Daily Press Briefing
Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 22, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
CUBA
YEMEN
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
SYRIA/RUSSIA
ISRAEL/IRAN
ISRAEL
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
CANADA/KEYSTONE XL
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
PAKISTAN
UKRAINE
SYRIA/TURKEY
JAPAN
QATAR
PAKISTAN
INDIA
YEMEN
IRAN
CUBA
QATAR
TURKEY
BAHRAIN
EGYPT/AUSTRALIA
IRAN
TRANSCRIPT:
1:12 p.m. EST
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Said is back. Uh-oh. (Laughter.)
Okay. I have two items for all of you at the top before we get started. As all of you have seen, the Secretary is on travel today in London to consult with the United Kingdom and other counter-ISIL coalition partners on our shared efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL. His schedule today included meetings with UK Foreign Secretary Hammond, French Foreign Minister Fabius, with EU Special Advisor Cathy Ashton, Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi, and with the counter-ISIL coalition's small group steering committee, as well as a meeting on Libya. He also had a press availability a couple of hours ago with Foreign Secretary Hammond and with Prime Minister Abadi.
You may have also seen this yesterday, but I just wanted to bring to your attention the statement that was put out by Alex Lee, our Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Yesterday, January 21st, U.S. and Cuban officials met in Havana to discuss technical issues related to the Migration Accords of 1994 and 1995 between the United States and Cuba. The Cuban delegation was chaired by Foreign Ministry's Director General for U.S. Affairs Josefina Vidal Ferreiro. Alex Lee led the delegation for the United States. The United States hosted the last round of these semi-annual talks in July 2014 in Washington.
During these meetings, the United States and Cuba restated their commitment under the Migration Accords to ensure that migration between the two countries remains safe, legal, and orderly. They also agreed to regularly review the implementation of these accords. Continuing to ensure safe and legal migration between Cuba and the United States is consistent with our interest in promoting greater freedoms and increased respect for human rights in Cuba. The productive and collaborative nature of yesterday's discussions proves that, despite the clear differences that remain between our countries, the United States and Cuba can find opportunities to advance our mutual shared interests, as well as engage in a respectful and thoughtful dialogue.
In addition to discussing the bilateral implementation of the Migration Accords, our teams also exchanged ideas on other aspects of safe migration, such as the return of Cuban excludable aliens, the Cuban Family Reunification Parole program, and the monitoring of repatriated Cuban nationals.
As you've also seen, Assistant Secretary Jacobson arrived in Havana yesterday. Yesterday, she met with the Jewish community as part of her engagement with civil society groups in Cuba. There was a working delegation with – working dinner with delegations at the chief of mission residence yesterday evening. This morning, she has been meeting with the Cuban delegation to discuss the reestablishment of diplomatic relations. She'll also be having a press availability on the ground to discuss that as well.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Right. Well, I want to start somewhere further afield than Cuba, and that would be Yemen, where the government has evaporated, essentially. There's no president, there's no vice president, there's no prime minister, there is no cabinet. What's your take on the situation, realizing that this is just happening now?
MS. PSAKI: Correct. It just happened. We've, obviously, seen the reports. Our team is seeking confirmation of all of the reports. We continue to support a peaceful transition. We've urged all parties and continue to urge all parties to abide by the PNPA – the Peace and National Partnership Agreement – the GCC initiative and its implementation mechanism.
As I think you also saw, there was a reported agreement last night between the Yemeni Government and the Houthis. This is a potentially positive step to de-escalate violence in Sana'a and return to established processes of dialogue. There's no question that implementation of that by the Houthis and taking specific steps, including the immediate release of the presidential chief of staff, pulling back of armed Houthi forces, and steps to get Yemen's political process back on track are key to determining the success of that.
QUESTION: Well, I understand that, but that's kind of OBE, as we would say – overtaken by events. There is no government now.
MS. PSAKI: I don't think we look at it in that way, Matt. We're still seeking confirmation, but we're also assessing what that would mean.
QUESTION: Right. But you're referring to an agreement that came out yesterday between a government that no longer exists and a rebel force that appears to have control of – not just appears, does have control of the capital. So I'm wondering how it is that you can continue to support a peaceful transition. I mean, a transition to what?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, again, we don't have confirmation of it. But we haven't yet assessed – we're not going to jump to conclusions about what it means until we have a confirmation and we have time to assess, working with the Yemenis, discussing internally what it means.
QUESTION: In terms of – well, okay. But – I understand that you need the time to assess what it means, but I don't understand the lack of confirmation, because it's pretty clear that it's chaos, that there is no government right now. So I'm not sure that – when you say you continue to support a peaceful transition, are you saying that you continue to support an agreement that was reached yesterday between a government that no longer exists and the Houthis?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, broadly speaking, of course we continue to support a peaceful transition. There have been dialogue, there has – dialogue that we expect and hope will continue. And that's the only way, in our view, to de-escalate the situation on the ground.
QUESTION: All right. And in terms of the embassy --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- what's the status of that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I noted yesterday, but it's worth repeating, of course the safety and security of our personnel are of paramount importance. We are prepared to adjust our presence if necessary, but there has been no change in our security posture.
QUESTION: So there hasn't been any change? So basically, anarchy is not enough to get you to adjust your presence?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, with all due respect to your assessment as an AP reporter --
QUESTION: Well --
MS. PSAKI: -- we have the United States Government and our team on the ground --
QUESTION: Okay. That's fine.
MS. PSAKI: -- assessing what is needed.
QUESTION: I'm not --
MS. PSAKI: And we take it very seriously, and we'll make changes if we need to.
