is that if President Putin is prepared to stop financing, arming and training separatists and remove Russian troops from Ukraine, those are objectives, of course, not only would we support, but certainly, the Ukrainians would support. And President Putin's plan certainly does not do that. So as of now, I think there is a great deal more work to be done, and President Putin has had a lot of words, but not backed them with actions, and that's essentially what we feel needs to happen from here. Q: OK. So you think that his seven-point plan is not worth pursuing. Or it is worth pursuing but - what is it that - MS. PSAKI: You know, I think I would, of course, point to President Poroshenko and his comments, but there were issues - core issues that were not addressed, including what to do about the Russian engagement in this - in this incursion, and I think that's obviously a big factor here. Q: OK. So I just want to make sure that I understand - the administration's position is that this - whatever it is - whatever resulted from this conversation is not - does not go nearly far enough from the Russian side? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, outside of the United States - one, as I understand it, the Kremlin and Russian-backed separatists have already backed away from it, and President Poroshenko has spoken publicly to it. So it's not for us to determine, but there are several issues, of course, including the arming and training of separatists and the assistance and financing that Russia is providing would need to be addressed. And there have been several plans put forward by President Poroshenko as well; that can certainly be the basis of a discussion. Q: (Inaudible) - tide President Putin over through NATO? I mean, has he bought himself some time here a day before NATO - MS. PSAKI: As I understand it, Leslie, the Kremlin and the Russian-backed separatists are already backing away, and President Poroshenko has spoken to it as well. So the discussion at NATO - and I think, you know, the president had some pretty strong words about NATO and what NATO should do to support Ukraine and support the people of Ukraine in that discussion, and the ongoing coordination efforts around additional consequences hasn't changed and hasn't been changed by the events of the last 24 hours. Q: And then, to deal with Russia - I mean, you saw the French have decided they will delay the delivery of the Mistral. Do you think that was a good decision? MS. PSAKI: We do think that was a wise decision. Q: (Inaudible) - anything more to say about that? MS. PSAKI: Well, I'd certainly point you to them for more details. I know they gave, sort of, an outline of why they did it and for what reasons, and I'd point you to that, but we certainly support their decision. Q: OK. So just - it was a wise decision that you support, and that's all? You don't want to say any more about the fact that you had to drag them, kicking and screaming, to get to this point? MS. PSAKI: I think I'll leave it at that, Matt. Q: There are - you know, there are some military exercises that will take place in Western Ukraine - (inaudible) - can you speak to that? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Checking about the EUCOM exercises. This month EUCOM will be participating with Ukraine in two annual preplanned exercises. Both are designed to improve interoperability while promoting regional stability and security, strengthening international military partnering and fostering trust. There's one in the middle of September and certainly the -- and then there's one later in September. You know, we of course have done these exercises before, so this is -- this is a continuation of that. Q: So Russia should not take this as in any way a threat to it? MS. PSAKI: No, they're annual. They're preplanned, and I think there was awareness of them in advance. Q: But considering, you know, what has transpired in the last year since these exercises were held -- MS. PSAKI: They're not being held in response to current events. So no, they should not. Q: It's with Ukraine. It's U.S. and Ukrainian -- or NATO, U.S. -- obviously U.S., if it -- it's NATO and -- or is it U.S.? MS. PSAKI: It's the United States and -- they're hosted by the United States and Ukraine. I'm not aware of a NATO component. Q: In Ukraine. And -- but do you see what the -- if it's about interoperability and -- do you see why the Russians might be suspicious of something like that? MS. PSAKI: Well -- Q: I mean, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. MS. PSAKI: Correct, but Ukraine is a -- Q: It's not as if the U.S. and -- the U. S. -- I mean, is it for Ukraine sending troops to join an ISAF-type expedition outside of Ukraine? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Matt, one, this is, again, preplanned and annual exercises. Q: Oh, fair enough -- MS. PSAKI: And we certainly understand the context, but I don't think -- I can't change Russians' views, but that, I think, is important context about why we're -- why these are taking place and why we're continuing to participate in them. Wouldn't it be odd if we canceled them? That would be strange. Q: Well, they were -- weren't they delayed from earlier this year? MS. PSAKI: I don't have the exact timeline, but I think, again, that these are exercises (that are important ?). Q: But you think the conditions right now in Ukraine -- I don't know exactly where in the country these are going to be, but conditions in southeast Ukraine, which are not good right now, are -- MS. PSAKI: They're taking place, I can tell you -- Q: But the condition of the country in general -- Ukraine, that is -- is OK enough for this -- these exercises to go on? MS. PSAKI: Well, they're taking -- Q: The Ukrainian military, in other words, isn't needed -- MS. PSAKI: They're taking place in northwestern Ukraine. Q: OK. MS. PSAKI: It's going to involve -- let's see -- approximately 200 U.S. soldiers -- oh, there are -- and in total there are 1,300 -- let's see. Let me check on the NATO component of it for you. (Inaudible.) Q: (Inaudible.) But you're not concerned that Ukrainian troops might be needed elsewhere. MS. PSAKI: I think exercises are an important part of our cooperation with many countries, including Ukraine. OK. Can do a few more here. Go ahead. Q: Jen, yesterday you have confirmed independently the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine. Today President Obama -- I quote -- told that Russian forces have moved into Ukraine (with tents?), with weapons, and this is not subject to dispute. Has something changed in -- MS. PSAKI: We've said that many times before, and I actually said yesterday that we've said it many times before. So it's been -- consistently we've said that for a couple of weeks now. Q: So you think it is effective? What's your -- you think that the Russian presence in Ukraine is a fact, military presence? MS. PSAKI: Is -- I'm sorry. I'm not understanding your question. Is a fact -- Q: That it's a fact, yeah. MS. PSAKI: We've -- well, we've stated that for some time now, yeah. Q: Quick on Turkey? MS. PSAKI: On Turkey and then we'll go to Jo. Go ahead. Q: Who do you accept in Turkey as the main interlocutor, as a chief executive in Turkey? MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure what the -- what the -- Q: (Off mic.) MS. PSAKI: -- what the genesis of your question is. I think we all know who's elected there and who the secretary speaks to, but -- Q: No, but this is this a very serious question, actually. The former U.S. official -- (inaudible) -- wrote a piece yesterday and -- arguing that U.S.-based -- doesn't know who's talking Turkey since this is the first time ever elected president there, also the prime minister, who U.S. used to talk to as a main -- MS. PSAKI: Well, the secretary speaks with Foreign Minister Davutoglu, who is his counterpart. Obviously the prime minister -- Prime Minister Erdogan, now President Erdogan, certainly the appropriate counterparts will speak to. I don't think there's a mystery, in our view. Q: So President Obama, when he calls Turkey, he calls -- he's supposed to call President Erdogan or Prime Minister Davutoglu? MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the White House on that question. Q: I wanted to ask you: Do you have any more information about the operation in Somalia yesterday, whether you had managed to ascertain whether the al-Shabab senior figure had been killed or not? MS. PSAKI: I unfortunately don't have any additional details. Obviously this was DOD-led, so I expect any additional details would come from there first. I think I confirmed yesterday, but for those of you who weren't here, that U.S. military forces conducted an operation in Somalia over the weekend against the al-Shabab network. But in terms of other specifics, we don't have that at this point in time. Q: (Off mic.) MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Q: Yeah, on the issue of three American detainees in North Korea, what if North Korea -- (inaudible) -- talk to the United States to using these three -- (inaudible) -- then will the United States accept the North Koreans' request or -- MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, the safety and security of American citizens, including certainly those who were detained overseas, is at utmost priority to the United States and to Secretary Kerry. This is an issue that is certainly on the forefront of our minds. We have offered in the past to send Ambassador Bob King there. A trip was canceled twice. We're going to leave no stone unturned in this case, and we certainly have means of communicating, but I don't have any other additional updates for you. Q: Thank you. Q: (Off mic) -- the three gentlemen were put on the TV because perhaps North Korea is willing to deal now and maybe they want somebody with a higher profile, unfortunately, than Ambassador King, would the United States be willing to try and get somebody, as in the past, President Clinton or President Carter or Governor Richardson to go? MS. PSAKI: Well, I know we saw their comments, Jo. And I think as I mentioned, we're going to leave no stone unturned, of course, in this case. But we're not going to outline all of our efforts publicly, so we'll work both privately. And obviously our objective here is to see the safe return home of these individuals who are detained in North Korea. Q: (Off mic) -- former President Clinton or former President Bush want to come back -- (inaudible). MS. PSAKI: I think Jo just asked the same question, which was a good question but I don't have anything more to offer to you. Q: OK. Q: (Off mic.) MS. PSAKI: I can just do a couple more here. So let me get to -- OK, go ahead, Said. Q: (Off mic) -- quick thing. Will there be a readout on the meeting between Eric Erekat and the secretary of state? MS. PSAKI: We don't typically do readouts of those types of meetings. Q: You don't? OK. MS. PSAKI: I will see if there's anything more we can offer to you, Said. I certainly understand the interest. Go ahead, Lalit. Q: On Afghanistan, are you worried that Dr. Abdullah Abdullah and -- (inaudible) -- have not been able to reach an agreement on a unity government? The counting is still going on. MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, we continue to expect both candidates will abide by the August 8th joint declaration that reaffirmed their commitment to a unified Afghanistan. We believe the electoral process can be completed soon. Obviously a discussion about, you know, our shared commitment to Afghanistan will certainly be a part of what takes place at NATO when the president is there tomorrow. Q: But there is no call by secretary to these Afghan leaders -- (off mic)? MS. PSAKI: He engages with them regularly. I don't have anything to read out for you. I can see if there's more we can offer on that front. Q: Have -- Q: The last time he engaged with them in person, they both promised him that they were going to get this done by the time the NATO summit opens. I believe the summit opens tomorrow. Is that correct? MS. PSAKI: Mmm hmm. Q: Is it still your understanding that they are going to have a president-elect, at least, to send to the NATO -- to the NATO -- send to the NATO summit? MS. PSAKI: Well, at this point, Matt, it is our expectation that Afghanistan will be represented by the minister of defense. Obviously there's an ongoing process that is taking place. It's continuing. I think the preference of everybody would have been to see the process concluded, but we hope -- (audio break). Q: Well, is that a disappointment? Because, I mean, essentially, these guys reneged on their pledge to the secretary and to the people of Afghanistan. MS. PSAKI: I would disagree with that. Q: Oh? MS. PSAKI: I think this has been an ongoing process. The -- both camps have continued to meet with each other and with U.N. officials. It's ongoing. We knew it wouldn't be easy. The -- Afghanistan will be represented at NATO, and obviously we are hopeful it will conclude soon. I can just do about two more here, so let me do one more, Lalit, and then we'll do the two in the back. Q: When last year the elections were held in Pakistan, both the president and the secretary had -- (inaudible) -- people of Pakistan for the -- (inaudible) -- elections, which was considered as free and fair at that point of time. Do you still consider the elections free and fair, or you go by what Imran Khan is saying, it was rigged? MS. PSAKI: Nothing has changed in our view. You know how closely we're watching the situation. As I understand in Pakistan, things -- the protests have died down and things have calmed a bit in the streets. I also want to make clear that our embassy is fully open there in Islamabad. I know there was some confusion about that yesterday. Q: Small -- MS. PSAKI: I'm sorry -- (inaudible) -- I have to just to two more because I have to -- I have to run. Go ahead. Q: Do you have any initial feedback from Linda Thomas-Greenfield's trip to Nigeria and her meeting -- her ministerial meeting to address Boko Haram? MS. PSAKI: Not at this point. As you mentioned and I think some of you may be aware -- we announced it, I believe -- that she has been in Nigeria for the past couple of days, and certainly addressing the threat of Boko Haram is a part of those discussions. We can see if there is more of a readout to offer. Sometimes we deal with time changes and things of that sort. OK. Last one. Go ahead. Q: I just wanted to follow up on the question I asked yesterday -- MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q: -- about the prime minister, Prime Minister Abe changing his Cabinet. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q: (Inaudible) -- came out today, so I just wanted to follow up with you. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Yes. We welcome the announcement of the new Japanese Cabinet. We fully expect that our close cooperation with the government of Japan across the board a broad -- on a brange (pH) -- a broad range, excuse me, of regional and global issues will continue to deepen. And we certainly believe that strong and constructive relations between our country and Japan but also among countries in the region is important to peace and stability. Q: Thank you, Jen. MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone. I'm sorry, I have to go to a meeting. I apologize. (END)

LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 1: (INTERVIEW) Creators, writers and directors Matt Forde and Sean Foley say "We are obsessed by the news. We care about politics. We are aghast by what's going on. People in charge have made terrbile terrible decisions. People need to have a certain amount of blood letting and this is the place for it" at Phoenix Theatre on June 1, 2023 in London, England. (Footage by Giorgia Young/Getty Images)

<p>Third-party material is not owned or cleared by CNN. It is the sole responsibility of each affiliate to decide whether to use the material.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p>00-04 EST...OPENING DAY IN MLB AS THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX HOST THE DETROIT TIGERS</p>\n<p>04-17 T3RD...ANDY IBANEZ(D) HITS A SAC FLY INTO DEEP CENTER FIELD THAT SCORESBAEZ (D) FROM 3RD...1-0 DETROIT</p>\n<p>17-31 T4TH...COLT KEITH (D) HITS A CHOPPER UP THE MIDDLE FOR HIS 1ST EVER MLB HIT</p>\n<p>31-48 T6TH...GARRETT CROCHET (C) STRIKES OUT MATT VIERLING (D) LOOKING FOR HIS 8TH K OF THE DAY</p>\n<p>48-59 B9TH...J FOLEY (D) STRIKES OUT ROBERT JR (W) AND DETROIT GETS AN OPENING DAY SHUTOUT TO START THE SEASON...1-0 DETROIT FINAL</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>

STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR DAILY PRESS BRIEFING State Department Holds Regular News Briefing LIST OF SPEAKERS HARF: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the daily briefing. Thank you, Said. I just have one item at the top, and then I will open it up for your questions. As you hear President Obama say today, and Secretary Kerry, in a written statement, just moments ago, I would also like to express our heartfelt and deepest condolences on the tragic loss of James Foley. We extend our deepest sympathy to his family and to all whose lives he touched. As the president said, Jim Foley's life stands in stark contrast to his killers. ISIL has rampaged across cities and villages, killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. Let's be clear that ISIL speaks for no religion. No faith teaches people to massacre innocents. As the president said, when people harm Americans anywhere, we will do what's necessary to see that justice is done. We will be vigilant, and we will be relentless. And the United States will continue to what we must to protect our people. So, with that, Matt, let's open it up to questions. QUESTION: OK, just before we get to the statement from the president and also the secretary, I just want to know, I'm wondering if you have or are able to share any more than the White House, than the NSC, your colleague Caitlin, was able to share about the authentication of the video, if -- if your intel people have been able to figure out the when and the where of when this video was made, that kind of thing. HARF: As the NSC did say, we have -- the intelligence community has completed its authentication of the video. There are a variety of ways we go about doing that, many of which we don't talk about publicly because we'd like to be able to use them if, unfortunately, they're needed in the future. We're looking at all of those issues right now. Our intelligence community is evaluating that to see if there's any information that we can use to either bring to justice those responsible. Or of course, you saw the other American citizen, Mr. Sotloff in the video as well, and we remain very deeply concerned about his safety and whereabouts. QUESTION: Right. OK, does that mean that the jury is still essentially out on determining where and when and who? HARF: I'm not saying that. I'm not -- let's do a couple of points on that. I'm not saying that. I'm just not going to specifically outline what we do or don't know from the video given much of that is used for intelligence purposes. Prime Minister Cameron did speak a few moments ago as well, and he said that we have not identified the individual responsible, but from what we've seen, it looks increasingly likely that it is a British citizen. We agree, of course, with that assessment, are working very closely with the United Kingdom, our partners there, to determine who may have been in the video. QUESTION: So you agree with Prime Minister Cameron's assessment... (CROSSTALK) HARF: ... that it seems increasingly likely that it is a British citizen. QUESTION: Then this is just the person who was on the video, not anyone offscreen... (CROSSTALK) HARF: Correct. And, obviously, the intelligence community is looking to get anything they can to possibly use from this video. QUESTION: Right. Can I ask two brief ones on, both, first, the president's statement and then on the secretary's statement? HARF: You can. QUESTION: One of the -- what seems to be one of the main operative paragraphs of the -- of the president's statement is the one that begins "from governments and people across the Middle East, there has to be a common effort to extract this cancer so that it does not spread. There has to be clear rejection of this kind of nihilistic" -- "this kind of nihilistic ideology." How is that gonna translate in policy terms? What, exactly, is the administration gonna do to make sure that there is from governments and peoples across the Middle East a clear rejection of this kind of thing? HARF: Well, there's a couple things at play here. And that is a key part of the statement, because we have talked to a number of partners who understand how serious a threat ISIL is, not just to Syria and Iraq, but to their countries as well. And countries in the region are very, very concerned about this. We've worked with them on working to cut off financing, working to cut off the flow of foreign fighters, so we can start to deprive ISIL of the oxygen that it's had and has really allowed it to flourish. But we've also been clear, separate and apart from that, that we will, no matter how long it takes, find people responsible for hurting Americans and bring them to justice. That's a key part of what the president said and what the secretary said. I think we've shown very committed to doing that. And that's certainly the case here. QUESTION: The statement suggests that you aren't -- at the moment, at least, the administration is not entirely pleased, happy, satisfied with all of the governments and peoples of the Middle East, that you believe that there are some peoples and governments that could do more or aren't really behind this effort. Is that correct? HARF: I think what today and the last 24 hours really