to c-spanshop.org. order your copy today. >> reuters is reporting on federadeposit insurance corporation chair martin, and announcing his plan to resign after an employee -- reports that employemistreatment and sexual harassment at the fdic came to light. he said he would remain to the positi until a new successors conference. a white house spokesperson confirmed president biden will soon put forward a new nominee for fdic the announcement from him came after he testified last week on capitol hill before house and senate lawmakers. you can watch either of those hearings on our website, c-span.org by typing fbi see in the search bar. -- fbi see in the search bar. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of

celebrating congress like no others. since 1979 we been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balance, unfiltered views of government. all of the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> at the state department, spokesperson matthew miller talked about the spokesperson of the iranian president saying the u.s. policy toward iran had not changed. he also cover the international criminal court's move to seek arrest warrants for israeli prime minister bennett human netanyahu in the leaders of hamas. this is just over 50 minutes.

parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. these limits are rooted in complementarity, which were not applied here. amid the prosecutors rest to seek the arrest warrants rather than allowing the israeli legal system in a timely opportunity to proceed.

the prosecutor deferred to national investigations and worked with states to allow them time to investigate. the prosecutor did not afford the same opportunity to israel in this case, which has ongoing investigations into allegations against its personnel. there are also deeply troubling process questions, despite not being a member of the court, israel was prepared to cooperate with the prosecutor and made that clear. in fact, the prosecutor himself was scheduled to visit israel as early as next week to discuss the investigation and hear from the israeli government. the prosecutor's staff was supposed to land in israel today to coordinate the visit. instead, israel was informed that the prosecutor staff did not get on their flight around the same time the prosecutor went on television to announce these charges. these circumstances call into question the legitimacy and credibility of this investigation. finally, this decision does nothing to help and could jeopardize ongoing efforts to reach a cease-fire agreement that we get hostages out of gaza . those are the goals that the

united states is pursuing and will continue to pursue despite these actions by the icc prosecutor. >> got sick, nothing else? >> that's it -- that's it, nothing else? >> very briefly you said the actions, the announcements on television and cancellation of the flights of the staff call into question the legitimacy and credibility of the investigation. to they call those into question for the entire court? >> we are just referring to the action the prosecutor has taken. the prosecutor has taken the initial action. it calls into question the investigation he has conducted on the action he has taken when you see him short-circuit a process that was underway to gather facts, which is what you expect any prosecutor or investigator to do when they consider pursuing such a case. >> are you going to do anything

about this or are you going to wait until the judges either approve or deny the applications? >> i have no announcements today. we make clear we reject this action and we are reviewing his initial statement. i don't have anything further to announce. clinics i will let someone else go. quex you said this could jeopardize efforts for a cease-fire. why should it jeopardize efforts? >> i don't think there's any doubts involving the leadership of hamas. we have been the principal to achieving the cease-fire agreement. >> a couple of weeks ago there was a cease-fire --

>> that's not accurate. >> let me ask you one more question. according to the u.n. we have 900,000 people. you are saying all along, i'm listening to all the plans, to leave it to 1.4 million people and you are not going to agree. obviously the assault is full-fledged and in the center of route 5. 900,000 people have already fled. so what are they going to do about this? >> i thought you had a question for you kept going. with respect to how we do it, we make clear we oppose the major military and raw far, we don't think that would be productive to israel security in the short or the long-term.

we think it would have a dramatic impact on the lives of the palestinian people and on the ability to get humanitarian assistance in. we have not yet seen israel launch a major operation. we are in close communications with them about it. we do have great concerns about the ability to care for all the people who have been evacuated and some who have chosen to leave, even if they are not in the areas where israel have ordered people to leave. we have great concerns about the ability to get them food, water, shelter, sanitation. we are working with the humanitarian community, our international partners on that question, but we also engage in conversations with the government of israel. national security advisor to the president was in israel this week meeting with the israeli government. i will leave it to the white house to speak to those meetings. it is our goal to try to prevent a major operation that would have such a deleterious humanitarian impact. a final one, on the crossing