QUESTION: Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that you should or that I think you should. I'm just wondering what it – what would it take, because it seems pretty bad right now.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we've all seen the images on television, and certainly we've seen violence escalate over the last several days. There was a lull in that a bit yesterday. But we want to assess what's needed, and we're certainly prepared to take steps if we need to.
QUESTION: All right. Last one: Do you know when the last contact was between a U.S. official or State Department official and the now ex-president?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything on that for you. I can see if there's more we can offer.
QUESTION: So you don't agree with the assessment that there's anarchy in Yemen, then?
MS. PSAKI: I don't think I'd put it in those terms, so I'll leave it in my own terms.
QUESTION: What would you describe the situation as, then?
MS. PSAKI: I don't think – I'll leave it as I just described it, Jo. We're obviously – there's news that's been breaking. We're assessing what that means. We're looking for confirmation of that. We're continuing to encourage and support a peaceful transition. And obviously, we're not in a position – and I don't think any of you are, either – to assess what it means at this point in time.
QUESTION: But I just wondered if you had any further updates on the investigation you said was going to take place into the attack or the shooting of your diplomatic vehicle at a checkpoint yesterday.
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any updates on that at this point in time.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Could I just follow up --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Can – is it on Yemen, or – just so we --
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, on Yemen. Yes, absolutely.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: First of all, you are not opposed to the principle that the Houthis can actually be part of the government, correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well, this is a discussion – this has been a discussion happening between parties on the ground. We support that effort, but we're not making a decision or assessment of that.
QUESTION: Because, although there are different factions and different political agendas, there are mainly two groups, basically. And ultimately, they would have to somehow – to coalesce to form a government. You would support that kind of effort, right?
MS. PSAKI: I think we have to see how this all goes. Obviously, it's in our interests to have a return to – or a peaceful transition, and we certainly support that, as I've stated, Said. But I'm not going to get ahead of where we are. There's no question it's a very fluid situation on the ground. Violence has been increasing. It's something that, certainly, there have been ongoing discussions about internally within the Administration.
QUESTION: The United States and Yemen had very close relationship in fighting terrorism --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- especially al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and that presumably will continue to be the case.
MS. PSAKI: You're right.
QUESTION: Who are you talking to? I'm sure there are – I mean, you said that there were no contacts or – in response to Matt's question – at the level --
MS. PSAKI: I didn't say there were no contacts. I said I didn't have an update. We have remained in touch, certainly, on the ground. I'm not going to outline for you the specific contacts. I will say that our top priority in Yemen remains the counterterrorism effort, where we've been targeting al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula for a number of years. That's ongoing. We targeted – we've been targeting AQAP for some time now.
QUESTION: Okay. And my last question is: Are you in contact with the Houthis in any way or at any level on security matters?
MS. PSAKI: I just don't have any more. I will say for you – say to you, Said, and you know this already – that the Houthis don't want to see the rise or success of al-Qaida in Yemen either.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: So certainly, counterterrorism is an effort that is ongoing, but I don't have any assessment of that at this point.
QUESTION: So that can be construed as common grounds between the United States and this group, right?
MS. PSAKI: I don't think I'm going to assess it further.
QUESTION: They may not have an interest in seeing AQAP gain ground, but they do have an interest in a – basically creating an Iranian ally. Is that not of concern?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I spoke to this a little bit yesterday.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: I think we remain troubled by the long –
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- the history of work between the Houthis and the Iranians. Now, we don't assess that there is – or don't have information on sort of new cooperation on that front.
QUESTION: All right. And I don't expect you to be able to answer this because literally these reports are just coming in.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: But apparently, the Yemen parliament has rejected President Hadi's resignation. Realizing that you're not aware of this – or probably not aware of it since it literally just happened – is that the kind of thing that you would like – it called for an emergency session tomorrow. Is this the kind of – would this be the kind of thing that you would encourage?
MS. PSAKI: I think, Matt, we – I just have to talk to our team. I mean, they're assessing this as we speak, so I just don't have any analysis at this point in time.
Any more on Yemen before we continue?
QUESTION: Very quickly.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: What kind of international law could there be for Yemen, I mean, for the next sort of – next phase now, I mean, as things happen now? Or what your ally would say, like Saudi Arabia, and people who brokered the deal to begin with for Yemen – the GCC. What are they doing in terms of --
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I noted, I think there are proposals and initiatives – the GCC put forward one – that have been out there, and certainly we would support the implementation of. I think there are many countries that you mentioned, and certainly the United States, who have a stake in seeing a peaceful transition. So I'm sure this is a topic that the Secretary and others will continue to discuss with his partner – with his counterparts.
QUESTION: Do you know if it will be raised at all since some of the Gulf countries were at the meeting in London? Was – do you know if it was – any – was there any part of the Secretary's discussions there --
MS. PSAKI: Let me talk to the traveling team. I hadn't asked them that specific question, but I can see if it was raised and – on the margins. I wouldn't be surprised, but I'll check.
QUESTION: See if Yemen was raised?
QUESTION: Syria?
QUESTION: Yemen, yeah.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Syria.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I have a couple of questions on Syria, but before that, is there any way who can give us a perspective about Secretary Kerry's visit to Britain with regards to anti-ISIL coalition you just talk about? What is the current – what is the aim of the visit? Is there any way you can --
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would just point you – the Secretary gave extensive remarks and also did a press availability, so I would really point you to that. He outlined the purpose why he was there, what they accomplished, and spoke about it pretty extensively.
QUESTION: You were not asked about this, I believe, yesterday, that the President's Union of – State of Union speech and his reference to Syria, many people take it as – let me ask this way: Does the U.S. Government still ask Assad to step down at this moment?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure why anyone would have a different assessment from the President's State of the Union speech. We maintain our belief that Assad has lost all legitimacy and must go. There can never be a stable, inclusive Syria under his leadership. We've said that since August of 2011.