underscores is that we all need to be doing more. QUESTION: All right, well... HARF: And I would caution you from reading too much into that one line about anyone specifically. We have been working closely with our partners in the region on this. QUESTION: So in other words, this does not indicate or herald a new policy initiative to get people onboard on the anti-ISIL... HARF: That's been an ongoing policy initiative. Obviously, what we've seen over the last 24 hours underscores how critical that effort is, but it has been ongoing effort. QUESTION: All right, my last one. From the secretary's standpoint, the line in here, it says that, "We will confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred." HARF: Yes. QUESTION: Does that include Syria? And if it doesn't, why does he say wherever it tries to... HARF: Well, he meant what he said in his statement. Obviously I'm not going to outline what tactical military or intelligence options are at our disposal to respond here and don't want to get ahead of any discussions in that regard. But we have the ability to hold people accountable for what they've done. We have reserved the right to take action to protect our people, including when our people have been harmed. The principle will guide what we do going forward. The president was very clear that we will continue doing what we're doing in Iraq. Today the U.S. military took an additional 14 strikes around the Mosul dam. So those are all ongoing, conversations about the best way to fight ISIL. QUESTION: So you're saying that it is possible that the U.S. could take action, some kind of action against ISIL either generally or to bring the perpetrators of this murder to justice inside Syria? HARF: I'm not going to specifically rule anything in or out from this podium in terms of policy options. What I will say generically is that the United States reserves the right to hold people accountable when they harm Americans. What that looks like going forward, those conversations will be happening. QUESTION: All right. Well, then it sounds like you're leaving your -- you're now saying that it is possible that there could be some kind -- I don't know, maybe like a bin Laden-type raid... HARF: I'm not ruling anything in or out. QUESTION: ... or something like that... HARF: I'm not ruling anything in or out in terms of policy options. One of my main jobs here is not to rule in or out policy options. But, again, these are principles that guide what this administration has done when other Americans have been harmed, and that will guide what we're looking at going forward. Let's go around the room here, one at a time. Yeah, go ahead, Said, and then we'll go down the row. QUESTION: Of course, first of all, our heart goes out to Mr. James Foley's family. HARF: Thank you. QUESTION: Do you have a figure on the number of journalists that are actually kidnapped by ISIL at the present time in Syria? HARF: Did you say journalists? QUESTION: Yes, there is allegedly some 20 journalists from all over the world... HARF: I don't have a number for you. We are aware of other American citizens, including, as you saw, Mr. Sotloff being held in Syria. I don't have a number beyond that. We also know that ISIL has, as you point out, taken a number of journalists hostage, including many Syrian journalists, who are just trying to shed light on the horrific situation there. So we know it's a constant threat. And it's one that we're very cognizant of. QUESTION: OK. Now, is it true -- is it true that basically you're looking the other way while the sources of financing were going to ISIL in, let's say, a year or a year-and-a-half ago from Kuwait, from Qatar, from Saudi Arabia, from the gulf countries? HARF: Not at all. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) HARF: We have been very focused on the ISIL threat as it's evolved in Syria, as it's evolved in Iraq over the past weeks and months, as well. It's a threat we've been very focused on. And we have worked with our partners in the region to try, as I said, to deprive it of oxygen that it really needs here. We're doing that in a number of ways, but we have been very focused on it for some time. QUESTION: And hasn't the Syrian regime, like it or not, been on the forefront of the fight against ISIL, I mean, with some bloody fighting? HARF: Not at all. I don't want to in any way put us on the same page as the Syrian regime. It is because the Syrian regime has allowed them to flourish that ISIS or ISIL is what it is today. They are directly responsible for the growth of this terrorist group. So I think we need to be very careful while on the -- with the right hand, the Syrian regime might be bombing them, on the left hand, everything they've done has allowed this group to flourish. So it's fairly disingenuous. QUESTION: OK, I just want to understand "allowed them to flourish." Do you mean facilitated them, gave them weapons, gave the money, gave them transportation? Or were they actually... HARF: They facilitated their movement to Iraq, as we've seen. They've fostered the growth by facilitating the flow of Al Qaida's foreign fighters during the Iraq conflict, which was really the precursor in some ways to what we've seen today. They encouraged violent extremists to transit through Syria to Iraq for the purpose of fighting coalition forces there. This history goes back quite a way, with some of these same guys who were part of that group and now have morphed into something even more, if that's possible, barbaric. QUESTION: OK. And my last question, on Kuwait, there is a focus on Kuwait that a great deal of financing comes from that small country, which you liberated back some 23 years ago, and so on. And, in fact, the Kuwaitis arrested a cleric on Sunday, Shafi al-Ajmi, and they've released them thereafter. He was propagating basically for ISIL. So would you call on the Kuwaitis to re-arrest people like that (inaudible) HARF: I'm not aware of his case. I'm happy to look into it. But we've called on all the countries in the gulf who themselves understand how serious the threat is to crack down on financing, and not just in the gulf, I should say, in the region writ large, to crack down on private citizens trying to finance this group. There is -- you know, if there is anything we've learned about ISIL, and we've learned a number of things, unfortunately, about them over the past weeks and months, is that they will kill Sunni Muslims, they will kill Shia Muslims, they will kill Yazidis, they will imprison and rape women. It doesn't matter where they're from or what religion they belong to. So I think people realize this is a threat to everyone in the region. And we would encourage people to do more accordingly. QUESTION: Jen? HARF: Yes; let's go across the row. We're going to get -- we'll get to everyone. Go ahead -- (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Just going back to other Americans being held, did you have a number specifically on that? HARF: We're not giving the number. We're aware of other Americans but, for their safety and security, aren't going to be providing details. QUESTION: And was Mr. Foley being held in Iraq, do you think, in the northern province in Syria? HARF: Well, we don't -- we're not going to be giving more details about those kind of issues, Lucas (ph). QUESTION: OK. And then just into the statement yesterday from the NSC (ph) said that generally we are appalled at the brutal murder. Is that all? You're just appalled? HARF: I think you saw the president be very clear what his feelings are on this, as the secretary was as well. QUESTION: The French Foreign Minister Fabius has pressed all countries in the region, including Iran and Arab countries, to join Western states in fighting ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Can we imagine or expect that the West states plus Syria and Iran on the same front, fighting ISIL? (CROSSTALK) HARF: That's a fairly simplistic reading of the situation there on the ground. What we have said is anyone who is willing to help degrade ISIL's capabilities, if that would, in the long term, be a step in the right direction. But when it comes to a country like Syria, for example, the regime there, the Assad regime, by their actions, has allowed this group to flourish. So what we're focused on is building capable partners, particularly in Iraq and along the moderate opposition in Syria -- in Syria that can increasingly go after this group on their own. We have these kind of partnerships around the world, whether it's a place like Yemen, for example, where we really help them build their own capacity to do this, stood by them as we did, but that's really the kind of effort we're focused on. QUESTION: And what about Iran? HARF: Well, I think all countries in the region understand that ISIL's a threat to them, and if they are interested in playing a constructive role in helping to degrade ISIL's capabilities then I'm sure we can have that conversation then. QUESTION: (inaudible) added that the international community bears a heavy responsibility in Syria and he said if two years ago, we had acted to ensure a transition, we would not have had Islamic State. HARF: I think there's... QUESTION: What do you think of that? HARF: ... no one who would rather have had a political transition in Syria a year or so ago than -- other than the Syrian opposition than the people working on Syria in this building and in this government. If it were only that easy. I'm very hesitant about people who say, "If only we did X or Y, everything would be different." It's very complicated. We have consistently supported the Syrian opposition as we have provided them with additional assistance. We have to make sure we're vetting them because there are a number of groups in Syria that we don't want our assistance to fall into the hands of. We've continued that process. We will continue doing even more. But this is quite complicated and we are very committed to putting in place, in the long term, a way we can really degrade ISIL further. QUESTION: Last question for me... HARF: Last question... QUESTION: ... regarding French foreign minister's statement, he said that the French will -- or France will arrange a conference in September on the threat posed by ISIL. Are you aware of this conference? HARF: I hadn't heard of that conference specifically. I think somebody asked me about the other day, the president will be chairing -- let me just pull this up here because we weren't able to talk about this the other day, if I still have it, very quickly (inaudible). The president will be chairing on the -- at the U.N. General Assembly -- hold on. Let me just (inaudible) up here. Yes. The week of September 22nd, he will host a heads-of- government level security council summit to focus on the acute threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters. We will work, through our U.S. mission to the U.N., with partners on a resolution to address the phenomenon, emphasize the need for states to have the tools and mobilize the resources to help prevent it. This will be the first head-of-government level Security Council session since the president hosted one on nonproliferation in 2009. ' Obviously, the threat of terrorists traveling to foreign conflicts is not a new one, but the conflicts in Syria and Iraq have highlighted this threat. We believe there are an estimated 12,000 foreign terrorist fighters that have joined those conflicts. QUESTION: Are you coordinating with the French government? HARF: I am sure we are. I just don't have any specifics for you on that. And I don't have the details behind that proposal. Yes? Michael? QUESTION: You mentioned the 14 strikes from Central Command around Mosul Dam in the last 24 hours. Were those strikes conducted after the video was released or obtained by the U.S. government? HARF: It is my understanding that they were, yes. And I believe they happened today. QUESTION: Right. Is there -- is there a concern -- today as in our time or today as in Iraqi time? HARF: Today Iraqi time. QUESTION: OK. Is there a concern that these air strikes -- I mean, given the threats that were laid out in the video, that were pretty explicit, is there a concern that the continued air strikes around Mosul Dam on ISIL targets will lead directly to the death of... (CROSSTALK) HARF: Well, let me make a few points here. First of all, there is no justification for these kind of barbaric acts, period. None. Second, we don't make concessions to terrorists. The United States government has a longstanding policy that we feel very deeply about that we do not do that. The president was clear we're going to keep doing what we're doing. And I would also note that, as I said earlier, ISIL has been willing to kill and rape and enslave anyone who gets in their way, regardless of what country they're from; regardless of the policies of that country. They've shown themselves very willing to kill Christians and Muslims and Yazidis and people from all across Iraq and Syria. So, again, while highlighting that there is absolutely no justification for this in any way, we have seen them be very willing to kill people: really, anyone who gets in their way. QUESTION: And you call on ISIS, I assume, to release Sotloff even though... HARF: To immediate release Mr. Sotloff. QUESTION: And in terms of the video, was the secretary and the president that were briefed on the video, did they watch the video? HARF: I don't know the answer to that. I am happy to check. I have not watched the video and don't intend to. Yes? QUESTION: This horrific event. What is event is going to trigger any kind of assessment of your policy for the last 18 months when the ISIL spread through rapidly without any real check on it? HARF: Well, I think you've seen us, as ISIS and ISIL now in Iraq has gained in strength, that we have continued to assess our policy and used the tools at our disposal to work to degrade their capabilities. You've seen that with the air strikes that the U.S. military has taken, beginning about a week and a half or two weeks ago, now. They've taken -- I think I have a number here -- 84 total air strikes since August 8th. So, in that vein, we are constantly looking at how we can further degrade their leadership, their financing, their capabilities. We know they are a threat. We have known that for some time. And that's what will be focused on going forward. QUESTION: Would you be able to tell us is there any regret on your part that the U.S. government did not take more robust action in Syria to stop ISIL? HARF: Well, as I said, I think to Michelle's question. I'm hesitant when people say if only we had done X, everything would be different or everything would be fixed. I think we have constantly looked at ways in Syria in a very complicated situation where there are no easy answers, to improve the capabilities of the moderate opposition to fight not only the regime, but also terrorist groups like ISIL and Nusra. So, this is an ongoing process here. We are committed to fighting this in the long term. I can assure you we are putting all the resources of this government: military, diplomatic, intelligence, towards finding Americans who are being held and bringing them home and towards, in the long term, taking out the capabilities of ISIL because we've seen what they can do. As the president said, there's no place for this kind of group in the modern world, and that is what many, many people are working on every single day. QUESTION: So, it's safe to say that you don't have any regrets? That's what we should... HARF: I think I made very clear what my position was. Yes? QUESTION: In regards to clarify something as it relates to Syria. HARF: We can. QUESTION: For the last three years, the policy of the administration has been that all options are on the table except for boots on the ground. HARF: Correct. QUESTION: Is that no longer the case? HARF: That is still the case. QUESTION: Well then, how can you say that -- OK, so I want to make sure that I understand this. HARF: We've always said all options except for boots. And what I was saying in response to your questions was I'm not going to rule in beyond that any specific policy options either in or out. That's not what I'm going to be doing today. What I am saying is we are committed to bringing these people to justice. We are committed at fighting ISIL long term. We are determining the best way to continue our efforts to do that. QUESTION: Right, well you also just said that you would go to no -- to every length possible to find and free -- I think... HARF: Bring home. QUESTION: ... find and bring home. HARF: Yep. QUESTION: ... American... HARF: Who are either being held. QUESTION: ... captives. Or who -- so does that mean you're not ruling out some kind of a rescue operation? HARF: I'm not ruling anything in or out specifically. I don't -- I'm not going to have more specifics to share with you right now on that. But I just want to be very clear that we -- no effort is spared in trying to bring our people home. While we can't always talk about it publicly for obvious security and safety reasons of the remaining people being held, I just want to make very clear that we are taking and will continue taking steps. QUESTION: All right, and also -- and also, just on this. And that presumably applies to Mr. Foley's remains as well, right, to bring him home... HARF: Correct. With us (ph). Yes. Lucas, go ahead. QUESTION: Will the administration be taking a law enforcement approach to bringing Mr. Foley's killers to justice? HARF: Well, there will be, if there's not already, an FBI investigation, given he's an American citizen. But it's broader than that. As I just said, we have intelligence resources. We have diplomatic resources. We have military resources. We will spare no effort to hold accountable those people responsible for his death. QUESTION: And directing you to the president's remarks earlier, the president said one thing we can all agree on is that a group like ISIL has, quote, "no place in the 21st century." HARF: Yeah. QUESTION: Isn't it self-evident that they do have a place? Of course, a nefarious place. HARF: Not anyplace any of us want to live in. QUESTION: Marie, can you confirm whether Mr. Sotloff was actually kidnapped in Libya? HARF: Where? QUESTION: Yes. Was he... HARF: Mr. Sotloff? QUESTION: Sotloff. There were reports that he was actually... HARF: I can check... QUESTION: ... kidnapped in Libya. HARF: I can check, Said. I'm sorry. I don't have that in front of me. Yes. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: ... military operations in Iraq (inaudible) beyond the two goals you was talking about yesterday? HARF: Well, the president, as you said, outlined two goals. We've talked about those since August 8th now and that's what we're operating under. So I don't have anything further to announce than that or to speculate on, I should say, instead. But we've said we are very committed to protecting our people and we've always said, even before this recent action, that we reserve the right to bring people and hold them accountable when American citizens are harmed. So we're focused on the two goals the president outlined but one of those is protection of American citizens, which speaks directly to what we've seen over the last 24 hours and to the remaining hostages. QUESTION: On this one, Marie, U.S. officials have said minutes ago that military planners are weighing (ph) the possibility of sending more Americans -- forces to Iraq, mainly to provide additional security around Baghdad. Do you have anything... HARF: I hadn't seen those comments. I don't have anything to announce at this point in terms of any additional... (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: You don't know if the State Department has requested additional troops? HARF: I can check. I can check. QUESTION: Talking about 300 soldiers. HARF: I'm happy to check. Yes? QUESTION: Just one -- one more question. According to Iran foreign minister spokesman (inaudible) between Iran and European Union about ISIL has begun. Do you know any... HARF: I think the E.U. and Iran would probably know more than I would about that. Yes, go behind you. QUESTION: OK, can I change the subject, please? HARF: No, I think we have a few more on this. Yes, go back here. QUESTION: I have been saying many times in the past, as far as these terrorists are concerned, mostly they are from the Muslim or Arabic world and operating from there and supported by (inaudible) government (inaudible) in the name of charity. And today, the president is saying that those nations (inaudible) those terrorists, arming them also, but they're -- those nations want you to speak on their behalf and go after those terrorists. My question is, are you also now going go -- after those nations who are supporting them, wherever they are? And also, this is not the first American journalist beheaded by those terrorists. Another was in Pakistan by the ISI and those terrorists operating there, also, Wall Street Journal journalist. HARF: (OFF-MIKE) QUESTION: What I'm asking you, where do we go? Those nations are (inaudible) in the name of (inaudible) those terrorists. HARF: Well, look, the president wasn't intending to -- or meaning to speak for other countries in the quotes that we've read today from what he said. And I think the other countries in the region do understand the threat. And most of the funding, unfortunately for ISIL, has come from kidnapping and ransom and criminal acts. So that's part of what their modus operandi has been, and that's part of the reason we want to deprive them of funds. But we are working with governments in the region, where there -- where we believe there are private citizens funding ISIL, to get them to clamp down even further, to cut off those sources of funding. We need to attack ISIL on a variety of fronts, one of which is the bombs that the