at rafah, we have not seen anyone go through for a while now. you said your getting paid to those who have been forced to leave. how are you getting that there? >> profit is not open it's been going in through the side. the eight has been in the form of commercial trucks, not humanitarian assistive but it still food and water going into gaza and getting to people. just open the maritime route which will allow the increase in assistance news and eight going to the north. we want to see rough open as well we have been engaged in discussions with our israeli counterparts and our egyptian counterparts about how to effectuate that and it remains a top priority for us. >> is it likely to happen in the next day or so? >> i never make predictions

here. >> i was stunned by your original answers. are you ok with the obligation for arrest warrants against hamas? >> we don't believe they have jurisdiction over either of the parties in this conversation. >> do you think they should be prosecuted? >> we think hamas should be held accountable. that could be either to the prosecution of the war effort by israel -- hold on, it could be by being killed or it could be by being brought to justice in an israeli court. we do not believe the icc has jurisdiction in either party in this case because the palestinian people do not represent a state. >> obviously, the administration is troubled by actions that israel has taken post october 7. where is the accountability for that? i question asked a long time ago

is where to the palestinians go to seek redress? >> let me answer this a couple of different ways. in the short term with respect to questions war crimes committed israel has an open investigation, number of open investigations. we made this public when we released our report a national security memo 20 including investigations that have become criminal investigations into conduct when members of the idf. that's the first criteria for judging whether someone has committed a war crime or violation of idf code of conduct. that's one of the reasons why we have concerns about the icc. it's set up to be a court of last resort and if that country is not holding its personnel accountable, that's when the icc comes in, not in the middle of the process as they have done here. that's it. we've spoken a lot about this and we believe there should be an establishment of an independent palestinian state. it would have the ability to join the statute and become a

member of the international criminal court like every state in the world has the right to do. >> so where did they go? >> israel had its own investigation and second, we have accountability mechanisms here. we have processes that are ongoing to look at israel compliance with international humanitarian loss of there are places to look at these questions. in our view, fundamentally not a roll of the icc. remember, we have a jurisdictional complaint here. we don't believe the icc has jurisdiction. if you look at the statement the secretary made that i echoed in my opening remarks, that's not our only problem with the prosecutors the action is taken. he has short-circuited an investigation and brought this action without waiting to see where these israeli investigations and up without completing the trip he had planned to come to israel to look into these questions.

it's not just a question of jurisdiction but at the way the investigation is covered. >> who does have jurisdiction here? >> the governor of israel has jurisdiction. >> over gaza. >> looking at the actions by the military. >> they have to bring it to israeli -- >> we have jurisdiction with the use of our equipment. >> how do you have jurisdiction? that's not jurisdiction in the criminal process. >> it has to do with the determinations we make and the policies. long-term, >> what about the doj? it does not have jurisdiction here. >> i'm referring to criminal jurisdiction. we agree the palestinian people should have the ability to make these determinations but that's not where we are today. >> [indiscernible]

>> you push back on the jurisdiction in the process. is the united states able to challenge the substance of the arrest warrant evidence should israel has deprived civilians that are essential to human survival including food, water, medicine and energy. >> i will not speak to all the details of the prosecutor's arrest warrant because there will be a process for getting into that. people will be able to challenge that but we have spoken to the provision of humanitarian assistance recently when we issued the report. we have laid out where we've seen israel not taking all the steps we thought they ought to take we saw an improvement and a turnaround and an increase in the ability to get humanitarian assistance and.

>> i don't understand why you are addressing this now. >> i'm no longer in court going point by point. >> the u.s. called it meritless. right now, can you call the warrant applications meritless? >> we believe it is fully unfounded and should not have been brought. with respect to the underlying allegations, what is the time to look at that? we will have the time to look at it and digested and perhaps issue a more complete response. we shouldn't be where we are today because they were process is ongoing to look at some of these questions that we think should have been allowed to play out. when you look the fact that the prosecutor was scheduled to go to israel and staff was scheduled to go there today, we are puzzled to understand why he would yank those trips and go on television to make an announcement, something that is very strange.