QUESTION: Just today, Fred Hof, a former State official, wrote a piece and he was arguing that the current Assad regime terrorizing attacks on civilians still continue after three years that you have been calling. And Mr. Hof's argument is that U.S. does not give strong message to Iran and Russia to make sure that they put pressure on Assad regime to stop at least attacking civilians with barrel bombs – just happened today in Hasakah, I believe, killing 65 people.
What would you say to that? Are you putting enough pressure to Russia and Iran?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, our discussions with the Iranians are focused on the nuclear negotiations, and that's our primary focus there. As it relates to Russia, the Secretary, as you know, speaks with Foreign Minister Lavrov on a regular basis. Often Syria is a topic of discussion. We certainly understand that their relationship with the regime is different from our relationship with the regime. We've spoken publicly, privately countless times about our concerns about the Assad regime's attacks and deplorable actions against civilians. There are – the Secretary also had recent meetings on his last trip with de Mistura about his efforts and his initiatives. So we're really discussing and supporting any option that could reduce the suffering in Syria.
QUESTION: It's more than a difference. You don't have a relationship with the Assad regime.
MS. PSAKI: Fair enough. That's a more clear way of stating it.
QUESTION: And are you saying, based on your answer to the first – the State of the Union question, are you saying – and then your response about Assad having lost legitimacy, are you suggesting that certain people may have over-interpreted what Secretary Kerry may or may not have said in Geneva with Envoy de Mistura?
MS. PSAKI: I think that's an accurate assessment, yes. And I know Marie spoke about this quite a bit --
QUESTION: She did.
MS. PSAKI: -- last week.
QUESTION: But can I just ask --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- on that point, there – the Russians are putting together talks early next week in Moscow with the Syrians, and some of the Syrian opposition have said they won't go, some have said they will go.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: What is your feeling about these talks? And what is your advice at the moment to the opposition, with whom you're in touch?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you noted, this is a Russian-led initiative with Syrians. At this time, the United States has not been invited to participate, nor have we been involved in the planning. I think that's – we've spoken about that many times in the past. We welcome any effort to make progress toward addressing Syrians' core grievances, and anything that would produce a sustainable solution to the conflict. Time will tell whether this meeting is a forum that will make any progress on that front.
On this topic of the opposition, we have been in touch with the opposition. We certainly conveyed we'd support them attending the meetings, but it's their decision to make.
QUESTION: And you say that the United States hasn't been invited. Would you like to be invited? Do you think there's a role for the United States at such talks?
MS. PSAKI: I think there are a range of options, a range of talks under discussion. I don't think it's something that we are angling for an invite to.
QUESTION: You're not sitting by the phone waiting for the call? (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: Or you could say it that way.
QUESTION: And you don't think it – but I mean, considering that the United States has had such an investment in – certainly in the Syrian opposition, would it not be helpful at least to have some kind of observer status at these talks?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we remain in close touch with the opposition. They know they can call us. We call them. We're in close touch with them. We'll see what comes out of these talks and discussions and what the next step is.
We have been in touch with Russia over the course of the last two years about what role we can all play in a political transition. We'll see if there's anything that comes out of this meeting.
QUESTION: And the Assad regime – government has seemed to make it clear that what they want to talk about is an end to terrorism and not really about an end to – or not really about a political transition away from the Assad government.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So given that, do you really believe or do you think that this could actually address what you call the Syrians' core – the Syrian opposition's core demands?
MS. PSAKI: Well, it's not just the Syrian opposition's call. If you dial back to a year ago and the meeting of, I think, more than 60 countries and entities in Geneva, it was the call of the international community to have a political transition consistent with the principles of the Geneva communique, which are, by mutual consent, a transition of the government in Syria.
Of course, terrorism remains a concern. Obviously, ISIL is a concern that many countries, including the United States has. But that needs to be the objective of these discussions and negotiations and that remains our view.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Jen, reconcile for us, if you can, all these statements that you make. On the one hand you say that he lost all legitimacy, knowing that Assad represents a large minority in the country, there is a huge number of people that actually look to Assad as their representative. And on the other hand, you're saying you want a political solution. How could you reconcile these divergent positions, in essence?
MS. PSAKI: I frankly don't see – think they contradict, Said. It's long been our position that when you have a dictator who has --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- killed tens of thousands of his people or tens of thousands of people have died on his watch, he no longer is the legitimate leader. But we believe that transitioning through a political process is the right way to move forward.
QUESTION: I understand, but, I mean, he's not going anywhere. He's been around for a long time. This killing will continue to go on, and obviously the best solution would be to bring all these groups together. So wouldn't it be wise and prudent for you to encourage the opposition to go to these meetings in Moscow and elsewhere and perhaps restart some sort of talks, maybe Geneva 3, like you said.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said --
QUESTION: Sixty countries participate and so on.
MS. PSAKI: -- I know you often like to bring up Geneva 3, and you're a fan of that. But --
QUESTION: I'm not a fan of that. I'm a fan of any country that would --
MS. PSAKI: -- I would say, Said, that again, we support – there are a range of discussions and mechanisms by which talks can happen. It's up to the opposition. We conveyed to them we would support them attending. They'll make those decisions.
Go ahead, Samir.
QUESTION: Were you able to get a U.S. reaction to the Israeli killing of the Iranian general on the Golan Heights?
MS. PSAKI: There's just nothing I'm going to add to what I said yesterday on that.
QUESTION: Could we stay --
QUESTION: But you condemn – you condemn --
QUESTION: -- on that same topic?