Pentagon folks are dropping on them right now, one of them is not letting them have access to resources. So that's something we're very focused on, and we will certainly continue with that effort. QUESTION: One more. HARF: Uh-huh. QUESTION: Trust me, many nations in the name of charity or God or Islam, they give money -- they give -- in the name of charity to many charity groups. But (inaudible) of the funds (inaudible) in the hands of terrorists. And they use that money against innocent people. HARF: Well, we look at any way to cut off funding. I know there are a variety of ways these groups end up with money, and we look at any way we can to really starve them of these resources. And as the president said and as I said at the top of this briefing, ISIL does not operate in the name of any religion. The president was very clear about that, and I think the more we can say that and underscore that point, I think the better. Yes? QUESTION: What has the State Department contact been with the Foley and Sotloff families? We saw President Obama call the Foley family. Has Secretary Kerry reached out to either family? HARF: We have had regular interactions with both of the families since the kidnapping of their loved ones. We have regularly met with the families, both representatives from the State Department, also the FBI, the intelligence community, and the White House. So we have been in constant communication with them. I don't have any details on communications today, but if there are some to share, I am happy to read them out. As you saw in the secretary's statement, as well, he had met James Foley and the Foley family when he was a senator, knew them. The Foleys are from the state right next door to his, and so obviously he's been very focused on this case. QUESTION: And there are also reports that Steven Sotloff's mother is in Washington, D.C., today. Is she meeting with anyone at this... (CROSSTALK) HARF: I don't know. I can check. I'm sorry. I can't confirm that. Let me check on that. Yes, hello. QUESTION: Hi. HARF: Welcome addition to the briefing. QUESTION: Thanks. So a couple of questions. First, I'm really interested in the funding streams. And I know you've been answering the various people's questions about that, but can you give us a little bit more on how the ISIL funding streams differ from what your people are already used to dealing with in terms of Al Qaida and some of the other groups? What are the challenges that make their funding streams different or harder to cut off? Or will you be targeting with sanctions? Or is it's not really a group where you sanction... (CROSSTALK) HARF: Well, we designated them as an FTO, which carries with it -- I don't know if the official term is sanctions, but I think it is -- but which attempts to cut off any possible funding that could come from the United States or any assets they may have here. I don't know, quite frankly, you know, what the extent of their assets is here, but certainly we've taken the steps that we can under our financial system to cut off their funding. I do think that one of the challenges is that much of their funding comes from criminal -- criminal activity, whether it's stealing money from banks, like we've seen in Mosul and elsewhere, whether it's kidnapping for ransom, which is a huge problem, which is, again, another reason the United States does not make concessions to terrorists, because we don't want them to get more funding. So those are not unique challenges, but a little different than some of the other terrorist groups we're seen in terms of financing. We are also concerned about financing from private citizens, from other places in the region. We have worked very hard -- and I don't have more details for you -- but we've worked very hard with partners in the region and countries to really -- because they understand the threat to get them to crack down on this financing. QUESTION: And so are there individuals in these countries who you're aware of who are following the money that you can go after them? Or does their government have to go after that? HARF: I believe the Treasury Department actually may have designated some people individually for their support to ISIL, but let me check on that and see if I can get you some more after this briefing. QUESTION: OK, and then... HARF: We would obviously, if there was -- you know, if there was someone that we could individually sanction, I think we'd certainly be looking at those options. QUESTION: And then clarification. Earlier you referred to 12,000 fighters who had joined -- HARF: Foreign fighters who had -- QUESTION: -- foreign fighters -- HARF: -- who had gone to join Iraq and Syria. QUESTION: -- so it's not necessarily just ISIL? It's -- HARF: Correct. QUESTION: -- group? HARF: Correct, including Nusra and others as well, I'm sure. QUESTION: So foreign fighters and others, mostly from Europe? Is that your understanding? HARF: I don't know the answer to that. I think many are probably from the region, some from South Asia, some from Europe. I can check and see if there's more of a breakdown -- QUESTION: And do you have an idea of how many of those are American? HARF: I believe some officials have spoken to this recently. Let me see if I can get you some numbers on that. QUESTION: OK. And then on the question of this video that was released, is there anyone in this -- in the building or in the administration who is of the view that in some ways this video may be self-defeating for them because they show themselves in many ways -- this is just one example -- to be so brutal that could turn more support against them, that maybe some of those who were supporting them either tacitly or actively might stop doing so? Is there any view of that? HARF: Well, I think not just this video, but what we've seen them do -- I mean, it's not, unfortunately, just limited to this video. We're very focused on it, of course, because it's an American citizen. But if you look at the pictures and the stories coming out of Northern Iraq, coming out of Syria, stories, by the way, that James Foley was there to tell and wanted to bring to the world, their barbarity is really boundless. And all peace-loving Muslims have to do around the world is look at these photos to know they don't represent their religion. I note that the Grand Mufti in Saudi Arabia, that nation's highest religious authority, yesterday said that the Islamic State and Al Qaeda were the enemy number one of Islam and not in any way part of the faith. So I certainly don't want to speak for him. But he was very clear about how at least Muslims in his country should view what ISIL is doing, period. QUESTION: Now I know you said that you said that you had not seen that report that had come out during the briefing about the State Department requesting an additional 300 troops where -- (CROSSTALK) HARF: I haven't seen that, I'm sorry. QUESTION: -- confirmation during the briefing about that? HARF: Unfortunately, we don't have it (INAUDIBLE) we can confirm things during the briefing. But afterwards we'll see -- we're constantly looking at what our security posture looks like. But I'm unaware of specifics of that nature. But again, happy to check after the briefing. QUESTION: I thought the system was sending someone running outside -- (CROSSTALK) HARF: No, have you ever seen someone passing a note up here? I should start doing that. I'm going to send Matt to go find out. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE)? HARF: Continue on then, yes? QUESTION: Yes, and I just wanted very quickly -- I mean, seeing that most of these ISIL fighters are actually foreign fighters, in terms of Syria and Iraq, they cross borders and the cross border countries that are friendly to you, like Turkey, like Jordan. I mean -- HARF: We are working with those countries and others to cut down on financing but also the flow of foreign fighters -- QUESTION: -- you think these countries were lax in controlling their borders? HARF: I'm not going to say that, Saeed. I'm going to say it's a tough challenge. It really is. And so we're working with them on it; we're working to help improve their capacity to monitor these things as well. Yes? And then I'll go to you, OK? Go ahead. QUESTION: You said there are individual providing the fight for -- HARF: Private citizens. QUESTION: -- right. Can you nominate some of their country, of the -- for which country? HARF: Let me see if there's more specifics to share with you. Let me see. I'm not -- I don't have that in front of me and I think we actually have designated them individuals. But let me check on that and maybe have more details to share later. Yes? QUESTION: On this point, are the -- HARF: OK. QUESTION: -- on this one, the Germany has development minister has accused the Qatar of financing the ISIS, is not saying individuals, as you are saying, but who said -- HARF: Well, as I said, we don't have evidence that governments are supporting this group. I said that over and over and over again in this briefing room, we're constantly looking at ways to cut off financing to them. I don't have many more details on that to share. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: -- if you don't have evidence that governments are -- what does this president mean when he says "from governments and peoples across the Middle East," -- HARF: -- we all need to work together to fight -- I -- you're reading something into that statement that I don't think is actually there. He was saying that we need -- and I -- QUESTION: Well, I'm reading into this that you're actually going to do something. Are you saying -- (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: -- I mean -- do something to get the -- to get countries that you don't believe are... HARF: No, you're -- you're just linking that to the financing piece. What the president was referring to, and I have it right in front of me here as well, is that all of the countries need to come together to fight ISIL in any way we can. You're linking it to a specific piece and reading into it an accusation that I don't actually think is there. It was a broad statement about the fact that this isn't a U.S. fight against ISIL. This is a fight that every country should feel deeply about and should take on. QUESTION: Well, I guess I'm just wondering why did he feel compelled to say something like this if in fact everything is going along swimmingly or according to -- I mean... HARF: I think we would be the last people to say everything's going along swimmingly. QUESTION: No, no. But if you're already happy with what the people and governments of around the Middle East are doing... HARF: I didn't -- no one... QUESTION: ... to extract the cancer, why would... HARF: To be clear, nobody's happy today about anything related to this. QUESTION: All right. Happy is not the right word. If you're already satisfied or believe that everyone in governments and peoples across the Middle East are already doing everything they can to extract the... HARF: That's also not what I said. QUESTION: No, I'm trying to find out what the president means, and I can't... HARF: I know, but what I said -- his answer was we don't have evidence that governments are financially supporting ISIS. OK. But we need all the governments in the region to work together with us to fight ISIS in any way... QUESTION: OK, but... HARF: ... because clearly it's a threat that's -- that's grown, and clearly -- I think what... QUESTION: I understand this. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just trying to figure out if you need all the governments to work together, do you think that they're not all working together now? HARF: I said clearly there's more we can all do to fight ISIL. QUESTION: All right, so there's no specific country or specific people... HARF: Correct. That was not intended for any specific country. QUESTION: OK. HARF: It was intended -- and I think this is an important point -- I think ISIL wants to make this about the United States and our actions. And I think what the president was trying to say was that this is not about the United States and what we do. This is about countries in the region coming together to fight a shared threat, and this is not about us. And I think that's the point he was trying to make and was not singling out any country or any specific thing with that statement. One at a time, one at a time. Lucas is going to go first. QUESTION: Yesterday you said that the U.S. mission was to dismantle ISIS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: And if that's the case, are you going to start targeting ISIS leadership? HARF: Well, as I said, long term, how you deprive a terrorist group of its operational capacity is to degrade its leadership, to degrade its operational capability, and degrade its financing. How we do all of that is a longer term conversation. A lot of that is going to be building the capacity of our partners on the ground, as we've done other places, to go after terrorist groups. QUESTION: And earlier, did you say that the State Department made the request for more increased troops around Baghdad? HARF: I didn't. I said I couldn't confirm those reports. QUESTION: OK. And do you perceive that there's a bigger threat around Baghdad right now? HARF: I think there is -- from ISIL or in general? QUESTION: ISIL. HARF: I think there's a threat from ISIL in many parts of Iraq, and I think that's why, particularly where our people are in Baghdad and Erbil, we're very focused on protecting them. QUESTION: So, that includes Baghdad? HARF: That includes Baghdad. Yes, Said? QUESTION: Marie, very quickly, the president said, and I'm paraphrasing here, he said that the Syrians should have a choice not the regime or the terrorists. HARF: Correct. QUESTION: Does that mean that you or -- there is a need to go after both with the same vigor, the same intensity, the same targeting? HARF: Well, there are different tools for each. But clearly we believe that neither should be in control of what people in Syria do, how they live their lives. Both have shown themselves to be incredibly brutal. Tomorrow is the year anniversary of the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against its own people in the suburbs of Damascus. So, I think that neither have shown themself able to have control of anyone in Syria. QUESTION: So, you're not assigning who's more evil than the other in this case, are you? HARF: I think both have shown themselves at times to be incredibly evil, Said. QUESTION: A new subject? QUESTION: No. No no. HARF: Just a few more on this, guys. QUESTION: On financing ISIS. You said that you don't have any evidence that Arab states are funding the ISIS. HARF: The governments. QUESTION: But to what extent are you confident that these governments are not funding ISIS? HARF: I can only tell you what evidence we have or don't have and I don't have anymore details to share on the financing issue. Yes. QUESTION: Do you think those -- that those governments are aware about -- do they know anything about those individual... HARF: I don't want to speak for those governments. We are working with them... QUESTION: Did you... HARF: ... and talking to them. We are talking directly to them about how we can all do more to cut down on the financing for ISIL here. QUESTION: And they've been denying or what? HARF: I'm sorry? QUESTION: They've been denying it or -- or... HARF: I don't have details of those conversations to read out for you. Anymore on this? Elliot. QUESTION: You mentioned the -- the increasing assessment that the perpetrator in the video was British. And sort of following along those lines, we've seen a lot of social media coming out of Europe in support of ISIS. To what extent are you concerned that the -- about the radicalization of Muslims in Europe and their flow into the region and... HARF: I think... QUESTION: ... what are you doing to work with leaders in the region? HARF: Yeah, no, it's a good question. I think we're very concerned about it, not just in Europe but elsewhere. I think the Internet, for all of the good things it brings with it, does bring with it a very quick, instantaneous way for these kind of brutal groups to share their ideology and that's something we're very focused on. We're working with governments -- the United Kingdom, as we've talked about today, very, very closely but others as well -- because we are concerned about Westerners with passports, even possibly Americans who might go to the fight and -- and then, in the worst case, return. So that's something we're very focused on and really working with our partners on it. (OFF-MIKE) HARF: Anything else on this? OK, yes. QUESTION: Well... HARF: Wait, hold on, Matt and then to you. Yeah. QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports (inaudible) also likely to be detained by ISIL in Syria? HARF: Let me check on those reports. I've seen some press reports but let check (inaudible) and see what we can say about that. Yes. QUESTION: I asked this question before and apparently, this department is aware of the reports. The question that I wanted to ask and which I had asked before was is the United States willing to work with Japan on this issue of either finding this man or rescuing this man? HARF: Let me check with our team on those details. I'm sorry, I don't have those for you today. Yes, Matt? QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up on, you mentioned the grand mufti (ph) in Saudi Arabia. But, you know, Saudi Arabia is a country in which beheading is actually the legal form of execution. And they -- it's a country that is -- you -- this department has long criticized for its human rights record. HARF: That is true. I was just highlighting comments made by their chief religious leader. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: I understand. Right. I understand that. But, do you think that they are able to join this cause that the president is talking about in a -- you know in a -- in a full -- in a full way, if they, at the same time, have similar -- have issues that you -- that you... (CROSSTALK) HARF: They -- to be clear, though, they have been an incredibly close counterterrorism partner. All you have to do is look at the partnership we've had and how -- the success they've really had when they went after Al Qaida in their own country, really degraded its ability to operate there. How they're helping us fight AQAP, for example. How we have information sharing. So they've been a very, very close counterterrorism partner and absolutely will continue to be. Look, when we have concerns with some of their practices we raised those, but that's wholly separate from our counterterrorism cooperation. And I would say, I was bringing up the grand mufti (ph) in response to what, you know, what publics around the world and who people should listen to and think about when they're looking at what ISIL is doing. QUESTION: Can you point to any other Islamic (inaudible) leader in the Gulf or in Turkey... (CROSSTALK) HARF: I'm happy to check. I just noticed his comments... (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: All right. Well, I did too, yesterday, and I was gonna ask about them, but I forgot. QUESTION: But -- and also they probably weren't as relevant yesterday as maybe they are today. HARF: Unfortunately. QUESTION: But -- and in terms of -- in terms of Saudi government, I expect -- I mean, King Abdullah has been speaking very strongly... HARF: Incredibly close counterterrorism -- absolutely. The Saudis are very focused on the threat. QUESTION: OK. And how about the Turks? HARF: Very focused. The Turks are, as well. QUESTION: President-elect Erdogan? HARF: The Turks are very focused on this. As we know, there are a number of Turkish hostages being held right now, as well. So they're certainly focused on the threat that ISIL poses. We're talking to them as a NATO ally and partner about how they can help in the fight, how they can help cut off the foreign fighter flow, help cut off financing. Those are conversations ongoing. QUESTION: And then Qatar, same? HARF: We're having the same conversations. QUESTION: Your new ambassador is having the same conversations? HARF: I don't know. You'd have to ask her. But I don't have any conversations to read out to you. QUESTION: All right. There is a school of thought or a suspicion in places like Russia, in places like Syria, in places like Iran, and also in places like Israel, but for much different reasons than the first three I mentioned... HARF: Interesting group you just lumped together. QUESTION: Well, exactly. That the Saudis, that the Qataris, and that the Turks are not really fully onboard in this fight. Would you -- you would reject that? HARF: Well, look, we're talking to them every day about what more we can all do. We know there's more that needs to be done. We know this is a long-term fight. And we know it's a tough one, so we're having those conversations. Yes, OK. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: ... follow up on Matt's point... (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Today, the -- the -- some unnamed diplomat from Saudi Arabia said that during the last meeting, in the GCC meeting, Qatar refused to sign on to the Riyadh agreement, which is, you know, banned or barred all members from supporting terror groups. Are you aware of that? HARF: I don't think I'm going to wade into internal GCC politics. Yes, Michael -- let's go to Michael in the back. I think he has a quick one, and then -- popping in and out of the briefing. QUESTION: Yeah, deadlines are crazy at the moment. HARF: I know. QUESTION: Just on Gaza, obviously, it's flared up. Netanyahu just said that Operation Protective Edge is not over. Do you have a comment on the recent... HARF: Yeah, I'll do that very quickly, and then if we have a couple more, we need to finish on Mr. Foley. We remain very concerned about developments in Gaza, condemn the renewed rocket fire, and as we have said, Israel has the right to defend itself against such attacks. We call for an immediate end to rocket fire and hostilities and a return to cease-fire talks. We hope that the parties can reach an agreement, as we've said, ideally on a sustainable cease-fire, but if not, then agree to an extension. I don't have much more of an update for you than that. Lucas. Let's go to Lucas. Let's go to Lucas, and then we'll go to Gaza. Let's finish (inaudible) QUESTION: The president and CEO of the Associated Press has called... HARF: Oh, uh-oh. Matt, are you listening? QUESTION: I am listening, yes. QUESTION: ... has called Mr. Foley's death a war crime. Do you -- what's your response to that? QUESTION: He called a crime of war. (CROSSTALK) HARF: Oh, it's a collaboration. I think you heard the president and the secretary speak very, very strongly about what has happened here. I'll let those words speak for themselves, and I don't have much more analysis of what words other people are using about it. QUESTION: Would you be in favor of an international court adjudicating this murder? HARF: I don't have any analysis to do on that hypothetical. What I have said is that the United States takes very seriously its responsibility to hold those terrorists accountable who do these kind of things to Americans. QUESTION: Is this like an Abu Khattala situation, where you want him brought back to the United States... HARF: Well, look, no matter how long it takes, I don't have anything to say about what that might look like. But if you look at Osama bin Laden, if you look at Anwar Awlaki, if you look at Abu Khattala, no matter how long it takes, we put resources behind finding and bringing to justice people who kill Americans. QUESTION: So are you saying there's going to be increased airstrikes, increased... (CROSSTALK) HARF: I'm not saying that. I'm saying we are looking at how we can do that. QUESTION: Can we go to Gaza? HARF: Any more on this? No? Let's go to Gaza. QUESTION: OK. Yesterday, the Israelis basically said that they are entitled to go after the families of the leaders of Hamas, as well as the leaders of Hamas. Do you agree with that premise? HARF: I didn't see those comments. We have said they need to be careful and take more care when we're talking about civilian casualties. We have said that. QUESTION: (inaudible) you are aware that in pursuit of a Hamas leader they bombed -- they killed his wife and his 2-year-old daughter, correct? HARF: I'm aware of those reports, and we have consistently stated our concern for civilian casualties and civilian lives. QUESTION: OK. And also today, Prime Minister Netanyahu just a little while ago, he said that Hamas and ISIS were one in the same. Do you agree with that premise? HARF: Well, I think by definition they are two different groups. They have different leadership. And I'm not going to compare them in that way. I'll let him speak for himself, but I'm not going to use that comparison. QUESTION: Do you agree with that... HARF: They're both designated terrorist organizations. QUESTION: OK, they're both... HARF: So let's be clear about that. They're both foreign terrorist organizations designated under United States law. But I'm not going to do any more comparison of them. Obviously, they're quite different in some ways. QUESTION: Are you aware of incidents that Hamas conducted outside the Gaza or in confronting Israel? HARF: Throughout its entire history? QUESTION: Yes. HARF: I can check with our folks and see if I have any more historical analysis. QUESTION: OK. Are you alarmed at the number of civilian casualties that are growing, you know, disproportionately... HARF: We're... QUESTION: ... as compared to the fighters? I'm not talking about the Israeli side. HARF: We're certainly concerned about civilian casualties. QUESTION: I'm talking about the Palestinian side... (CROSSTALK) HARF: We're certainly concerned about civilian casualties, yes. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) (CROSSTALK) HARF: On Gaza? Uh-huh, go ahead. QUESTION: No, no, go. QUESTION: Al-Hayat newspaper reported today that Qatar threatened to expel, Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader, from Doha if he agreed to Cairo truce draft. And Al-Hayat added that Hamas ask the Egyptians to bring Qatar to the negotiations, and they refused. Do you have any comment on these reports? HARF: I haven't seen those reports, so I can't confirm them one way or the other. As I said the other day, we're engaging with everyone who has close links with the participants. That includes Qatar. QUESTION: If true, what do you think about... HARF: Well, any statement that starts "if true," comma, I'm probably not going to answer, because it's a hypothetical. QUESTION: Do you think that Qatar is playing or can play a positive role in achieving the cease-fire or the agreement between the two parties? HARF: Well, the secretary and our senior leadership have been closely engaged with the P.A., with the Israelis, with the Egyptians and other regional players, but have also dealt with Qatar and Turkey who have real influence with Hamas. And we need countries that have leverage over the leaders of Hamas, who can help put a cease-fire in place. As I've said, it is not possible to have a cease-fire with only one (inaudible). QUESTION: But it looks like they threatened (inaudible). HARF: I'll look into those specific comments. I haven't seen those. QUESTION: Are you -- can you give us an update, if you have one, on the contacts -- those contacts that you just mentioned? HARF: The secretary? QUESTION: Well, if he's had any or if Frank has or if any -- you know... HARF: Today, the secretary's spoke with the Israeli prime minister, the Israeli foreign minister, the Turkish foreign minister and the Qatari foreign minister. I don't have any details... QUESTION: Well, that's a very interesting... HARF: ... of those conversations to read out. QUESTION: ... triple play there. So, Israel, Qatar and Turkey? HARF: And he's talked to a wide range -- you know, a couple days ago, the Emiratis, the Saudis, the Palestinians. He's... QUESTION: OK, but today... HARF: As you know, the secretary speaks frequently to a lot of different people. QUESTION: Yes. Often for extended period of time. HARF: Sometimes not. QUESTION: But I'm just talking -- let's just talk about today's calls, to those four people in three countries, is that correct? HARF: That is true. And (inaudible)... QUESTION: Israel... HARF: Turkey... QUESTION: ... Turkey and Qatar. HARF: Yes. QUESTION: Woujld it be safe to assume that the subject of their conversation was Gaza and Hamas? HARF: It was. QUESTION: And it wasn't Foley or anything else... HARF: I don't have full readouts of the calls. I'm sorry for that. I know the primary discussion was about Gaza. (CROSSTALK) HARF: I'm sure there was likely some limited discussion, condolences on Mr. Foley. QUESTION: OK. But even if you can't provide a full readout, can you say whether the secretary got the sense that there's any reason for optimism at all... HARF: In Gaza? QUESTION: Well, for just a cease-fire or for another rolling, extendable truce? Or is it really just complete disaster... HARF: Well... QUESTION: ... that it doesn't really look like there's a -- an end to... HARF: I think the secretary, in most cases, believes there is always -- there are mostly always a diplomatic path forward here. That's certainly the case here. We are very concerned about the latest developments, but he believes we can get back to -- to a extension of the temporary ceasefire, but he believes that ultimately, we can get to a sustainable ceasefire. Nobody thinks that will be easy. Certainly hasn't been yet. But he's very focused on that goal. QUESTION: OK. He has said in the past as well as have others, although I think that today may have been one of the first times that Prime Minister Netanyahu said it, is that out of this mess that is the situation in Gaza and the rockets going into southern Israel, there is the possibility that one could get back to some kind of peace talks. Is that -- and not anytime soon, but eventually. Is that still something the secretary believes is possible? HARF: That is something the secretary still believes. QUESTION: All right. And then away from the peace process, I understand that there is an update, that the privacy act waiver has been signed in the... HARF: Your favorite topic. I was waiting to see if you would ask me about this. QUESTION: Yes. So what's the situation, are you satisfied? Go ahead. HARF: Let me go. QUESTION: Yeah. HARF: We can confirm that Mohammed Abu Khdeir, a U.S. citizen, was arrested on July 28th. The U.S. consulate general in Jerusalem is providing consular assistance. The consular official visited him on August 14th. The consulate is also in contact with Mr. Khdeir's family and his lawyer. We are concerned that U.S. consulate general in Jerusalem was not notified of his arrest by the government of Israel. We are also concerned about the fact that members of the Khdeir family appear to be singled out for arrest by the Israeli authority. QUESTION: Do you know -- so how did you find out about this if you weren't notified? HARF: I think -- well, as soon as we have learned of his arrest -- we learned of it from his family. QUESTION: OK. HARF: And as soon as we learned of it, we contacted Israeli authorities to schedule a consular visit. QUESTION: OK. And you got one? HARF: We did. I just said August 14th. QUESTION: So does that mean that he was held without you knowing about it from July 28th, until August, roughly August 14th? HARF: I think it was probably before August 14th, but it was for some time and is not OK. QUESTION: Is not OK. HARF: Correct, we are concerned that we were not notified of his arrest by the government of Israel. QUESTION: And then on the second -- on the -- have they informed you of whatever charges he might face, or is it -- is it simply because he appears to be related... HARF: I'm not sure on that. QUESTION: ... to the family. HARF: I'm not sure on that. QUESTION: So, you're -- the second part of your statement on him, which was, "we are concerned that the family is being singled out," does his arrest fall into that area of concern or is... HARF: That's my understanding. Or if it's subsequently? QUESTION: Well, I'm just curious. Is your concern about this one guy, Mohammed's arrest, simply because you weren't notified by the Israelis of his arrest, as they should have notified you, or is it also because you're worried that it's part of this broader... HARF: Both. It's both. QUESTION: ... singling out of this... HARF: Correct. QUESTION: ... OK. And do you have any -- have the Israelis explained to you why this family seems to be... HARF: Not to my understanding. The conversation is ongoing. QUESTION: OK. And is the conversation on an unrelated case, same related matter, the 15 year old, the... HARF: Yes. QUESTION: What's the status of that? HARF: Nothing new. He is currently still being held. The U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv is providing him consular assistance. A consular official visited him on August 7th and attended his hearing on August 14th, and are in frequent contact with his family and his lawyer, but no new updates. QUESTION: OK, so you're concerned that you've expressed to the -- you're continuing to express those concerns about... HARF: We are. QUESTION: And then one more thing on this Mohammed Abu Khdeir, do you know where he -- is he a resident in the United States or was just there visiting or... HARF: I do not know that. QUESTION: ... was he just visiting? HARF: Let me check with our team. QUESTION: Marie, looking at a question on the UNHRC, which I (INAUDIBLE) thank you. I got a response -- HARF: Oh, good. QUESTION: -- that you don't believe that such (INAUDIBLE) can contribute to the shared goal. But you also say moreover that this mechanism risks damaging the reputation of the Human Rights Council and that (INAUDIBLE). Why (INAUDIBLE) in this case would damage its reputation? HARF: Well, we believe that much of that's what -- much of what's been done in these kind of efforts has been biased and one- sided and do damage reputation because they're not seen as a neutral party here, as they should be. QUESTION: Is it -- she there be some sort of a forum -- perhaps not the UNHRC but something else that can have an impartial commission to go and talk to both sides and see if there -- in fact there was, you know, war crimes committed by either side? HARF: -- I don't want to -- I, you know, make a blanket statement about hypotheticals. But what who we think need to investigate is the Israeli government. We have called on them to do so and will continue having that conversation. QUESTION: And are you satisfied that the Israeli government sort of investigated itself in the past with -- (CROSSTALK) HARF: Well, I don't have judgment on the facts -- QUESTION: -- that you would want to -- HARF: -- I don't have judgment on the (INAUDIBLE). What I can say is today we will continue to raise (INAUDIBLE). (CROSSTALK) HARF: Let's go to Pakistan. Yes? QUESTION: Yes. And I have seen your comments yesterday. Do you have any updates on this rapidly deteriorating situation? HARF: I don't have any -- I don't have any additional comments from yesterday. QUESTION: And then on the India-Pakistan border, there is -- you know, the cease-fire has been violated by the -- by Pakistan and is there, you know, a few years of escalation in those hostilities. Do you have anything on that? HARF: Not anything new, as we've said. We want both countries, both India and Pakistan, to take steps to improve their bilateral relationship. Just don't have any more announcements for you -- (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: One last one. HARF: Yes? QUESTION: Are you keeping an eye on the nuclear weapons in Pakistan? Are they in safe hands? HARF: I would -- I would venture to guess that we always care about that issue. One more on Pakistan then you're next. (CROSSTALK) HARF: Oh, go ahead and then you can -- yes? QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) between India and Pakistan, if secretary had any time to speak either of the foreign ministers of India or Pakistan? HARF: I don't think he's spoken to them recently. We've been engaged with both countries from our embassies on the ground. QUESTION: And as far as Pakistan's situation is concerned, it's a grave situation, military's all over Islamabad and in Pakistan. My question is do you compare Pakistan today, what recently happened in Iraq change of prime minister (ph) it could happen in Pakistan, change of prime minister (ph) or even maybe Maliki might take over Pakistan. HARF: Well, I think maybe caution you from using terms like "grave" (ph). Obviously we're following what's happening on the ground. Nawaz Sharif was elected and is prime minister. There is a government that was elected in place. So while we've recalled (sic) on all sides to refrain from violence, we are monitoring the situation. But we will continue working with the Pakistanis and, again, I would caution you from assuming sort of where this goes from here. We think there's a path forward here that's peaceful. We know there's a lot of space for political dialogue but it has to remain peaceful. QUESTION: One more quickly, what... What -- (INAUDIBLE) saying and others in the country, including hundreds of thousands or millions of people in Pakistan, they are not happy with the (INAUDIBLE) saying that both elections by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were fraud and fake and they were not (INAUDIBLE) he should step down. That's what I'm asking -- (CROSSTALK) HARF: He's the prime minister. Period. QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE). HARF: I in no way am calling on that. QUESTION: Is the United States support regime change in Pakistan? HARF: We support the constitutional and the electoral process in Pakistan, which produced the prime minister as Nawaz Sharif. That a process they followed, an election they had and we are focused on working with Pakistan. And we do not support any extra-constitutional changes to that democratic system or people attempting to impose them. Do a few more. QUESTION: Two quick Turkey-related questions. HARF: Two quick Turkey ones, yes. QUESTION: One is the follow-up from yesterday whether the U.S. finds Turkish -- recent Turkish elections as fair, free and transparent. HARF: We did note that the OSCE-monitoring mission said the candidates were generally able to campaign freely and the freedoms of association and assembly were respected. Also noted that the official position, the use of that by the prime minister, gave him a distinct advantage over the other candidates and we do agree with the OSCE's preliminary report and in general, the elections were generally free and fair. QUESTION: And... HARF: One follow-up. QUESTION: One more. Turkish state agency, AA's reporter was detained yesterday in Missouri, Ferguson and according to his account, he was also beaten by the local police, I believe, and there are pictures of that. Do you have any comment on... HARF: I certainly don't speak for the local police in Ferguson. What we've said is that freedom of expression is an incredibly important principle that we adhere to here in the United States. When we feel that there are challenges to that anywhere, we speak up about it. But I don't have any details on his case specifically. I'd refer you to the local authority. QUESTION: Yeah, (inaudible) question, he is one of my colleagues. He said he was threatened -- of course, by the video footage over there as well -- he was threatened by -- with his life with profane language by an officer. Do you know... HARF: I'd refer you to the local authorities to -- to speak for their own actions. QUESTION: Yeah, but, you know, (inaudible) -- there -- there are dozens of, you know, journalists facing the same threat. The question is this, from this podium, as representing the United States, you have been critical to other countries, including my own country, Turkey, for the detainment of journalists. And, well, isn't some kind of hypocrisy to, you know, decline or to remain silent against U.S. forces using violence... HARF: I don't think -- I don't think -- I think the president and the attorney general have been anything but silent on what's happening in Ferguson. I think the attorney general is there today. So while it's not appropriate for me to comment on a domestic issue, this government has spoken very clearly about what's happening in Ferguson. I would wholly disagree with your notion that there's any hypocrisy, that somehow these are in any way comparable. I would -- as I said yesterday -- put our record here in the United States of when there are problems, when we have to course correct and fix things, we do so transparently and honestly and openly, and I would call on other countries, including Turkey, to do the same thing. And when they don't, we will continue speaking about it. QUESTION: Will you remind us how many journalists have been imprisoned in Turkey over the course of the last two years... (CROSSTALK) HARF: I don't have a number in front of me, but... QUESTION: It's more than one, right? HARF: It's certainly more than one. QUESTION: So more than a dozen? HARF: And I would also say we've gone through over the past several years banning Twitter, banning YouTube, cracking down on freedom of press and association in a way we have spoken out very strongly against. QUESTION: So you would -- so you would say that Turkey, a protest or a complaint from the Turkish government about the mistreatment by local police in Missouri of one reporter is -- is something far different in scale than the rather large-scale, almost wholesale crackdown on freedom of expression and freedom of speech that you have criticized in Turkey? HARF: Absolutely. They are in no way comparable, period. I think I was clear about that yesterday. Again, people are free to express their opinions. I am also free to say when I don't agree with them. QUESTION: Yeah, but you don't -- you say that it's a domestic issue. And that's why... HARF: By definition, yes. It's happening in the United States. QUESTION: But the case is over other countries, particularly -- particularly in Turkey. You know, I'm not comparing Turkey with Syria, with Iraq, with Afghanistan, with any other countries here. HARF: Well, you're comparing it with what we do here in the United States, and I don't think there's a comparison. I don't think it's appropriate to make one. I think they're separate issues. When we have issues here, the president and other domestic officials will speak out very clearly, and we talk about it -- all you have to do is look at cable news over the past few days to see how open our dialogue is about what's happening in this country. I would put that record of openness up against any other country in the world, period. QUESTION: Yeah, but Turkish -- Turkish public opinion and world, you know, public opinion even expects, you know, some kind of reaction to this from the State Department, as well. HARF: I think I just gave you a fairly strong reaction. QUESTION: You're representing the United States. Yeah, that's -- for attorney general, attorney general does not represent the state. The state is represented from here. HARF: The attorney general certainly represents the United States of America. QUESTION: Particularly... HARF: And as does -- as does the president, who has spoken about Ferguson on a number of occasions. Period. QUESTION: But, really, at the end of the day, it is a local security... HARF: Absolutely. This is a local issue that, you know, is not my place to make further comments about. QUESTION: Now, if a foreign journalist, you know, who's credentialed by the State Department, if