it's not usually how prosecutors announce -- >> i pointed this out. >> you pointed out i used to work at the doj. the strength thing for prosecutor to make an arrest announcement on television so we look at the circumstances and have concerns about it. sorry to put words in your mouth. >> are you saying eric holder never did a tv interview? >> not to announce an arrest warrant before we issued an actual charging document. >> you are angry at the process he used. >> the process calls into substance the underlying process. >> you talked about the fact that israel has open investigations. what kind of timeline does this provide you with concluding those investigations? >> we've made clear to israel that those investigations should

proceed expeditiously and reach conclusions as soon as possible. i will not speak to the internal discussions or speak for the israeli government but it is very difficult to put a timeline and any kind of investigation certainly on a criminal investigation and i wouldn't want to do that on behalf of a foreign government. we want this to finish as soon as but not at the expense of thoroughness. you want to be quick but you want to be thorough and that's more important. >> i understand you challenge the jurisdiction but i suspect you also recognize what's happening there. the fact that the prosecutor has applied for an arrest warrant and talking about crimes against humanity. does that give the state department a pause or second

thoughts about the conclusions of the nsm report? if you raise certain concerns there but you found israel has a credibility problem. >> if we sought new evidence, we would always look at that in be willing, we are willing to look at our assessments if they are changed by new evidence that comes in the door but we had conducted a thorough review in writing that report and there's nothing we saw in the charges announced today that changes are fundamental conclusions. >> you are saying you have nothing to announce today in terms of action the u.s. might take. can you help us understand of the administration considering taking action against the icc? >> you should not read into my statement about that that we are considering anything or not considering anything. it's to reflect the fact that this is an announcement that was just made this morning. we are reviewing the documents the prosecutor put forth and i

don't have any announcements to make about what our next steps might be. >> is there any way the u.s. can stand in the way of these arrest warrants coming to fruition logistically? >> that's a question that's beyond my remit. i'm happy to look at that question and get back to but that's a legal question for the icc. >> you said the u.s. still supports the icc as a legitimate body. does this undermine the icc as a whole? how do we think about those two things? they are still supporting the icc investigation in ukraine yet here you are saying you don't have jurisdiction. how does that not make an impact of your view of the icc? >> the icc has done important work over the years to hold people accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. we have supported that work. that is not changed by the

announcement today. we have great concerns about the prosecutor and the steps he took. it's not just because of the jurisdictional question. it will be one thing if we're looking at a jurisdictional dispute where the president are believed he had legitimate jurisdiction we believe he fundamentally did not. that is a legal question. lawyers can argue that as they often do. we look at the way the investigation itself has been conducted and that gives us added concerns about the actions he took. >> you mentioned these are fully unfounded. did you mean the whole process? >> the entire process. i will not do a factual point by point on each of the charges but the process itself, the equation

of israel with hamas, brutal terrorist group with a democracy that for all its faults does have its own existing accountability mechanism underway. we find that process and the outcome that is generated deeply flawed. >> i'm coming to the conclusion that you are looking at pretty similar materials and assessments of the actions of the u.s. and israel? there looking at open source evidence, can you say whether you are confident to get to this conclusion? >> i don't have any confidence in the conclusion they are getting to. i don't know where they got their information. this goes to the point in my opening statement about calling off a visit to israel where they could have interacted with the israeli government. they are not on the ground in

gaza to collect information first hand. with -- whether they have collected inflation otherwise, i presume we would see that is the case -- as the case goes forward. >> a lot of the information is open source. do they have to go to israel? do they have to figure out the public comments? >> whenever you are conducting a case, it's not just a question of public comments. if you were going to bring a case of this nature, you might want to go to the israeli government and say we have concerns about the following things, why don't you brief us on your ongoing investigation? i know they have not conducted a full, complete process to that regard. there was a trip scheduled to go to these questions. whether they conducted a limited review, i know the israeli government has not spoken to that. it was prepared to cooperate in much more extensive detail and

that process was ended. >> let's turn it around, what about hamas? >> i don't think hamas will cooperate with investigation if that's your question. >> so they don't need to go to gaza. and they don't need to go todoha but they do need to go to israel? >> we don't get to the question because there is a jurisdictional issue. we don't believe they have jurisdictions over the leaders of hamas. we have more than one concern. >> i get that. >> but if they don't have jurisdiction, why are you saying they should have gone to israel. israel is not a member of the court. why should they go to israel? >> as we said in the statement, despite israel not being a member of the court, they were willing to cooperate. with respect to hamas, you can