MS. PSAKI: Hmm?
QUESTION: I want to stay on Israel for a second.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Yesterday, in his press conference, the Secretary quoted an unnamed Israeli – senior Israeli intelligence official as telling a congressional delegation that new sanctions on Iran, quote – imposing new sanctions on Iran now would be like, quote, "throwing a hand grenade into the process." It – the way that he presented it – the Secretary – it sounded as though whoever this senior intelligence official was was opposed to sanctions. It now emerges that this official may have, in fact, been either supporting the sanctions because they want the talks collapse and then resume with more pressure on the Iranians. So I'm wondering, does the Secretary believe that whoever told him about what this intelligence official said was misleading him?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I'm not going to speak – I'm sure it doesn't surprise you – to – further to private discussions that happen with Israeli intelligence officials about intel assessments other --
QUESTION: Well, he brought it up, not me.
MS. PSAKI: Well, other than to convey it was a discussion of assessments, not policy recommendations. Intelligence agencies do assessments; they don't make policy recommendations.
QUESTION: But the way the – the context in which the Secretary said this was that even the Israelis think that it's a bad idea for – or even an Israeli intelligence official thinks that it's a bad idea to impose sanctions. And that does not seem to be the case.
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me unpack that a little bit further. We are quite familiar with the views of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the policy advisors within the Israeli Government about sanctions and what they view as – whether they should take place and when they should be put in place. We agree that sanctions have helped get us to the point we're at. We have a disagreement about the way to achieve our shared goal, which is preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I'm not going to confirm or speak further to conversations members of Congress may have had with intelligence officials other than to convey they were about intelligence assessments; they're not about what their view is on policy. We know what the Israeli Government's view is on sanctions.
QUESTION: Well, the official in question – or at least who has released a statement about what he told the Congressional delegation – says that what he meant to say or what his hand grenade reference to was the fact – was that his assessment was that if new sanctions were introduced, the Iranians might walk away, but then it would be temporary and that they would eventually come back to the table and that you – meaning the P5+1 negotiators and in particular the U.S. – would be in a better position to negotiate with Iran than you are right now. It seems from the context that the Secretary used this quote yesterday is that the Administration is trying to suggest that there is daylight or a rift or some kind of a gap between what Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks and what the Mossad – what the Israeli intelligence – at least this one official – thinks. That does not appear to be the case. So I'm wondering if you can say whether the Secretary was misled into thinking that that was actually the situation.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't have an assessment for you on what was or wasn't discussed during the meeting with Congressional officials. What I can convey is that there are many around the world who have assessed – whether you want to call it a political assessment or what you want to call it – including a range of European leaders who put out an op-ed today in the Washington Post – that if we move forward with sanctions, that could blow up the negotiations and could even destroy the international sanctions regime as it exists. So whether or not that specific assessment was made during a private meeting, I don't have any confirmation of that.
QUESTION: Right. But the problem with that is that the Secretary himself raised it. He is the one who said it. He did it unprompted and the context in which he presented it was to suggest that there is some – there is disagreement that Israel – the Israeli Government and its – elements of the Israeli Government are not united about this, and in fact think that new sanctions – some of them think that new sanctions are wrong. So that's why the question arises to you, and I realize we probably should be asking him. But the second thing is is that you say – you point out this op-ed that the Europeans wrote, but yesterday in the press conference with the external affairs – or whatever her title is now --
MS. PSAKI: EU high representative.
QUESTION: Right. When – after the Secretary said that his opinion was that new sanctions would hurt rather than hinder – would hurt rather than help the process and blow it up, she pointedly said – and I recognize that she's not in these negotiations, but she said she couldn't offer any prediction about what sanctions would do. So there seems to be a disagreement in --
MS. PSAKI: Well, I can assure you those who are on her staff who are in the negotiations feel that it would have a detrimental impact, and that's what they're conveying.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Staying on this --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Suppose there is that rogue element; suppose that the Mossad has gone on its own in opposition to Netanyahu. Is that a good thing? Would that be, like – would that augment the call for no more sanctions, do you think?
MS. PSAKI: I certainly understand your desire to go down this road, but I'm not going to journey down it with you.
QUESTION: Okay. And let me ask you another question on the same topic.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the Israeli prime minister is completely focused on his re-election and come what may? I mean, they go, they strike in Syria, they do all kinds of things basically to sabotage whatever chances for a deal. Are you – is that the feeling in this building?
MS. PSAKI: I just don't have an assessment of the prime minister of Israel's views on his election.
QUESTION: Do you feel that the prime minister of Israel is basically doing all he can to obfuscate any effort in terms of reaching a deal?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Said, we have – we agree on the objective, which is to prevent Iran --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We disagree on the way to get there. There are many who agree with where we are, which is that putting new sanctions in place would be incredibly detrimental to the process and could even destroy the international sanctions regime.
QUESTION: So --
MS. PSAKI: I'm sure when the prime minister comes here and visits the United States he'll talk about this, and we'll continue to have a discussion and debate.
QUESTION: Okay. By the way, when he comes here to the United States on February 11 --
QUESTION: No, no.
QUESTION: No?
QUESTION: It's March.
QUESTION: March. Okay, all right. March 11th.
QUESTION: It's March 3rd.
QUESTION: March 3rd. Okay, that's AIPAC. Yeah, right. Anyway, let me go back --
MS. PSAKI: We should just get a calendar out here on upcoming events. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.
QUESTION: The White House has said that the President – that President Obama will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he comes. Will Secretary Kerry see him? Is there some prohibition against that kind of thing, given the election?