he is arrested or something, does the State Department in this case intervene? HARF: That's a good question, Said, and I don't know the answer. So let me -- let me check on that. It's an important one. I do not know. QUESTION: Just one more -- speaking of press freedom in Turkey, since the Prime Minister Erdogan became elected president-elect, now almost half a dozen journalists also got fired, including the reporter of The Economist, Amberin Zaman, who was condemned by Prime Minister Erdogan personally (inaudible) do you have any comment on (inaudible) HARF: Well, we've said in general we are concerned about the space for freedom of expression in Turkey. I've said that consistently. I'd also note there is some interesting commentary about yours truly in the Turkish press, which I am constantly surprised by. So, you know, there's a lot out there. We believe in freedom of expression, and we are concerned about the space for it in Turkey. QUESTION: Really? Do tell. HARF: Go on Twitter. It's all on there. QUESTION: Are you concerned that these issues, press freedom issues since prominent journalists and reporters have been fired within a week that the Prime Minister Erdogan... HARF: Well, I don't have any comment on that -- I just -- I'm not aware of those specific cases. In general, again, we are concerned about the space there for freedom of expression. QUESTION: And as long as we're on press freedom and foreign countries... HARF: I would love to guess where you're going right now with this. QUESTION: Where do you think I'm going? HARF: I have no clue. QUESTION: Afghanistan. HARF: Oh, OK. (LAUGHTER) What gives you -- I could guess. OK, yes, thank you. QUESTION: Afghanistan. HARF: New York Times reporter. QUESTION: Yes. HARF: Yes. QUESTION: Things seem to have gone a little bit further than they had gone yesterday. HARF: Yes, we condemn the government of Afghanistan's decision to expel a journalist from the New York Times. This is a significant step backward for the freedom of expression in Afghanistan that may well be unprecedented there. We urge the government of Afghanistan to reverse this decision. As I just said many times, freedom of expression and a free press are vital to the workings of a strong, democratic society in the best interest of the Afghan people. QUESTION: All right. All that is very well and good, and I understand it. HARF: But? QUESTION: But here's the thing. In contrast to Turkey and the exchange that you just had, where this is a local or state police operation going on... HARF: In Ferguson? QUESTION: Yeah. In contrast to this, this is the Afghan national government, the attorney general, doing -- doing this. You're condemning it. How do you square that with the administration's prosecution of American reporters for violating... HARF: Well, they're totally different things. QUESTION: Well... HARF: This reporter in Afghanistan, Matthew Rosenberg (ph), to my knowledge and maybe I'm wrong here, but there was nothing in his articles that violated the law. We prosecute anybody, period, as the attorney general could speak to, when they violate United States law. QUESTION: One of the reasons why he's being expelled, though, is because he refused to name his sources. HARF: Well, there is -- we believe there is nothing in this article that justifies this action the Afghan government has taken. QUESTION: And, yet, there is everything in what James Reisen (ph) wrote to... HARF: I'm not gonna comment on specific cases here. QUESTION: Well, OK. So, in the several cases that are going on in the United States right now, you don't see a problem condemning the Afghans for doing essentially... HARF: I don't. QUESTION: ... the same thing. (CROSSTALK) HARF: I would... QUESTION: I know you're gonna disagree, but a lot of people wouldn't... HARF: So we're going to agree to disagree. QUESTION: A lot of people would not disagree. A lot of people think that, in many ways, what's happening to Matt Rosenberg (ph) is very similar to what's happened to... (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: ... journalists in the United States. HARF: I can't disagree more strongly, Matt. And I can just tell you that there are ongoing legal actions being taken. I'll let the Department of Justice speak to those. When U.S. laws are broken, we enforce them. QUESTION: OK. HARF: This appears to be banning a reporter from a country for a story they don't like. QUESTION: Right. So you don't -- you don't -- you do not believe that he or his article broke any Afghan law. HARF: I'm not an expert on Afghan law, so who knows what the actual -- you know, who knows the specifics here or what they'll say. But we believe there was nothing in this article that could justify this action. QUESTION: Sorry, what is the difference between, you know, banning somebody to covering some stories in a country and breaking somebody's camera and detaining him... HARF: I don't think anyone in this country would say that journalists should not be allowed to freely do their job in the United States. I'm not... QUESTION: That's what happened yesterday. HARF: But, you need to take a step back here and take a little more nuanced and smart look at what's happening in Ferguson. I know sometimes that's challenging, but let's all try today. (CROSSTALK) HARF: Wait. I'm not done yet. QUESTION: Yes. HARF: So, what I was going to say was that when we see cases in the United States where journalists are prevented from doing their jobs, when we look at Ferguson, the president of the United States has spoken out against that and said journalists should be able to do their jobs. Senior administration officials that deal with the domestic situation here in the United States have spoken out and said that journalists should not just get arrested for being able to do their jobs. So, when problems occur, when things don't go correctly, we say so openly, transparently, and we course-correct. And that is what we do here when things happen. This is wholly different. QUESTION: Yeah, but despite... QUESTION: Why didn't you just say that in response to this question the first time? Say, "OK, that's your colleague..." HARF: Because I was waiting for the... (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: "... your colleague got beaten up yesterday and -- and..." HARF: Well, I actually don't know the specifics of his colleague. QUESTION: Well, whatever, but it sounds as though... (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: ... well, it sounds as if -- it sounds credible, so if -- you just say "if this happened to your colleague, then we think it's a bad thing?" HARF: Because I'm not going to comment on what happens in the United States from the State Department podium. I really don't think that's appropriate. I just don't. QUESTION: OK. You leave that to the attorney general and to the president, is that correct? HARF: I will leave that to people that deal with the domestic situation in the United States. Last one. QUESTION: Yeah, OK. Turkish foreign minister released a statement concerning this case and said that this is unacceptable. Now, I think the State Department is, you know, addressee of this statement, right? HARF: People are free to say whatever they would like. I am making clear what happens in the United States when we have issues like this that arise, and how we address them, which has been a drastic difference than other countries, and again, which I would put up against any other country's ability to look at what happens in their country and self-correct, and I don't think I have much more on this topic. Let's move on. What else? In the back. QUESTION: North Korea. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: North Korea said some bad -- bad, insulting things about Secretary Kerry. Spokesman for the country's defense commission said, "Kerry closely resembles a wolf in appearance with a hideous slanted jaw, hollow eyes, and grey hair." What's your response to that? HARF: I don't think I have any response to those kinds of insults. Yes? QUESTION: I've been called worse things by better people. (LAUGHTER) HARF: I have no response. Not going to dignify it with a response. Wait, I'm going here. QUESTION: Sorry. HARF: It's OK. QUESTION: I have two separate Russia-related questions. HARF: OK. QUESTION: The one is about freedom of the press, I guess. In Ukraine. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: You were asked yesterday about the case of Russian photographer Andrei Stannen (ph), and... HARF: Yes, and I have a little information on -- I didn't have it yesterday. QUESTION: He was the one missing in Ukraine on assignment. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: And it happened August the 5th, I think. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: If my memory doesn't fail. The Ukrainian authorities said last week that he was detained by the local security services. They later backtracked and they said simply that "We are looking for him." The (inaudible) created a certain stir, and caused condemnations from Reporters Without Borders, Committee to Protect Journalists and a number of other press associations. You were completely silent on that one. HARF: Well I just didn't have an answer yesterday, and I got it for you today, which is the beauty of this daily briefing process. QUESTION: Thank you so much. I would like to hear that. HARF: We are -- we have seen the OSCE particularly have called for the immediate release of him. He went missing in eastern Ukraine on August 5th. We are unable to confirm his current whereabouts or the facts surrounding his disappearance. We do call on all parties to ensure the safety of journalists working in the region but can't confirm more specifics about where he's -- he's located. QUESTION: Do you know if you are raising this issue with your contacts for the Ukrainian counterparts? HARF: I can check on that. QUESTION: OK. And the other thing is completely separate. The INF Treaty. HARF: Yes. QUESTION: You -- in light of the compliance report, the State Department compliance report and your conclusions about Russia and the INF, you proposed an immediate high level talks, consultations to discuss those... HARF: Mm-hmm. Correct. QUESTION: ... concerns and conclusions of yours. Are you suggesting something specific to the Russians? Have you set a time and date for those proposed talks? And is (inaudible) Miller (ph) meeting -- working group one of those possible channels to discuss... HARF: So we have -- to be clear, before we announced the non- compliance, we also -- the violation, we had also spoken directly to the Russian government then. But we have notified Russia of our determination and are prepared to discuss this in a senior level bilateral dialogue immediately with the aim of assuring the United States that Russia will come back into compliance with its treaty obligations. We don't have a schedule to announce or what that might look like at this point. We have proposed it and are waiting to get details worked out on that. Matt, did you have another topic? QUESTION: Well, related, I wanted to ask you about Ukraine and -- and to see if you could clear up what appears to be this confusion over the attack or alleged attack on the IDP convoy... HARF: I don't have anything new on that. We still can't confirm the details around it. (OFF-MIKE) QUESTION: Go ahead. QUESTION: ... that another fighter was shot down, a Ukrainian fighter? HARF: In the last 24 hours? I -- I don't have that in front of me. It wouldn't surprise me but let me check. QUESTION: (inaudible) three the other day. HARF: Yeah, (inaudible) four over the weekend so let me check on that. QUESTION: Marie, yesterday, you said that... HARF: And then I'll (inaudible). Go ahead. QUESTION: Sorry. Yeah. HARF: It's OK. QUESTION: You said that the Putin-Poroshenko meeting that is coming up, you have nothing to do with that. You don't know much about it. Do you know anymore... HARF: No, there's nothing new today on that. Let me check and see if there's... QUESTION: Do you think that it's still going to be held or... HARF: I'd refer you to them. I don't have independent confirmation. QUESTION: Last one, back to Syria... (CROSSTALK) HARF: Wait, let's stay on this and then... (CROSSTALK) HARF: Wait, wait. One here and then up to Matt. (OFF-MIKE) QUESTION: The humanitarian convoy of -- of Russia, which was sitting at the border for the last several days finally is moving on, I think. Anything on that? HARF: Well, we do understand that the ICRC continues to work through necessary security guarantees, and a timeline for aid delivery is still being negotiated among all the parties. There has been agreement on certain issues related to government of Ukraine inspections of the vehicles and their contents, as well as the transfer of the aid to the ICRC. If there's nothing to hide in them, I don't know why this should all be a problem, so we'll watch that going forward. Did you have another one... QUESTION: Well, if there's nothing to hide with them, you mean... HARF: They need to be inspected. They need to go through this protocol and... QUESTION: OK. And then... HARF: Not much new on this. QUESTION: OK. Well, then I expect there probably isn't much new on this, but MH17, still nothing? HARF: I actually asked about this the other day. I got something for you on this one. (Inaudible) Security Council this week, an initial report on the investigation is expected by the end of August. The investigative work continues in The Hague. Prosecutors with jurisdiction, including the Dutch, are moving forward. It's still halted on the ground, but they're doing things like look at the evidence they did collect, look at the black box. That work is ongoing in The Hague. QUESTION: So we should not expect to hear anything until the end of the month in terms of... HARF: Well, that's when the U.N. Security Council said that initial report from that investigation. If we have more details to share -- but we are letting the investigation run its course here. QUESTION: Right. Are you also contributing information, evidence, whatever to the -- to the international investigation? HARF: I can check. I'm not sure how much we would have, except in the way of intelligence, but let me check. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: ... Dutch-led investigation? HARF: Correct, yes. QUESTION: You're not sure what you would have, except for intelligence? HARF: Additionally that we would have, that we haven't already discussed with them in terms of the intelligence and the case we've outlined in here. QUESTION: OK. Well... (CROSSTALK) HARF: But you asked if we're still sharing. And I just don't know if there's any new information. I can check. QUESTION: Well, so does that mean that we're -- you guys are done in terms of releasing what you -- what... (CROSSTALK) HARF: No, I didn't say that. QUESTION: Oh, OK. I'm asking. HARF: I'm always pushing the intelligence community to release more. QUESTION: OK. But have you -- have you -- are you able to say if you have shared more than what you have shared publicly with the Dutch-led investigation? HARF: Let me check. Let me check on that. QUESTION: Back to Syria. Does it remain the stated policy of this administration that Assad must go? HARF: Yes. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) since we're on a freedom of expression/journalism kick today, I was wondering if you are aware... HARF: Which is an appropriate way maybe to honor journalists who are working in really tough places, many of which are very dangerous. QUESTION: This isn't quite as serious as other cases, but in Seoul, the bureau chief of Japan's Sankei Shimbun has been put on a travel ban and he's been called in for questioning by the prosecutor's office a number of times over a column he wrote, which there are claims that defamed President Park. HARF: I hadn't seen that. Let me check on that case, and we'll get you a response. QUESTION: Great, thank you. HARF: Anything else, guys? QUESTION: Thank you. HARF: Great. Thank you. List of Speakers MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT DEPUTY SPOKESWOMAN

THE REGULAR STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING WITH SPOKESMAN, MARIE HARF MARIE HARF: Hi, everyone. Welcome to the daily press briefing, the last of the week. Q: Yay. MS. HARF: Woo! Yeah, I feel that. Let me just start with a couple of items at the top. You may have all seen this already, but today Secretary Kerry announced the appointment of General John Allen as the special presidential envoy for the global coalition against ISIL. In this role, General Allen will help continue to build, coordinate and sustain a global coalition across multiple lines of efforts to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. General Allen will report to Secretary Kerry and will -- excuse me, guys, it's a Friday. I'm going to start that sentence over. General Allen will report to Secretary Kerry and will work closely with the Department of Defense to match specific campaign requirements and coalition needs with potential contributors, providing high-level diplomatic support to coordinate a global coalition that delivers tangible results. General Allen will be supported by a deputy senior envoy, Brett McGurk, who will also continue to serve as our deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs. Q: Can I just ask a technical question about that? MS. HARF: You can. Q: You said his title is special presidential envoy, yet he reports to the secretary of state? Is that -- is that normal? MS. HARF: That's correct. There's some unique staffing title -- like that. Yeah, it's just bureaucratic, Matt. Q: Oh, I know. MS. HARF: OK. Travel update. Secretary Kerry is on travel to Ankara, Turkey, as you know. He had a series of productive meetings with President Erdogon, Prime Minister Davotoglu, and his new counterpart, foreign minister. As we confront the significant challenges in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, the partnership we share with Turkey is especially critical. Turkey plays a key role in bolstering the security and stability of the entire region, and together we work to pursue these goals together every day. Tomorrow, the secretary travels to Cairo to meet with senior Egyptian officials to discuss bilateral and regional issues of mutual concern. Additionally, as you probably saw, the secretary just announced an additional nearly $500 million in humanitarian aid to help those affected by the war in Syria. This is the largest funding announcement made by the United States in response to the largest appeal the United Nations has ever issued. Two more quick items at the top. This morning, Undersecretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman participated in our Office of the Chief of Protocol's State of the Administration speaker series. In so doing, she briefed the Washington diplomatic corps on critical global issues in advance of the 69th session of the U.N. General Assembly. In her remarks, she addressed our negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue as well as the challenges posed by ISIL; also, the Ebola virus and current events in, among other places, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine. This is a series we do that provides chief of -- chiefs of mission posted in Washington with an opportunity to interact directly with senior members of the U.S. government and thought this was an important time for all of them to come in advance of UNGA. Last item at the top, and then over to you, Matt. We are saddened to learn of the passing of Reverend Doctor Ian Paisley, a significant figure in the history of Northern Ireland. Dr. Paisley, who later became Lord -- excuse me, Lord Bannside, led by the forces of his convictions during the most turbulent and divisive years of Northern Ireland's past. Over the course of the region's collective effort to build piece, he took the necessary and courageous steps to embrace power-sharing, a move that resulted in renewed stability and hope for Northern Ireland. We send our condolences to his family as they mourn his loss. Matt. Q: OK. Can we start with the secretary and Turkey? Not so much about his visit, which has been covered pretty well, but one thing. He did say something about co-chairing a meeting with the Turks on -- counterterrorism meeting coming up at the -- at the U.N.? MS. HARF: We'll have some more information about that specifically and some unrelated things on Monday for you. Q: Oh, OK, because I was under the impression it was going to be something today. Anyway, on -- MS. HARF: (Inaudible) -- a little bit, but -- Q: OK. But I have a broader question about Turkey and its -- the secretary was engaged with Turkey and Qatar during the whole Gaza crisis -- MS. HARF: He was. Mmm hmm. Q: -- because they had influence with Hamas, correct? MS. HARF: Mmm hmm. Q: And Hamas is a -- MS. HARF: In part. Q: Yeah. Well, they have -- in fact, Turkey and Qatar host senior officials of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. I'm wondering, simply because you share an anti-ISIS/ISIL goal with the Turks -- and leave the Qataris aside for a moment -- why it is that Turkey should be considered appropriate, an appropriate co-host for a counterterrorism meeting or even a counterterrorism -- a broad counterterrorism effort when even you, by -- with your own actions, suggest that they are -- that they are a supporter of a terrorist organization? MS. HARF: Well, they're -- let's -- the word "supporter" though, I would not use that word when it came -- comes to Turkey and Hamas. Obviously, they have a relationship with Hamas that has been -- played a productive role in terms of cease-fire negotiations. I think a couple things. First, Turkey is a NATO ally. We have a close counterterrorism relationship with them that predated the current situation we're dealing with with ISIS. So that's certainly been