MS. PSAKI: He will not, and just for the benefit of everybody, let me just repeat the reasons why. I know some of you have seen the White House statement. But as a long – as a matter of longstanding practice and principle, we typically – the President obviously does not see heads of state or candidates, and neither will the Secretary of State, in close proximity to their elections so as to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country. So the White House announced the President will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and neither will Secretary Kerry when he's here.
QUESTION: This expression, this entire expression --
QUESTION: Does that apply to lower-level officials?
MS. PSAKI: I think it's – I think the --
QUESTION: Well, I mean, I'm just curious. I mean, he is a – he's not a head of state, actually. He's a head of government. But --
MS. PSAKI: Okay, sorry.
QUESTION: But when --
MS. PSAKI: We were saying a general --
QUESTION: I understand.
MS. PSAKI: -- a general – if it were others as well, Matt.
QUESTION: I understand. But when a head of state does come here, there is some coordination usually --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- just security-wise or whatever.
QUESTION: You're right. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So I mean, are you saying that there will be no contact at all between Administration officials --
MS. PSAKI: I'm not aware of plans for other meetings, Matt, but I can certainly check. I don't think there will be.
QUESTION: And this – you make this an emphatic expression of basically distrust in the American position by the Israeli prime minister saying and despite repeated announcement by the President and by the government that we have Israel's back, we will continue, we will not throw it under the bus, to use the term that they use and so on. But they are relentless. He is relentless in saying no, no, no, no, and so on, that in spite of saying --
MS. PSAKI: Do you have a question in there?
QUESTION: My question is --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- do you think that he's basically driving his own political agenda on this issue and not really the nature of the talks?
MS. PSAKI: I'm just not going to do political analysis on the Israeli election from here.
QUESTION: Can I ask --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- specifically on Keystone. Sorry to --
MS. PSAKI: Can you – we finish Israel? Is that okay?
QUESTION: Sure.
MS. PSAKI: And then we'll go back to Keystone. Any more on Israel before we --
QUESTION: Yeah, regarding the Palestinians. I mean, Israel and the Palestinians.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, let's do one more and then we'll go to Keystone. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. Yeah, because I have some questions on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: Today, the Israelis authorized the building of 62 – 66 housing in an illegal settlement basically on – that is in the courts. Do you have any position on this or do you know anything about it?
MS. PSAKI: Well, our settlements on – our position on settlements are well-known. I had not seen that report. I'm happy to follow up with our team on our specific view on that if there's anything additional to add.
QUESTION: Okay. Now on the issue of aid to the Palestinians, we know that in the bill that was passed, I think in December and so on, calls for cutoff of aid for the Palestinians. And we know that the budget, the 2015 budget does not include a waiver clause in it for the President to basically do aid. So if the – if Congress decides to cut off the aid, what is the next step for you, knowing that the Palestinian situation is very precarious and very critical?
MS. PSAKI: I don't think that's exactly right, Said.
QUESTION: Okay. But like --
MS. PSAKI: But why don't we get you some more specifics on where things stand.
Keystone?
QUESTION: Okay, and my last question --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. My last question is between now and let's say the election, do you have any plans to meet with any Palestinian officials?
MS. PSAKI: We remain in touch, as you know, on the ground and over the phone with Palestinian officials, absolutely. I don't have any meetings to read out for you, but --
QUESTION: So at least for the time being, you are reconciled to the fact that they did file with the ICC, they may try again at the --
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't say reconciled. Our view is well-known. We've stated it many times on this position. But it doesn't mean we don't maintain contact. We do.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I ask – today up on the Hill, the Canadian ambassador, Gary Doer, was up there supporting in a press conference the bill to authorize Keystone XL. He said a couple of things which were perhaps a little bit undiplomatic – I'm not sure – of saying that he had heard the President's speech at the State of the Union in which he talked about science. He says the science in the State Department report backs up the – giving approval to Keystone and says it's our job to correct the facts and correct the myths that have been established around Keystone, basically making a plea for the Keystone.
Do you have a reaction to that? Does the science in the State Department report back up having a – giving approval to the pipeline?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we're all familiar with the view of the Canadian Government on this issue, and they have spoken about it quite frequently. And we have an ongoing dialogue with them about a range of issues. The fact is, and what we certainly convey to any official in Canada, is that there is an ongoing process. As you know, last week – but we were on the trip, so just to update those of you who didn't see it – the Department of State – we notified the eight agencies identified in the executive order that they have until February 2nd to provide their views on the national interest with regard to the Keystone pipeline permit application. Obviously, what will be taken into account is all of the information and the studies that have been under – that the agency and others have undergone over the past several months, and certainly responses by the eight federal agencies listed in the executive order are part of our internal process.
So there's an internal process. There's lots of information that comes in and will continue to come in, and we'll look at all of that as we make an assessment.
QUESTION: And have you given yourself a deadline beyond the February 2nd to determine, to come up with the State Department's determination on this?
MS. PSAKI: No, there's not another deadline. That needs to be looked at an assessed. That's the next step in the process.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead. Ukraine?
QUESTION: Yes. Do the actions of the Ukrainian Government comply with the Minsk agreement?
MS. PSAKI: Are you referring to something specifically or --
QUESTION: Yes, using heavy artillery, shelling residential areas.
MS. PSAKI: And where are you referring to that happening?
QUESTION: In areas near Donetsk. Is it – is it not happening? Are you suggesting that it is not happening?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I'm just asking because, obviously, there was a terrible attack, as – and I'm not sure you're referencing this – at a bus stop in Donetsk --
QUESTION: There have been a few days of shellings. No, that – including --
MS. PSAKI: -- this morning. Okay.
QUESTION: Please go ahead.
MS. PSAKI: And there's an investigation on that particular incident that is ongoing by the OSCE. And certainly, we call on all sides to assist with the process. We understand that they have visited the scene and will produce a report once it's concluded its fact-finding. And this incident certainly goes the heart of why we must see immediate implementation of the agreement made at yesterday's Normandy format meeting in Berlin, which included Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany.
I would say that we've seen a preponderance of violations by the Russians and the Russian-backed separatists, whether that's the movement of artillery or military equipment, or – and I'd also remind everyone that the country is Ukraine, so Ukraine is defending their own territory. There are a larger number of political prisoners.
QUESTION: I didn't mean --
MS. PSAKI: So there are a number of steps that Russia and the Russian-backed separatists need to take, but we certainly expect both sides to abide by it.
QUESTION: I didn't mean just this incident. There have been a few days --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- of shellings. Do these actions comply with the Minsk agreement?
MS. PSAKI: Well, without speaking generally, because I always think there's a danger in that if you're not talking about specific incidents – in general, Russia has illegally – and Russian-backed separatists – have illegally come into Ukraine, including Donetsk. Ukraine has a responsibility and absolutely the right to defend themselves. Now, we certainly expect both sides to abide by the Minsk agreements. We have not seen that happen. We've seen a lot of talk, not a lot of backup, from the Russian side. If there are specific incidents, I'm more than happy to talk about them.
QUESTION: I'm specifically asking about the actions of the Ukrainian Government. Can you give a more definitive answer whether or not they comply with the Minsk agreement?
MS. PSAKI: You're not talking about a specific incident. I think I'll leave it at what I said.
QUESTION: Well, wait. Go ahead.
QUESTION: With the Minsk agreement, do they comply? You pass a judgment that Russia is not complying with the agreement. Can you assess whether Ukraine is complying?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I listed a range of specific ways that Russia is not complying, and those are all public information. So if there's a specific incident where Ukraine is not, let's talk about it.
QUESTION: Yes, there is. Well, under the agreement --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- sides must avoid deploying and using heavy artillery. Isn't it what the Ukrainian Government is doing right now?
MS. PSAKI: Well, first of all, let's start again with the fact that Russia is – has illegally intervened in Ukraine and come into a country that was a sovereign country.
QUESTION: I'm asking specifically about the actions of the Ukrainian Government --
MS. PSAKI: So I'm not sure if you're proposing that a sovereign country doesn't have the right to defend themselves.
QUESTION: -- veering off and toward Russia.
MS. PSAKI: I think we're going to leave it at that.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you just specifically about the incident this morning with the bus.
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: What was your – you said it's under investigation?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: But can you not at least condemn whoever it was that did it?
MS. PSAKI: Of course, of course. We condemn the further violence in eastern Ukraine at a bus stop in Donetsk this morning, which claimed at least a dozen innocent lives. Absolutely.
QUESTION: And that means that you would condemn if it was the government that did it, right? The Kyiv government.
MS. PSAKI: Of course. The loss of lives --
QUESTION: And you would condemn it if it was the separatists who did it?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you say – but at the same time, you're saying that the Government of Ukraine has the – I think you said the right and – the responsibility and the right to defend itself. Do you see actions like that, like the shelling – or this shelling of the bus as being within the – being within that purview?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I'm not going to speculate on that, Matt. We don't have information on the specifics here. Obviously, when it's the death of innocent civilians, that's something we would condemn in Ukraine or anywhere around the world. The point I was making was a larger point about whether or not Ukraine should be able to use military equipment in their own country.
QUESTION: Well, okay, understandable. That – I understand that. But the problem is that you seem to be – you're condemning the separatists for doing things that presumably you also don't have full investigation into.
MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a range of incidents we certainly have seen --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- exactly what's happened. So broadly speaking --
QUESTION: But when --
MS. PSAKI: -- the preponderance of violations are on the Russian --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- and Russian-backed separatist side.
QUESTION: And – which may be the case, but I don't – I can't say that. I don't know that. But this – it just seems to be that when the Government of Ukraine is accused of shelling, of bombarding civilian targets when they are – that accusation is made, you refrain from – you don't take – you say let's have an investigation into it. And when there are incidents that you ascribe to the separatists, there's an immediate condemnation. So I think that's where these questions are coming --
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't say that's exactly what's happened. There are times where it's clear who is responsible. This is a case where there's going to be an investigation.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: There are also violations like the failure to release certain prisoners --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- the fact that they are moving military equipment across the border, things that are violations that don't involve attacks.
QUESTION: But this bus incident happened in a place that's controlled by the separatists, and it's probably unlikely that the separatists would bomb themselves. Is that not correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we'll let the investigation see itself through, Matt.
QUESTION: Well, I understand that. But it would seem, just if you were, like, looking at it from the outside, that this was not a self-inflicted wound; that it was done in the course of what you say is the right and responsibility of the Government of Ukraine to defend itself. Is that not correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I understand why you're putting together different details to come to that point, but we're going to see the investigation through.
QUESTION: All right. It's pretty obvious, though, isn't it, no?
MS. PSAKI: We'll let the investigation --
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: -- see itself through. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On Pakistan --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- there are reports about two organizations, Jamaat ud-Daawa and Haqqani Network, being banned by Pakistan. Have they informed you or have they really been banned?
MS. PSAKI: Can you say this one more time?