something that's been ongoing. And I would also say that ISIS is obviously a specific threat. They know our position on Hamas, but the situation in Gaza, what's going on there is separate from how we work together with countries on fighting ISIS. Q: So there is not two -- there are not distinction -- but are there distinctions -- does the administration make a distinction between a terrorist organization that -- a designated foreign terrorist organization like Hamas and a designated foreign terrorist organization like ISIS? MS. HARF: Well, a distinction in what way? They're different groups. Q: Well -- MS. HARF: They have different goals and different capabilities and different aims. Q: Yeah, but are they -- but if -- but if they're on the same level, if they're both equally as -- let's use the word "bad", why is a supporter or a host of one of them still a counterterrorism partner? MS. HARF: Well, I'm not-- well, I'm not going to equate them. First of all, the level of brutality we've seen from ISIS, you've heard the president and the secretary and everybody speak about it recently, is what has prompted us to undertake a coordinated counterterrorism campaign led by the United States and other partners against ISIS. That's obviously something very different than the situation with Hamas, who, you're right, is a designated foreign terrorist organization, has threatened Israelis, poses a serious threat to Israelis, but for -- to get a cease-fire in place, you need to parties to agree to that. Q: Does the administration -- not -- does the administration believe that Hamas is somehow less bad than ISIS is? MS. HARF: It's not about being less bad, it's about what the threat is, the threat that each group poses, where they pose it, how they pose it, and how you confront it. When it comes to Gaza, we believe that a cease-fire, getting one in place, would be in the best interests of Israel's security who's under threat from Hamas. So it's just the tools you use different places. Q: OK. And do you know if -- do you know if the secretary got any more assurances, publicly or -- well, I would say privately -- about Turkey and its commitment to the coalition? MS. HARF: Well, he addressed this in his press availability. Each country will continue making their own decisions about how they participate. Obviously, there are roles each country can play, but we'll let Turkey speak for themselves. Q: (Off mic) -- follow up on Hamas, question on the characterization or the classification of Hamas. So you don't see Hamas as basically part -- however you want to define it, part of a national liberation that is working towards a certain geography versus ISIS that has apparently no boundaries and no borders and no national goal at the end? You don't see it that way? MS. HARF: Well, I said Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization and designated as such poses a significant threat to Israel. They are also responsible for security in Gaza, which is what we've talked about. So obviously, the brutality that ISIS has posed across Iraq, across Syria, potentially elsewhere in the region and around the world, is just different in nature, looks different, and the tools we use to confront that terrorism will be then different. Not going to get into the business of ranking terrorist organizations. Q: No, I mean, not ranking, but you do recognize that Hamas does not have a global reach, for instance. Does it have a global reach? MS. HARF: I would -- I would agree with you that I would not say that Hamas and ISIS have the same goals -- stated goals about what their -- what their plans are that they've said publicly. But obviously Hamas has caused quite a bit of destruction and death, particularly in Israel. Q: OK, let me just quickly follow-up on this issue, because I want to understand your position on this. Now, are you aware of a threat or any time or any actions, certainly any terrorist actions that Hamas may have committed against the interests of the United States in the United States or elsewhere? MS. HARF: In the history of Hamas? Q: In the history of Hamas. Can you remember -- MS. HARF: I can check, Said. Obviously Hamas is a very serious threat. I want to be clear here. But I don't want to compare them to ISIS, not because what they've done and how they've threatened Israelis isn't just as bad, but it's on a different scale. They have different goals. They have different capabilities. I mean, they just -- it's a completely different situation. Q: Mmm hmm. But you are on record saying that Hamas needs -- knows what it needs to do in order for you to recognize it as a political player in Middle East peace, which is to recognize the state of Israel, to recognize all the protocols that have been signed by the Palestinian Authority, by doing all these things. So Hamas does have some redeeming value, correct, in this case? Or -- MS. HARF: Well, I don't think I'm going to use the term redeeming value, but what I will say is -- Q: OK, I mean, how -- what would you call it? MS. HARF: I am not going to compare them to ISIS. I think the level of brutality that we have seen out of ISIS is something that we have not seen from many other even terrorist groups. So I think we have seen -- what we have seen with the beheadings, with the -- with the rapes, the -- people being forced into slavery. And then, on top of that, the capabilities -- taking over territory, taking over heavy weaponry. That's a combination that we haven't necessarily seen elsewhere and so I don't want to compare them to Hamas in any way. Q: And finally -- and finally, as pertains to Hamas, they just announced that they are open to talks with Israel. Do you think this as a step forward towards the issue that you -- you know, that -- or how can Hamas be recognized as a player in the peace process? MS. HARF: Well, obviously I've seen some of those reports of those comments. When it comes to the peace process, we've always made very clear what Hamas will have to do. And out outlined some of them, right, in addition to recognizing Israel, living by -- you know, agreeing to live by past agreements -- there are a whole host of things, right? Again, Hamas is still a terrorist organization and we consider them as such. We just have to look at what happened during Gaza to see the rockets that they were firing indiscriminately at citizens in Israel to know that. But again, I think we need to be very careful when we talk about and compare different terrorist groups. Each one is a little different. Each one has different capabilities. Each one has different aims. There are tools we use to combat each one that may be different. And lumping them all together doesn't help us fight them, because you're not talking about the threat precisely and therefore aren't talking about how you deal with it precisely. And I think I would encourage people to be very precise when they do talk about these threats. Yes, Michael. Q: I have a similar line of questioning, but a little nuance, so bear with me with these. The president has said he will destroy ISIS, wherever they exist they will find no safe haven. I presume that does not exclude cities such as Raqqah, its primary haven. Is that correct? MS. HARF: He said wherever they exist, no safe haven. Q: OK. Have you seen eyewitness reports on the ground, including from The New York Times, that the civilian populations in Raqqah are dispersing from densely populated residential neighborhoods where ISIS keeps headquarters? MS. HARF: I haven't seen those reports, but what I will say -- and I think this might be your follow up and I'm not sure if it is, so if it's not ask another one -- but we've all been clear, the president's been clear, that when we undertake counterterrorism operations, we take civilian casualties very seriously, go to even length we can to prevent them, even if -- and especially if these terrorists are operating in densely populated areas. We know that's a challenge. Certainly in Iraq, I mean, it's also been a challenge. But we are very careful when we undertake counterterrorism operations. Q: OK, so -- I mean -- sorry, just a couple more. MS. HARF: No, yeah. Q: This was my follow-up question. I'm going to ask it anyway. Does -- the following policy, as you've said it, this building has said it, applied to this current significant counterterrorism effort -- MS. HARF: Always, yeah. Q: Well, the exact words he used was that the suspicion based on intelligence that militants are operating nearby does not justify the killing of civilians. Does it apply? MS. HARF: Well, you're referring to what I said about Gaza. Q: I am, but does it apply to -- MS. HARF: OK, and you're trying to compare two fully different situations. Q: Well, does -- I'll read it again. Does the suspicion that militants are operating nearby a civilian populated area justify the killing of civilians? Does that not apply to this current -- MS. HARF: Well, I just outlined for you how we look at -- how we take into account civilian casualties when we are looking at potential counterterrorism operations targets. Q: Right. MS. HARF: So the president has spoken very clearly to the fact that we take every precaution, hold ourselves to a very high standard, to prevent civilian casualties, and when we look at potential targets for counterterrorism operations are very precise in doing so, exhibit a great level of precision. I think you can look at some of our efforts to see that. So again, I don't want to compare the two in any way. We certainly hold ourselves to a high standard and we have called on the Israelis to hold themselves to a high standard as well. Q: Absolutely. The reason I ask is because when the president says, wherever they exist they will find no safe haven, I'm going to ask you what -- MS. HARF: Right, but that doesn't mean he's not going to take into account the potential of civilians present if there's a counterterrorism target. Q: Right. Well, and I'm going to ask you what Israeli officials ask themselves all the time when it comes to Hamas in Gaza, which is if you're only using airpower, if you have vowed nothing less than the destruction of the group, of the terrorist group, and these civilian populations are safe havens in one respect or another, how are you going to destroy the group? MS. HARF: Well, you can do both. It's not an either/or proposition here, Michael, and I would encourage people to not look at it that way. You can say, we will do everything to destroy this group. If that means waiting until there are fewer civilians in a specific area to take some sort of counterterrorism operation, we've done that before. If it means taking extra precautions to make sure that civilians aren't killed, we've done that before. We will stay with this fight no matter how long it takes, but we do take extraordinary care when it comes to civilian casualties. And you can do both, though. They're not incompatible with one another. You just have to be very precise about what tools you use, when you use them, and how you use them. Q: The Israelis would say that a ground operation, as was displayed in the last Gaza operation, is taking extraordinary care, extra care because it does what air operations cannot. If the president's top generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if the defense secretary say that, we advise a small contingent of ground troops, will the president -- MS. HARF: It's a false comparison. It's a totally -- it's a totally false comparison. Q: OK, separate from the comparison, is it -- MS. HARF: The president has been clear there will not be troops on the ground in combat roles, period. He's been clear about that. That is a fundamental principle of what we're doing here. And I would note that airstrikes, if that's a tool that we end up using -- obviously we've already used it in Iraq -- can be incredibly precise. And I just don't want to compare the situations at all. We hold ourselves to a very high standard. We've asked the Israelis to do the same thing and we've spoken up when we don't think that they have. Q: Just two more from me, just to clarify. If these top generals, if the Joint Chiefs were to request a small contingent, it's not -- it's not on the table for the president regardless of that request or that advice. MS. HARF: I don't want to address a hypothetical. The president has been clear that -- Q: So it hasn't happened yet. It's a hypothetical. MS. HARF: I'm not -- well, you posed it as a hypothetical. Q: OK. MS. HARF: I'm not going to address any sort of how we would talk about something internally. The president has been clear there will be no troops on the ground in combat roles. Q: And the last one for me is, is Israel a member of your coalition against ISIS? MS. HARF: Well, we have seen -- I think -- president, excuse me -- Prime Minister Netanyahu today -- let me pull up the comments he made at Herzliya. What? Oh, I thought it was today. Maybe it was yesterday, sorry -- recent comments. We appreciate the prime minister's statement of support for our policy. Obviously we are working with a number of countries in a variety of ways against the threat ISIL poses to these countries, to the region, and we welcome the prime minister's support. Q: Would you -- would you -- would you ask the Israelis to join this counterterrorism meeting that the secretary is going to cohost with the Turks in New York? MS. HARF: I don't have any more details on that, Matt. We may have more -- (Cross talk.) Q: All right, find out, because in the past -- excuse me -- MS. HARF: Let me check. Q: -- in the past Turkey has objected to Israel's participation in that. And then just one more thing. Given the fact that there have been civilian casualties as a result of U.S. airstrikes, drone strikes, whatever, in the past -- I mean, no one's perfect. I'm not saying -- suggesting that anyone is -- but would you say that the United States needs to do more to -- needs to do more to hold -- to meet the high standards -- MS. HARF: No, I say Israel needs to do more. Q: Yeah, but would you also agree that the United States needs to do more -- MS. HARF: I think -- Q: -- because, in effect, you don't have a perfect record and there are plenty -- there's plenty of evidence that civilians have been killed and -- MS. HARF: I think we go to every length possible, extraordinary lengths, to ensure that we do not put civilians in harm's way, period. I know the standards are incredibly high. The president spoke about it at his NDU speech when he really outlined our counterterrorism operational strategy and they're incredibly high. Q: Does the administration believe that it is living up to its own high standard? MS. HARF: Yes, we do, absolutely. Q: But it does not believe that Israel is. MS. HARF: We have said in this specific conflict we believe they should do more. Q: OK. (Cross talk.) MS. HARF: Let's do ISIS and then we'll go to Turkey. Yes. Q: On ISIS, I was wondering if you had noticed what -- we had noticed that ISIS' activities on Twitter had been curtailed. I don't know if that is the case. Has the U.S. government had any kind of interference in this, or was it -- do you know if it's a decision by Twitter? MS. HARF: I don't. It's a good -- and I know you had asked me this earlier, and some other folks had noticed as well. The answer is, I don't know. Let me check into that after the briefing. Obviously, Twitter makes its own decision about its own policies. The answer is, I just really don't know. Q: You don't know? OK. And then, just yesterday, I asked you about -- on the rebels -- the moderates. Do -- the next step, if you want to, you know, give the rebels more punch, you would -- would the next step be not only training, but arming them? MS. HARF: Training and equipping. That's what the president spoke about in his speech -- the proposal we put before Congress for the Department of Defense to train and equip. We talked about it a little bit yesterday. That's all part of that practice. Q: But what -- under this coalition, is it -- would one assume that only the U.S. is going to be equipping them, or would one also see other countries -- (inaudible) -- MS. HARF: We'll see what other countries would like to contribute. Obviously, we are very specific and careful when we vet the members of the opposition we provide military assistance to. We talked about it a little bit yesterday; the Saudis have agreed to play a part in this effort, so that's a conversation that's ongoing. Q: So the Saudis have only talked -- because I'm just trying to clarify -- the Saudis have only talked about training, but not equipping. MS. HARF: And we're continuing to have the conversation with people. Q: Has anybody else committed to equipping? MS. HARF: The moderate opposition? I can check on that for you. Let me go to the back. Go ahead, Julianna (sp). Q: Thanks. I just want to follow up on the question about Twitter. How effective have the administration's efforts been to combat the ISIS propaganda machine? MS. HARF: Well, I think -- first, I'd say this isn't just an administration effort. Part of what we're doing with this coalition is bringing together countries that, through their own leaders -- their own religious leaders -- respective religious voices, can step up and say that ISIL's message is not Islamic, they do not represent their religion -- really push back on this really hateful rhetoric and hateful ideology. So that's a huge part of the coalition. Here in the United States and in the U.S. government, what we've done is some efforts, including some out of this building, online particularly, to push back on ISIL's rhetoric. I know some of you have seen the work that (CFPC ?) does; they do it in a variety of language, including English, but also Arabic and others, to make clear to the world the level of the barbarity of this group, because part of what we want to do is prevent other people from going to join them. We know that social media and other online fora are ways they have of meeting up and joining and becoming radicalized, so that's just one piece in this anti-radicalization effort. Q: Can you call those efforts a success? MS. HARF: Well, clearly, ISIS has grown in strength. All you have to do is look at the intelligence community's numbers of the assessment of the strength of ISIS today to see that we have a serious challenge on our hands here. But that's, I think, one of the reasons I started with the piece that the coalition will play. We can't do it all ourselves -- nor should we. So there really needs to be a concerted effort for religious leaders, other people in the region -- and they have already, but to continue to speak out and reject this ideology. We will play a small part in that. I'd also note that our counterparts in the rest of the government, particularly DHS and FBI and others, have counter-radicalization programs inside the United States for vulnerable communities to have populations that may look to some of these people overseas, have people who have been radicalized and gone to fight overseas -- we work with them as well. Let me go to Said. Q: Just one more -- ambassadors, both distinguished and served in both Iraq and Syria -- Ryan Crocker and Robert Ford -- they said that the U.S. -- the president must be prepared to go all-in. I mean, I don't know what that means. MS. HARF: I'm not sure exactly what that means either. Q: OK. So exactly what I wanted to ask you: How do you understand this to mean -- to sort of dispose, or put at the disposal of the Pentagon, in this case, all kinds of resources to -- (inaudible) -- MS. HARF: I assure you the Pentagon has many resources they have prepared to take on this fight, some of which they're already using in Iraq. But I would say that this is the reason the president emphasized a broad strategy here that's not just military, and I think maybe that's what they're referring to, although I'm not sure. There will be a robust military component of this, certainly; there already has been in Iraq. But I would also that that's why we are looking at how you cut off the financing, how you cut off foreign fighters, how you cut off all these other things that help lead to the strength of ISIS, and how you push ISIS back out of territory, which is the first step here, really, in Iraq. So this has to be a broad effort, and it has to be more than just the United States. I think that may be what they're referring to; certainly, that's how we're looking at it. Q: Yesterday, the Syrian deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, said, I think, on (NBC ?) -- he said that they are ready to cooperate with the United States. They are ready to cooperate fully, that no one has had the experience that they have, which probably is true, but that you need to sort of reach out to them. And so he made quite a reasonable sort of, you know, outline on how you could -- (inaudible). MS. HARF: Well, I don't think that anything that the Assad regime does I would describe as reasonable, as they continue to kill their own people. Q: But don't you see that, you know, the involvement of the Syrian regime, whether -- you know, involving their ground forces, for instance, is sort of, you know, have some sort of a juggernaut, you know, along with the U.S. superior air forces could actually diminish or degrade or ISIL's power? MS. HARF: Well, the answer is not the Assad regime. I get asked this every day, and I'm happy to keep answering the question. But the answer to the security challenge is not the Assad regime. They have created the security vacuum. We are not going to be working with them in this fight. They have lost legitimacy to lead, period. So I'm just not sure how much clearer I can be on that. Q: You know, as these strikes become more imminent striking Syria, and if you go back to a question that Matt asked at the beginning of the week, I mean, how would you (guard ?) against, let's say, you know, something going fluke, hitting an