QUESTION: Jamaat ud-Daawa and Haqqani Network, the two terrorist organizations, have they been banned by Pakistan? Have they informed you about it?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we've certainly seen the reports, and there have been a range of reports.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: The Pakistani Government has made clear in both private conversations and public statements that it's in Pakistan's own interest to take steps against all militant groups in Pakistan, and explicitly to not differentiate between such group. We support this commitment and believe that it's fundamental to addressing terrorism and ensuring attacks such as the horrific one that happened just weeks ago at the – that impacted the Peshawar schoolchildren never occur again. We recognize that Pakistan is working through the process of implementing measures to thwart violent extremism, including the national action plan. We don't have any confirmation of specific steps.
QUESTION: But at the same time, they are having a huge march later this week. How do you see that? On the one hand, they have banned organizations; the other hand, the leaders are roaming around in public.
MS. PSAKI: I don't have – do you have more details on the march and the purpose of it? I don't have details on that.
QUESTION: I can send you the details.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Okay, great. More on Pakistan or India?
QUESTION: One more on Ukraine. I'm sorry.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I just want to make sure that it's clear.
MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: The Ukrainian Government is using heavy artillery in residential areas, is it not? Isn't it a violation of the Minsk agreement?
MS. PSAKI: Well, one, as I'm sure you're aware, there was an agreement for Russia to pull back their heavy artillery yesterday as part of the agreement made in Berlin. I would go back to the same point I made. Without getting into speaking to generalizations, Ukraine is a sovereign country.
QUESTION: It's a specific question. It's not a generalization.
MS. PSAKI: Let me finish – let me finish my answer, please. Thank you. There – they have the right to defend themselves. If you're talking about specific incidents, then I'm happy to speak to them, but I'm not going to answer your questions on broad generalizations.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Syria?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I got two more on Syria. One is that these two Japanese hostage, as far as I know, deadline is tomorrow. Do you have any update? Do you talk to Turkish Government on this specific issue?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have updates on conversations with the Turkish Government. Obviously, as you know, we have a range of conversations with the Turkish Government about Syria and other issues. I talked a little bit a few days ago about the Secretary's conversations with Foreign Minister Kishida and others about how horrific this is, the video, the threats. I unfortunately don't have any updates on the status.
QUESTION: On this. Okay. The second one is about the train and equip program. Last time, I believe we were told that this program should kick off in March. We are almost end of January. Do you still think this timetable is going to work?
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to my colleague, Admiral Kirby, over at the Pentagon who spoke to this extensively last week --
QUESTION: Okay. I will see --
MS. PSAKI: -- in terms of the timing and the specifics.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: And I think that might help you in terms of where things stand.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on Japan?
MS. PSAKI: On Japan? Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. Did you have any advice for them about regarding the ransom that they were (inaudible) to pay?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you're all familiar with what the view of the United States is on ransom payments – that it puts citizens at risk, and it certainly is not a policy that we here in the United States implement or we support. So that certainly is something I think Japan knows our longstanding position on that issue.
QUESTION: Follow-up on that?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: How confident are you that Japan will abide by U.S. position on ransoms? And if it doesn't, how will this affect U.S.-Japan relations?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, I'm not going to get ahead of the process here. Obviously, our view is known. The reasons for our view is known. I don't have any assessment of Japan's plans.
QUESTION: Do you know, though, if you've had contact with the Japanese to tell them of your position or to suggest to them that it might not be a wise idea to pay a ransom?
MS. PSAKI: We have conveyed privately our position and they're familiar, certainly publicly, of course, with our position as well.
QUESTION: And your position is that in this specific case that if Japan paid a ransom it would put other Japanese citizens at risk?
MS. PSAKI: Well, and all citizens. Yes.
QUESTION: And – right. But you're --
MS. PSAKI: For kidnapping, and only sustains the terrorist organizations.
QUESTION: Follow-up on Japan?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: So if there's any – is there any specific coordination or supports that the U.S. has provided to Japan or is willing to provide?
MS. PSAKI: I'm just not going to get into specific details about our private diplomatic conversations. As you know, the Secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Kishida just two days ago, I believe, and certainly we're prepared to provide any support we can.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Change of topic. Qatar?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: And admitted al-Qaida operative in the United States, Ali al-Marri, was released last week from federal prison and then transferred to Qatar. What was the State Department's involvement in his transfer?
MS. PSAKI: I just don't have any details or specifics I can confirm on that. I think it's more of a question for DOJ and others, but I can certainly follow up and see if there's more we can offer.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, that is called the million march. It's to be held in Karachi on Sunday, and it's a call being given by Hafiz Sayeed of Jamaat-ud-Dawa. This is a protest against the publication of cartoons in the latest issue by Charlie Hebdo issue.
MS. PSAKI: I'm happy to talk to our team about it. Did you have a specific question about it? What our view is or --
QUESTION: No. If there is a ban on the organization, how come they are having the public rally of millions march?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I'm not – I don't know enough about the march to know if there's a specific connection there.
QUESTION: And coming to India about – after Secretary's trip where he met the prime minister, and now President is traveling, did Secretary get a chance to brief the President on his India trip?
MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary has certainly been over at the White House for a range of meetings over the last couple of days. I know, obviously, they plan to discuss his meetings while he was in India, and the Secretary's had lunch with – I believe just a few days ago with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. So he's certainly seen the President quite a bit about a range of topics, but he certainly has passed on his meetings and his assessment of what happened there.
Go ahead, in the back.
QUESTION: I just – I wanted to bring it back to Yemen for one second.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: There are some reports of secession, the possibility of secession in southern Yemen. Is – would the U.S. support that as part of its support for a political – peaceful political transition, or would you have specific comments on that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I know there were a range of proposals – I think this is what you're referring to – that were kind of being worked through in the political agreement between the Houthis and the Hadi government. I don't have any particular assessment of particular components we support or don't support. In general, we support de-escalation, we support a peaceful transition. I can see if there's anything we have particular concern with.