area that belongs to the regime or, you know, the regime fighting, shooting back at these airplanes and bringing one down with, you know, maybe a pilot captured and so on? I mean, don't you need some sort of coordination once these operations begin? MS. HARF: No, Said, we do not believe that we do. We will not be coordinating with the Assad regime -- (inaudible). Q: Staying on ISIS? Q: Follow-up? MS. HARF: Wait! Let me -- (inaudible) -- Katherine (ph). Q: Marie, we've seen Assad in power for three-plus years now. What is the U.S. plan? Do you plan to revive the Geneva process now that you're more involved in Syria? How do you see this ending? MS. HARF: Well, nothing that anyone can do or nothing that can happen at this point will ever restore Assad's legitimacy. That is gone. We have said that there needs to be a political process to get a transitional governing body in place, and we've had two rounds, as you mentioned, in Geneva. We will not have a third round until the regime makes clear it will come to the table ready to discuss that kind of transitional governing body. They have refused to do so. So we are unfortunately in a position where we do not have a political process path to move forward on right now. We are committed to it. We know that's the best path forward here, but it requires the regime taking some steps that thus far they have been unwilling to take. Q: When Secretary Kerry came to the State Department, he said he was going to work on changing Assad's calculus and stepping up -- MS. HARF: A lot has happened since then. Q: Right, and stepping up pressure on the Assad regime. One would think that now that the president has said he would not hesitate to take airstrikes inside Syria, would do that. But we still do not see any movement on the political dialogue track. What more can the U.S. do? MS. HARF: Well, the political dialogue track is a tough one. And since the secretary's been here, if you look at the arc of what's happened, a couple significant things have happened in terms of pressuring the Assad regime. One, we have increased our support, including providing military assistance to the vetted moderate opposition. So we continue to ramp that up, and we are asking to do more now with congressional support. Two, we had the secretary broker the agreement that was unanimously confirmed at the U.N. General Assembly last year to remove Syria's declared chemical weapons, taking away an incredibly potent and dangerous tool from Assad. He had to come to the table, feeling under the pressure that he was -- because of the threat of American airstrikes -- to do so. So those are some steps we've taken that have been small but important steps. The political process writ large does remain an incredible challenge. And again, as you heard the president today, his top priority as commander in chief is protecting America and American interests, and right now that means focusing on ISIL. Yes, I will come over here, yeah, and then I'll go to you. Q: Yeah. The story that has been making the rounds since yesterday about the mother and the brother of the beheaded journalist alleging that there was pressure, has -- is there going to be any change in the U.S. policy allowing private citizens to negotiate with the terrorists? MS. HARF: Well, let me -- let me be -- let me very clear here. First, the State Department worked very closely with the Foley family and with Phil Balboni, who was Jim Foley's employer at GlobalPost. There were hours of meetings trying to help. We did everything we could to assist them during this awful time. We reached out diplomatically. We helped open diplomatic doors for the family. We did everything we could to get them back, including when the president ordered a risky special operations mission to rescue them. We worked -- again, some of those -- I know there was some other comments that they made, and I don't know if you're going to ask about them specifically, but I just want to be clear that the secretary, his chief of staff, David Wade, knew the Foleys from the first time Jim had been abducted in Libya. Personally, we're very invested and very involved in this and certainly take our obligations to provide this kind of support to the family very seriously. It's part of our job to help families in these horrible situations understand America's laws about paying ransom to terrorists, of course. That's part of our job, unfortunately, and those laws are not going to change anytime. Obviously, we understand this family asked questions about these laws and we provided those answers, the government did, but, again, we had a very close relationship with the Foleys, worked very closely with them and that, I think, is something the secretary and everyone here takes very seriously. Q: The family is making these statements which are quite, you know, as you -- I don't know -- (inaudible) -- call them, but what is the answer of the U.S. government on that? Like, they're accusing - they were pressurized not to like -- they're as if accusing that if the government had let them go ahead, their son will be alive. Like many Europeans. MS. HARF: Well, a couple points on that. James Foley's employer, Phil Balboni, has spoken publicly and said that there was never a real ransom request on the table from ISIL for James Foley. I'll let him speak for that; obviously, we were never in touch with ISIL. But again, it's part of our job to help the family understand what our laws are about terrorists paying -- or, paying ransom to terrorists, absolutely. But this department would never, and did not ever, intend to, nor do we think we ever did anything that we would consider threatening. Obviously, again, as I said, we had a close relationship with the Foleys, the secretary and others, and we take that very seriously. Again, this is a horrible time for them and we have continued to offer our support. Q: When you say that, you're speaking for this building, only, right? MS. HARF: That's - I mean, that's the only people I can really speak for. Q: -- because, I mean, I think -- I understand. But the allegation was made, I think, against someone at the NSC. MS. HARF: I think there were a couple of allegations in a couple different stories. Q: OK. Well there was one, the brother, saying someone from the State Department - MS. HARF: Mhmm. Q: But you'd -- you deny that there was - that you told the family that they would be prosecuted if they paid? MS. HARF: Well, again, part of the U.S. government writ large's job is explaining - when they have questions about our laws, explaining what those laws are. Q: I understand. There's a difference between -- MS. HARF: Well, let me finish. Can I finish? And you're familiar with the laws. Again, but this department never would, nor would we ever intend to do anything that we could -- would consider threatening. Obviously it's a very delicate situation and a tough topic, but we have to be clear about what our laws are. Q: There's -- right, but do you understand that there is a difference between telling someone what the law is -- the law says X, Y and Z, and then -- the difference between that and saying, if you do X, Y and Z, we're going to come after you, we're going to prosecute you. Right? MS. HARF: The second formulation, I can assure you -- Q: Right? Did not happen? MS. HARF: I can speak for the State Department. Q: At the State Department -- they were not threatened with prosecution? MS. HARF: That is not something - obviously there -- if they have questions about potential consequences from - the laws that are on the books, we answer them factually. So I just want to be clear about that. Q: All right. One of the other things -- one of the other things that Mrs. Foley said was that the State Department had told the family not to speak to other -- media about this, and to stay quiet. Is that -- would you say that that's an accurate -- MS. HARF: Well, writ large -- Q: I'm not sure she was complaining about that, but she said that that's -- MS. HARF: Without getting into specifics about what -- specific things we discussed with the family, obviously, we're not going to get into those. There are often reasons, broadly speaking, in these kind of situations, where not having media attention to it could be helpful to the hostage, either because that's something the captors themselves have said, or an assessment that our experts, working with intelligence experts, FBI experts, everyone else - so their assessments, again, broadly speaking, sometimes that may be what everyone assesses is the best strategy for helping to get someone home. I'm not confirming that here, but again - Q: But that's the assessment, that it would be best for the actual hostage, and not the assessment that it would be best for the government? Really? MS. HARF: Correct. No, correct. Absolutely. Everything we do is driven by what would be best for the hostages, period. Full stop. Absolutely. Q: So you -- and not -- and not what's best -- MS. HARF: And if it makes my job harder, I don't care -- if it helps them. Honestly. Q: Alright. So you are saying that, in some cases -- you don't want to speak specifically about this, you have advised families of people in situations like this, not to go public, not to talk to the media? MS. HARF: In -- it -- in some cases, not specifically, that is the assessment, that it would be most helpful -- Q: Right? In some cases? And you have told them that you think it would be a bad idea for them to speak out -- MS. HARF: Well I'm not going to get into specifics and, again, this isn't just -- Q: I'm not asking about specifics, this is a -- broadly -- MS. HARF: Can I -- can I finish my sentence before you interrupt me? Q: Marie, if you would let me -- you're trying to cut my question off and answer what you think is part of it. OK? MS. HARF: OK. Go ahead, Matt, go ahead. No, go ahead. Q: OK. Have there been instances, and I'm not asking for specifics, in which the State Department has told the families of people in situations like this that they would be -- that their loved one would be better off if they did not speak to anyone about it, if they kept it quiet and did not speak to the media. MS. HARF: Can I go now? Q: Yeah. MS. HARF: Are you done? Q: Yeah. MS. HARF: Well, what I was going to say is that this isn't just the State Department. The interaction with families and the assessment about what is best for the hostage is driven in large part by the FBI, who is in charge of American citizens -- you know, missing investigations of people overseas. The FBI obviously has a role to play. The NSC has a role to play as the coordinator of a lot of this effort. The intelligence community has a role to play. So at times the U.S. government writ large, not just the State Department, in our overall assessment, may have concluded that it would help the hostage to not have media attention paid to their case. That is the only thing that drives any advice the U.S. government gives to these families. Nothing else is taken into account. Q: OK, so you would say that it is an accurate statement to say that the U.S. government -- not just the State Department, the U.S. government writ large -- has in the past told families of people in situations like this that it would be best for their loved one if they stayed silent and didn't say anything about it, correct? MS. HARF: Advised them. Q: Advised. MS. HARF: Again, we can't tell them what to do. Q: No, no, I know. They can ignore it, and it's certainly not a prosecutable offense, right, like it would be to -- like it might be to pay ransom. You understand where -- you may understand where I'm going with this, and that is my longstanding suspicion that the State Department encourages people who can be reached not to sign Privacy Act waivers. MS. HARF: Hold -- I'm actually offended that you brought it up in the hostage conversation. Privacy Act waivers are a bureaucratic process. They're used all over the world. How we advise families of hostages -- Q: Yeah. MS. HARF: -- putting them in even the same category -- Q: Well -- MS. HARF: -- is your longstanding conspiracy theory about what our consular officers do or don't do, I just think is not appropriate in the same sentence. Q: Marie, it doesn't just apply just to hostages. It applies to prisoners, people who you have contact with and people with -- who are being held by people that you have contact with. MS. HARF: I understand that. Q: OK? But if you're saying that Ms. -- well, that in general, writ large, the government has encouraged people to stay silent about the fate of their loved one, it just fuels the suspicion -- mine or anyone else's -- that the -- that the government is trying to -- is trying to hide things or is encouraging people, advising people to stay -- to stay silent. MS. HARF: OK -- Q: And you have the -- you have the suspicion that it may not be, in fact, the best of the -- of the hostage or the person being held prisoner but what the government thinks is best for how it can advance its policy, which, you know, it may be completely legitimate, and fair enough, but that is what -- that is what -- MS. HARF: I don't -- Q: My question is, then -- sorry -- MS. HARF: Well, I think it's a -- I don't even know how to respond to that, Matt. Q: Well, you said you were offended by the question. MS. HARF: I actually am, and let me explain why. Can I explain why? Q: All right. MS. HARF: Now you've had your time; I get my time. Q: Go. MS. HARF: That's how this works. So this government undertook every single opportunity to find and bring home these American citizens that are being held by ISIS. The president ordered an incredibly risky operation that we knew had the potential of getting out, because we believed we had actionable intelligence -- the only time we believed we had that. We reached out to other countries. We opened diplomatic doors. Any advice that this department or other departments give to the families about what they should do in these situations is based solely on what is best for returning their loved one home, period. Any accusation to the contrary is flatly wrong. Q: OK. MS. HARF: The process by which I know you have this constant battle with Privacy Act waivers -- and I think that if you were in situation where one of your loved ones is being held hostage and the U.S. government came to you and said, look, we have all these indications, the captors may have said, we have intelligence that says -- again, these are all hypotheticals -- that if you go public your loved one will be killed, we have an obligation to tell the family that -- Q: Sure. MS. HARF: -- and to warn them of that so they don't inadvertently do something that could put their loved one at risk. That is a wholly separate process. The people that do the hostage family liaison work is wholly separate from who does Privacy Act waivers in our consular sections, in our embassies all over the world. The two do not intermix. The two are not in any way related. So the question I think is baseless and I'm going to move on. Yes. Q: Just a quick -- MS. HARF: No, wait, I'm going to go to him and then you'll get the next one. Q: Thank you. A couple of questions on ISIS and Syria. You just cited in previous questions about the chemical weapon moving from Syria. I don't know if this question was asked to you a couple of days ago. OPCW released new reports -- MS. HARF: It was asked. Q: -- OK -- saying that systematically and repeatedly, chlorine bombs were used in northern Syria. So under these findings, how would you rate -- I do understand these dangerous weapons are taken out of Syria. But if the regime still uses these kind of chemical weapons, what does it mean, really, for U.S.? MS. HARF: Well, we've always said, and the secretary has said, that there's more work to do, that we have removed Syria's declared chemical weapons but there were -- have been suspicions that they didn't declare everything. When it comes to chlorine, chlorine is not required to be declared under the chemical weapons convention unless it's directly related to the CW program. So one of the things they're looking into right now is whether it should have been declared or was later repurposed -- again, that's something the OPCW is looking into right now, but the OPCW's work has continued and will continue. And if we find evidence that there is additional CW, we will work under the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved resolution to get that out as well. So it's an ongoing effort. Q: Do you have suspicions that Assad regime may have hidden some chemical weapons? MS. HARF: We certainly have suspicions about -- and questions, open questions and concerns about their declaration. Q: I have couple more questions. Just an hour ago, Pentagon spokesman Mr. Kirby said, make no mistake -- this is the quote -- we know we are at war with ISIL. Whereas Secretary Kerry yesterday said there is no war with ISIL. I'm -- if you need to clarify whether you are at war with ISIL. MS. HARF: Well, I know there's been a lot of questions about what words we use, but as the president said the other night, this is a very different campaign from the Iraq war, the last time we used that term. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. We'll utilize our air superiority in support for partner forces on the ground. As both the president and Secretary Kerry have said, this will be a steady, relentless counterterrorism campaign to take out ISIL wherever they exist, the kind of campaign that we've gotten pretty good at in recent years. So again, this is not the kind of Iraq war that we had talked about in the recent past. This is not, also, America's war with ISIL. The world is joining us in this fight because of the threat they pose to countries in the region. So we are at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates around the world. But again, to be clear about what that looks like, it will be a counterterrorism campaign to take ISIL out using a broad set of tools. Q: The accelerated arming and training program you are talking about, that -- at the Congress, apparently the Congress will adjourn next week, as far as we know, for -- MS. HARF: They have a -- they have a few days left. Q: -- elections. MS. HARF: We'll see if we can get some action there. Q: So if not, then this will postpone -- next (year ?), right? MS. HARF: We're hoping they'll act before they adjourn for recess. And in case -- just a quick congressional update. John Hoover -- you may have seen I tweeted about this -- one of our longest waiting ambassadorial nominees was confirmed either yesterday or the day before by the Senate as our ambassador to Sierra Leone. We've talked about that a lot in this room, particularly so we could get one ambassador confirmed. We have 64 posts still waiting. Q: So if you were to -- or your allies arm and train the moderate Syrian groups, would you oppose them to fight against Assad regime with this newly -- new arms? MS. HARF: Well, our support here is for them in this anti-ISIL campaign, but we've always said that our support (for ?) the moderate opposition in general, including military assistance, has been for them to fight the war they're fighting on a bunch of different fronts: the Assad regime, ISIS, Nusra, other groups. So certainly they continue in the fight against the Assad regime as well. Q: Just yesterday, former ambassador Francis Ricciardone, who just left Turkey last month, he said that -- (inaudible) -- as a U.S. official, former official, Turkey did indeed help al-Qaida -- (inaudible) -- al-Nusra in the past, even though U.S. warned Turkey not to. Is there any way you can expand on this? MS. HARF: I don't have any comments on his comments. He's a former official. And coming back up to you. Q: It's a clarification. Because Foley's brother specifically said that he was directly threatened with possible prosecution for violating anti-terrorism laws by a State Department official. So, you know, you are saying that nothing -- so, you know, it's -- who is lying? MS. HARF: Well, it's -- no, I don't want to say that. This family is going through the worst thing they've probably gone through. And I don't want to in any way criticize how they're responding. I have no idea how any of us would respond. That's why we've worked so closely with them. And again, is it the government's job to answer their questions about what our laws are and what the potential consequences of those laws are? Yes. But I will say that here at the State Department, that we did not and would not ever do anything -- or particularly intend to or do anything we think we would consider threatening. I don't -- you know, I don't want to disagree directly with this family that is going through an incredible pain. Again, we want to be very clear though about the actions we took and how we felt about them. Q: (Inaudible) -- is there anything that could have been said that they could have interpreted as a threat? Q: (Inaudible) -- MS. HARF: You know, I don't want to get -- you guys, I don't want to get further into this. They -- I will let them make clear how they felt, again, not passing judgment on it given what they're going through but making clear how we saw -- how we acted during this. Q: I mean, I don't they or anyone in this room, including me, is saying that the U.S. didn't do what it could to try and -- to try and -- try and get them out. I you're taking offense at the wrong -- or I think you're taking offense at something you shouldn't take offense at. But -- at least as it relates to my question earlier. But the impression left by telling -- maybe not in this case, but telling a family to be -- to -- by giving your advice that they're better off staying silent is -- MS. HARF: I didn't say we -- (inaudible)_. Q: I know. I'm saying -- but you said that it has happened. MS. HARF: In general, if that's our assessment. Q: Right. I -- it just -- that's what I -- that's what I have the issue with, not with anything else. But -- MS. HARF: But what would the alternative be? Would you want us to not give our assessment that speaking out could have harm their loved ones? I just don't understand what -- I think common sense actually should lead most people to believe that if we have information that speaking out about a case could threaten their loved ones, we have an obligation to tell the family that. I'm really actually not sure where the -- where the confusion is. Q: OK. So you would say that in the case of the journalist who was released 10 days -- MS. HARF: Peter Theo Curtis. Q: Right, that that was a -- that that worked. MS. HARF: Well, he's home safely with his family. Q: Right, you would -- right, but -- and you think that that's a direct result of -- MS. HARF: And was held by a different group. Q: I understand. But that was a direct result of people saying silent about it, or a result of -- MS. HARF: I wouldn't say that. Q: OK. MS. HARF: Every case is different. Q: All right. MS. HARF: No, that was a very different situation. Yes. Q: OK. All right. OK. Can I just move on to one thing? If this will be -- this -- MS. HARF: I think there is some other things on ISIS, so -- Q: Yeah. Marie, I wanted to ask a question about the coalition. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization had a summit recently, and they released a statement coming out against airstrikes in Syria, saying the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria should be respected. First, would you care to comment on -- MS. HARF: I haven't seen that statement. Q: Are you -- are you -- so the Shanghai Cooperation Organization includes China. Are you disappointed that China has some out against these airstrikes? MS. HARF: I can check specifically on the statement and who signed up to it and what was behind it. Q: OK. If you could also check, unless you know right now, but if you could also check what, if any, efforts the U.S. has made to try to get China to join the coalition -- (inaudible). MS. HARF: I can -- I can check on that. We're obviously not going to specifically outline everything. And as I said a couple times, this will be a topic at the General Assembly, including in the Security Council session that obviously China will be a part of. Q: Sure. Well, the -- yeah, so -- but the reason I was wondering is that, you know, China has made its concerns clear about its citizens radicalizing and going off to join the -- join ISIS. There were pictures that the Iraqi government posted of a Chinese citizen who was captured fighting for ISIS. You guys have said that you would like better counterterrorism cooperation with China, so -- MS. HARF: That's true. And we know that are foreign fighters from over 80 countries that have gone to join this fight. So obviously, I think for any country, certainly there, but there is a reason to be a part of this effort. Q: Yeah. Sure. But at the same time China has not really come out forthrightly and strongly in support of the coalition, so -- MS. HARF: Well, this is an ongoing effort, and we'll continue to have the discussions on a day-by-day basis and continue building support for this effort. Q: I understand. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could check on -- (inaudible). MS. HARF: Yeah, I will check on that, though. I will. Q: Just one more question about ISIS, the anti-ISIS coalition. Turkey has been reluctant to join -- (audio break) -- Kerry is now in Turkey. Is he there for that purpose? MS. HARF: Well, he spoke about it publicly in his press availability that just recently concluded, had good conversations on the ground, and each country is evaluating the best way they can play a role, Turkey included. Obviously, they're working through what that might look like right now. Q: Are you satisfied with the role Turkey is playing -- (inaudible) --_ MS. HARF: Well, we're all talking about what more we can all do and what that might look like, and the secretary did have a very good day of meetings there. Q: There's one more question about Turkey. In 2003 I remember Turkey refused to cooperate with the United States in the invasion of Iraq, and shortly afterwards the Bush administration almost cut off ties with Turkey for years. (Audio break) -- the same thing happening now with Turkey being reluctant to help America? MS. HARF: As I said the other day, nothing we are doing in this coalition-building effort will resemble at all in any way what the previous administration did when they undertook the Iraq War and built that coalition. So let's not compare it in any way. We're certainly not. Q: Except for the part that involves airstrikes in Syria. I mean in Iraq. MS. HARF: Yes. Go ahead. Q: This morning former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Ford said the Syrian moderate -- the top priority for Syrian opposition is not fight against ISIS, it's fighting against Assad regime. Do you still have confidence in working with Syria opposition? MS. HARF: Absolutely. We know they have a really tough fight in front of them. They are fighting on multiple fronts. That's why we've requested additional resources from Congress to train and equip the vetted moderate opposition. Matt. Q: No, just -- Q: Yeah. Well, it just has to do with the coalition. MS. HARF: Do a few more -- Q: Yes. Q: It's one more on the coalition, but this is about a country that did sign the Jeddah communique -- MS. HARF: Great. Q: -- Lebanon. This morning your ambassador in Beirut said that this week a bunch of Hellfire missiles were delivered to the Lebanese Armed Forces. MS. HARF: I know we're increasing our support to the LAF. I can check on the specifics for you. Q: OK. I'm just -- in light of that, I'm just wondering where the Hellfire transfers to Israel stand. MS. HARF: Oh. I can check on that too. That was a Hellfire transition. Q: Right. MS. HARF: OK. I'll check on that for you, Matt. Q: Because I'm just wondering -- because, you know, you announced that there was -- they were being extra -- there were delays -- MS. HARF: Yup. Q: -- or, you know, not delays. MS. HARF: Additional steps. Q: There were additional steps that were being taken. MS. HARF: Yes, I'll check. Q: And I think that was about two weeks something like that -- ago. MS. HARF: I mean, I have no idea when that was. Days are all -- Q: I'm just wondering if - - maybe if Israel was allowed to sign this communique, they could get their Hellfires quicker. MS. HARF: Let me check. We provide an unprecedented amount of military support to Israel. Q: I know you do. It's just a question about that. Thank you. MS. HARF: OK. Leslie. Q: North Korea. One of the three detained Americans, Matthew Miller, is going on trial. MS. HARF: Yes. Q: What have you -- what has the U.S. done to try to stop this trial, intervene, anything? MS. HARF: He will face trial on September 14th. We are aware of those reports. We have requested the DPRK immediately release him and the other detained Americans, so they can return home. As we've said, we don't always publicly outline all of the ways we are working to return our citizens home, but we are very focused on this and have called on the DPRK to release him. Q: Is there any steps beforehand to try to stop this trial in any way? MS. HARF: Well, not that I'm aware of, but again, we don't always outline all of those publicly. Q: Do you -- Q: Change topic? Q: -- does the -- does offer to send Ambassador King still stand? MS. HARF: Still stands. Yes. Q: Can we change topics? MS. HARF: We can. Q: (Off mic) -- update on -- (off mic) -- state might have of meeting with the Palestinian leadership? MS. HARF: I don't have any additional travel/meeting updates for you. Q: That's fine. Now there is also a letter that is being signed by the senators from both sides of the aisle and in fact, you know, sort of backed by AIPAC to address the secretary of state to, you know, increase aid to the Palestinian Authority and, you know, speed up whatever -- humanitarian aid -- MS. HARF: I haven't seen that letter. Has it been sent already? Q: No, it's going to be -- MS. HARF: They've circulated it? Q: Well, they say they're going to send it on the 18th, but it's been out. MS. HARF: OK. Well, let me -- Q: (Inaudible) -- you're not aware of it? MS. HARF: -- let me take a look at it and see if we have a comment on it before we proceed. Q: And the ambassador also said that nothing will deter him -- no amount of pressure will deter him from going to international bodies like the United Nations and its multitude of organizations. Do you? MS. HARF: Well, we've expressed our concerns about those -- some of those possible courses of action but don't have more -- Q: And finally, the Israelis are not really adhering to the - - to the letter and the text of the cease-fire agreement because apparently they are shooting at the fishermen within a 6-(inaudible) - - less than 6-mile area. Do you have any comment on that? MS. HARF: Well, we understand the cease-fire's holding. I can check on the fishermen issue again for you. I know we -- I checked on it last week, but let me check on it again. Q: OK. And -- MS. HARF: Your last last question. Q: My last last -- you said that -- I remember in the statement that the secretary issued at the time of the cease-fire said the moment that the cease-fire takes hold, you know, it -- humanitarian aid and goods and so on will start going into Gaza. Apparently they haven't really gone into Gaza as of yet because of apparently the Egyptians and the Israelis are -- still impose very strict closure on that -- MS. HARF: Let me check on this humanitarian situation for you, Said. These are all very good questions. Yes, Michael. Q: Just following up on Said, on -- MS. HARF: You guys are a team today, the two of you. Q: We are a team today. We're always a team. MS. HARF: (Laughs.) Q: On the referral to the ICC, other U.N. bodies, you said you've expressed your concerns. UNGA is right around the corner. Is your -- does your concern include the fact that the appropriations law very explicitly states that funding will be cut by this building if they do so? MS. HARF: I can check on that. Obviously we can express our concerns more broadly about the effect it could have on the -- Q: Right. MS. HARF: -- on the conversation, the cease-fire, on the peace process, on the tone on the ground. I can check on the legal aspects of it. Q: OK. MS. HARF: (Inaudible) - taking a lot of questions today. Monday is going to be a long briefing. Yes, I will check for you, though. I don't know if that's part of why we've expressed concerns. We've expressed concerns about, again, what such action could do to the spirit of the discussions on the ground and the work they're trying to get done there. Q: Right, because just my understanding is the appropriations law stipulates two ways of the PA would sever funding. One is power sharing with Hamas, which is something we obviously discussed extensively during the reconciliation. (Cross talk.) Q: -- which you said is not power sharing and therefore -- MS. HARF: Correct. Q: -- didn't break the law. And the second is explicitly referral to the -- to the -- MS. HARF: Let me check on it. You probably are perfectly right but let me just double-check. Yes, let's do just a couple more and then I have one more item at the end that I want you to stay for. Q: You talked about, in the beginning, Turkey and Hamas, and you said that you cannot -- or you wouldn't qualify Turkey as supporter of Hamas, right? So you don't see Turkey as supporter of Hamas? MS. HARF: Well, we've made clear to Turkey our concerns about Hamas, given that they are a designated foreign terrorist organization. But again, in the process, to get a cease-fire in place you need parties who have influence over the parties you need for the cease-fire. Q: When the U.S. says that wherever ISIS exists you go after it, is it only to Iraq and Syria or -- MS. HARF: Well, I think, by definition, "wherever" probably means wherever. Q: So that means that the U.S. -- and if the U.S. intel show that a couple of cells within the Turkish border and there are the ISIL operatives, you will take them out? MS. HARF: Well, what "going after" means, though, is if clearly there are ISIS cells operating in countries that we are working with on an anti-ISIL effort, then there would be different tools we would use everywhere. Obviously there's a threat from ISIS with Westerners who have passports. There are different tools to fight that threat. So the threat is not always best addressed with military action by the United States. Obviously each country can play a role here if there's a threat inside their own country. Q: And finally, you said that you don't want to comment on the former U.S. ambassador remarks regarding Turkey's helping al-Qaida-related group. Let me ask this way: Do you -- what do you think, whether if Turkey help al-Qaida-related al-Nusra group for the last few years? MS. HARF: I can check and see if we have any analysis on the links between those two. Q: Thank you. Q: I've got two very brief ones on two very different subjects. MS. HARF: OK, bring us home here. Q: One -- but they're brief. MS. HARF: OK. Q: Ukraine, the sanctions that were announced today. MS. HARF: Yes. Q: You may have seen the Russians say that at least some of them violate WTO rules and that they're going to, whatever, file suit or however -- however you do that in the WTO. I presume that you disagree with that. MS. HARF: Again -- Q: Yes? MS. HARF: -- it's interesting that they now suddenly care about international law and are starting to use it as, you know, justification for being upset with us. We would disagree with it, yes, of course. Q: OK, so but -- so just can -- I am looking for you just to say something like, we do not think that these sanctions violate any part of the WTO rules and regulations. MS. HARF: Well, that's -- Q: Can you say that? MS. HARF: Well, if you would like to join our press office and write my lines for me -- (laughter) -- then maybe that's the next step here. Q: No, is that correct? MS. HARF: I will check with our team and see if it is. Q: Just that you can say that and -- MS. HARF: I can check with our team and see if it is. Q: -- and that the people that put the sanctions together didn't add this as a concern. MS. HARF: I can check with our team. Q: All right. And then the second one -- the second one, which is very, very different, which is about the Central African Republic. MS. HARF: Yes. Q: Presume two things on this, both of them very brief. You have seen that report that my organization did about the death toll -- MS. HARF: Yes. Q: -- being significantly higher. Do you have any comment on that? MS. HARF: We can't confirm the specific number. I think that was 5,000. In the absence of U.N. numbers, though, we do take these fatality reports seriously. And these estimations underscore of course what we all know, that the violence needs to stop. Q: OK. And then yesterday the White House, in a letter to Congress -- MS. HARF: Yes. Q: -- said that there were 20 troops -- 20 U.S. soldiers going to Bangui or -- MS. HARF: Yes. Q: Actually I'm not sure it said Bangui, but going to -- MS. HARF: It did. Q: -- the Central African Republic to support the re-opening of the embassy in Bangui. MS. HARF: Correct. Q: Has that embassy re-opened? If it has not yet, any idea when? MS. HARF: So the United States is scheduled to resume operations at our embassy in Bangui, Central African Republic in the near future. As mandated by law, the White House notified Congress yesterday that, as you said, approximately U.S. armed forces personnel have deployed to CAR to support the resumption of these activities. They were deployed along with U.S. diplomatic -- U.S. Department of State diplomatic security personnel for the purpose of protecting our embassy, personnel and property. For security reasons, I don't have additional details to share about the exact timing of when it will be reopening, but again in the near future. Q: All right, and then, again very briefing, on that one, it said in that letter that they would -- that this group of 20 would stay -- I believe it said until the Marine guard -- MS. HARF: Until replaced, yeah. Q: Do you -- by the normal Marine -- MS. HARF: By the -- yeah, mmm hmm. Q: Do you know what -- did that embassy have a Marine contingent before it closed? MS. HARF: Before? Q: Before December 2012? MS. HARF: It closed in 2012. Yeah, I can check on that. I don't know. Q: And if it didn't, do you know -- because there's some kind of bureaucratic thing that you have to go through to get one -- to get a contingent over there. I'm just wondering if that's already been set up or if these 20 guys who were announced yesterday -- or, guys and women maybe -- MS. HARF: Thank you for correcting yourself. Q: If they're going to be there, like, for a longer period? MS. HARF: How long? That's a good question. And I think we'll have more to say about this on Monday. Q: Thank you. Thanks. MS. HARF: And my last item, if there are no more questions -- one more in the back. Last question. Q: Thank you very much. (Inaudible.) This is American-Russian Television. A question about the sanctions, obviously. First of all, could you please comment on the effectiveness -- do you see that sanctions are beginning to work? Do you see -- can you illustrate it somehow? Do you have any data to show that they are working? And the second one is the timing of the sanctions. Why now, when there is a -- you know, some sort of a cease-fire that is holding up? MS. HARF: Yeah, well, on -- let me address your second question first. Due to Russia's escalated direct military intervention and continuing efforts to destabilize Ukraine, Departments of Treasury and Commerce, they did announce they imposed additional sanctions and deepened existing sanctions. We have also said, though, if Russia fully implements the 12 requirements of the September 5th Minsk Agreement, these sanctions can and will be rolled back -- just these latest ones, though. If instead, Russia and the separatists they support continue their aggressive actions, the costs will continue to rise -- so to be very clear about this latest round of sanctions. And, look, sanctions are one of the key reasons that there's even a peace process in place. Today Russia's Central Bank said that sanctions, quote, will have a prolonged effect on the Russian economy and, quote, constrain economic growth in 2013. The ruble is at record lows against the dollar. Capital flight continues and Russia's economy is threatening to tip into recession. Sanctions have an immediate impact, as we've seen, but they also have a long-term impact. And the longer they're in place, the more the Russian people will suffer because of President Putin's decision. So I think that we've been clear what Russia can do to lessen the burden from these sanctions, but so far have not done it. Anything else? Q: Did you just mean to say that the intent of the sanctions is to make the Russian people suffer? Or is that the -- MS. HARF: No, I said that the Russian people have suffered because of President Putin's decision. Q: Gotcha. All right. MS. HARF: That is not the intent of the sanctions. Q: I got you. MS. HARF: You're feisty today. (Laughter.) Q: Well, I'm just trying to find out what's going on. MS. HARF: So in my last item, before everyone leaves, Katherine Shomia (sp), her last day as NBC's State Department producer is today. Katherine (sp) started as an intern at MSNBC while still in college at Penn, and eventually started interning for Andrea Mitchell, who's also here. She graduated -- well, after she graduated from college, she started full time at NBC on the news desk and later worked for nightly news. For the past over three years now, I think, she's been the State Department producer for NBC and part of our State Department family. There should be some photos behind me. She has traveled with and interviewed both Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry, always demonstrating a degree of poise and wisdom beyond her age, I would say. In a few hours, she will be hopping a flight to Abu Dhabi to start the next chapter in her life. And I will say, Katherine (sp), we will certainly miss having you around every day -- your grace and wisdom and also, I would say, be a very funny person too, if you get her going, will be very missed. And your reporting will be as well. We are a little family here at the State Department, despite how it looks sometimes -- right, Matt? Q: That's accurate. (Laughter.) MS. HARF: And you have been a key part of it for a long time. So we will miss you. We have some treats, I think, if people want to stay. This is our going-away gift, it's always Georgetown Cupcakes. So Lauren (sp) will come up, we'll have cupcakes and everyone should stay. But I wanted to say in front of everyone how much we will miss you. And I know Andrea will miss you too. (Applause.) Q: Here, here. Q: Thank you. MS. HARF: And Andrea should come up here too. Andrea and Katherine (sp) should both come up here. Q: Nicely said, Marie. MS. HARF: Thank you. Q: Can I just say a few things? MS. HARF: Yes, you can -- yes. Thank you. Q: Just the most incredible moment was after a nine-hour flight from Irbil to Brussels when I landed 15 minutes before our show - MS. HARF: Yes. (Laughs.) Q: Seventeen, I should say. And Catherine (sp) was on the tarmac to escort me with an embassy person into NATO to make air at literally 15 minutes later. So there is nobody who has been more wonderful in every way possible than this person. MS. HARF: And I know we will all miss you very much. Q: Thank you all so much. (Applause.) MS. HARF: OK, so now we'll do - Arshad came for the cupcakes. (Laughter.) So our whole office is here too, so let's all stay and have cupcakes and tell Catherine (sp) how much we'll miss her. And that's the end of the briefing. (Applause, laughter.)