QUESTION: Well, actually I think it's the security directorate in the Aden – the port has – is expected to make an important announcement later.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Well --
QUESTION: And we're not sure this is part of the deal between --
MS. PSAKI: Okay, separate issue then. Okay.
QUESTION: If she's referring to the same thing.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Is that what you're referring to? Okay, we'll look into that.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just a clarification on Iran deadlines?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: In his testimony at the Committee on Foreign Relations, Deputy Secretary Blinken mentioned that for a political agreement, we're looking for a conclusion by the end of March.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But Senator Menendez was talking about March 24th for some reason. Is March 24th a specific deadline as well, or is it March 31st?
MS. PSAKI: March 31st. It's approximately four months past the timing of the last meeting. So we know there has been confusion, and we wanted to be a little bit more clear about how we're looking at the timelines.
QUESTION: So March 24th was just Menendez's personal question?
MS. PSAKI: I think it was just adding four months, but March 31st is the timeline.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I have a question on Cuba.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: You began by talking about Cuba. Today, apparently, the talks began on the issue of diplomatic exchange and so on.
MS. PSAKI: Yes. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So if this happens, what is, like, the timeline? I mean, when is it likely that a Cuban embassy would be opened in Washington and vice versa, and people begin to travel?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't have an exact timeline for you. It's something that we'll continue working on over the coming weeks. And the Secretary spoke a little bit yesterday to some of the specifics that would need to be worked through, including lifting travel restrictions on diplomats, lifting caps on the number of diplomatic personnel, unimpeded shipments for our mission, free access to our mission by Cubans. Those are all issues that are being discussed on the ground, and Assistant Secretary Jacobson is doing a press avail as we speak, perhaps, to talk about these issues.
Now, we didn't expect that this would all be worked through or determined. It's just a beginning of the discussion. And clearly, we hope that the speed at which these issues are resolved will escalate now that we're engaging in dialogue.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just back to Qatar, are you saying the State Department had no involvement in this transfer?
MS. PSAKI: I just don't have any more --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- to offer for you.
Okay. Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: I have just one more which is --
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- completely different from everything else.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Which is, I believe the Turkish Government has invited leaders to the 1915 Battle of Gallipoli remembrance ceremony. Does Secretary Kerry plan to attend? If not, is the U.S. sending anybody else?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I believe that is in April, if I'm correct about the timing of it --
QUESTION: April 24th, yeah.
MS. PSAKI: -- which, believe it or not, is about a century away in travel. So I don't have anything to announce. Approximately. It's a figure of speech, Matt. Matt is rolling his eyes at me up here. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: You mean it'll be in 2115?
MS. PSAKI: You're so exact. It's quite some time away in how we do travel plans, so I have no travel plans to announce for the Secretary or any other official here.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: An eon, perhaps, not a century.
MS. PSAKI: An eon? I think that's longer than a century, but go ahead.
QUESTION: Whatever. I got two really brief ones.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: First is on Bahrain.
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: I don't know if Marie last week spoke to this at all or if you have been asked this before, but I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on the conviction of Nabeel Rajab – the sentence that he was given and the travel ban that was imposed upon him.
MS. PSAKI: I believe we have – well, maybe not. Let me repeat --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- some points here, and I apologize if this is repetitive. We're disappointed by the sentence. It is our understanding that Mr. Rajab may appeal the case. As we have consistently say around the world – as we consistently say around the world, the United States does not agree with the prosecution of individuals for crimes of peaceful political expression. As we said last October, we urge the Government of Bahrain to drop the charges against him.
QUESTION: Okay. And release him, presumably?
MS. PSAKI: Presumably, yes.
QUESTION: All right. And then the second one is on Egypt. First is a logistical one.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: And I don't even know if this is possible, because I don't know if President al-Sisi is going to be in Davos when the President – when the Secretary gets there or not. Do you know --
MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure they're overlapping, but --
QUESTION: Well, okay. Do you know if there are any plans for him on his current trip to see any Egyptian officials, whether it's the president or not?
MS. PSAKI: I'd have to check. Not that I'd seen on the last schedule, but I'm happy to check --
QUESTION: All right. The --
MS. PSAKI: -- where the bilats sits right now.
QUESTION: Yesterday – this is a little convoluted.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Yesterday, in his meeting with the Australian foreign minister, do you know if the Secretary raised the case of the Al Jazeera journalist – the Australian Al Jazeera journalist who's being held in Egypt? Did that come up at all, do you know?
MS. PSAKI: I don't believe that was a part of the discussion they had at – they had a few minutes one-on-one, but not in the meeting that I was in. Obviously, I would just reiterate it was not a very long meeting, because it was between the meeting with EU High Representative Mogherini and he had to get to a meeting at the White House, so it was a bit condensed.
QUESTION: Right, okay. But it is safe to assume, though, that your position on the jailing and the prosecution of these journalists in Egypt is something that --
MS. PSAKI: Absolutely. And it's something --
QUESTION: -- you're opposed to?
MS. PSAKI: -- we've talked about in the past and we certainly talk about at a range of levels.
QUESTION: That you're opposed to it? That you think that they should be released?
MS. PSAKI: The Al Jazeera journalists?
QUESTION: Right, yes.
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: I have a very quick question --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- Iran-related. Yesterday, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei sent a letter or addressed a letter to Western news, telling them not to prejudge Islam. Is that – is he within his right to do so? And did he breach any protocol by doing that? Or what is your reaction? Have you read it?
MS. PSAKI: I --
QUESTION: And then maybe you can comment on Deflate-gate. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: We've certainly seen that letter. I don't have a comment on it, including any breaches of protocol or otherwise.
All right. Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:03 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