conclude looking at what happened on october 7 that hamas intended to kill civilians. that is without doubt. absence the jurisdictional question, it would absently be a war crime and a crime against humanity. you cannot say the same about the state of israel. >> it's a problem for you guys for the icc to go after israeli officials. it doesn't seem to be a problem for them to go after hamas. >> we don't think they have jurisdiction to go after hamas. >> should hamas be held accountable? >> i answer that question a little while ago. it's not up battlefield in a court of law. >> you said the fact that they were combined together, they were separate, would that be

acceptable? >> it doesn't change the jurisdictional judgment. it would be the opposite. we have a jurisdictional objection. >> with israel by itself, you can say these take -- they take these actions against hamas but not israel? >> i thought i was clear, we do not believe they have jurisdiction to either of the parties in this conflict. go ahead. >> you said israel has an investigation. are you satisfied with the way israel conducts the investigation? >> i'm not ready to offer an assessment on that because the investigations are ongoing. it's important to wait for their conclusions. >> that we do not think has, we

will say investigations are ongoing. that gets into a hypothetical. >> they were causing starvation of civilian's. these are not happening in gaza? >> we have made it clear that there are steps we want israel to take that they were not taking. now they will use dual use items. they have restricted movements.

whatever the case, actions were not good enough. eve heard the president saying that, the secretary say that and when they bring about a change on behalf of the israeli government, we have seen that she. the bottom line reality is we have seen food get in. it has improved. >> the amount of aid getting into gaza? >> we have seen in improvement but until they have enough to eat, drink, medicine, shelter, we will not be satisfied. reporter: [inaudible] my question is you said israel

is not a member of the icc. israel has supported the candidacy of mr. -- when he was elected. he wanted him to be there. so they know there are consequences so -- my question is lawmakers agree with you. but this decision, do you agree? >> that is not a conclusion we have drawn. reporter: on the issue, many lawyers found a reason that israel has committed crimes

against humanity, war crimes. you have not reached this conclusion, international lawyers found different conclusion? >> when it comes to the icc we have a jurisdictional issue in an issue with the investigation, but to answer your question, we are looking at it, we have ongoing processes for israel's use of weapons and those processes are undergoing -- ongoing. >> official condolences for the death over the weekend, a moment of silence at the security

council sparked controversy. >> one, we have been clear that abraham was a brutal participant in oppression involved in horrific human rights abuses including the extrajudicial killing of thousands of prisoners. some of the worst abuses occurred during his tenure as president, abuses against women and girls. that said, we regret loss of life and that does not change his record as president, the fact he has blood on his hands. most importantly, our approach has not and will not change.

we will support the people of iran to defend their human rights, aspirations to an open society. we will confront the regime for its proliferation of weapons and nuclear programs. reporter: to the u.s. help with recovery efforts? >> we were asked for assistance, we made it clear we would offer assistance in response to any request by a foreign government and we are not able to provide that assistance. i will not get into the details, but we were asked for assistance. something we would do with respect to any government, we were unable to provide that.

reporter: what is official condolences? >> condolences on behalf of the u.s. government. reporter: why do you say that? it means nothing and i'm not sure why you are offering condolences. if this guy was as bad as you say he was. >> we do not want to see people die. it does not change our view of him. >> name one group that the united states did not want to see in an accident. >> there were people with families, it's a step the u.s. government has taken with foreign leaders with whom we had disagreements. when they've died, we've made it clear with that statement that we support the iranian people in their struggle for freedom. reporter: when the former

president of cuba died, this would be castro, one of your predecessors did not offer condolences and basically said good riddance. and if you really think he was as bad as what you have laid out at the beginning, i'm curious why you would put a statement out, no matter how short, with the official condolences? >> as long as we are addressing the historical record, the u.s. offered condolences when shot as an stalin died. reporter: they were an ally through world war ii. >> our disagreements were quite clear and well articulated by the government. it is a step to recognize that people have families and in no way undermining our fundamental

view of the regime and its crimes against its people will and our support for the people. go ahead. go ahead. reporter: well, he made it clear , you mentioned condolences to other countries, but you did not use this word, official. i'm sure you seen people inside iran celebrating this and i was wondering what you make of that? >> i can understand why people in iran would feel that way when you look at the brutal repression that happened under the president's tenure. as i said one moment go when you look at his abuse, i can see why people in iran would feel that way in response, but i cannot speak for them.

reporter: aren't you sending contradictory messages? >> if you listen to the statement i just made, we have been clear about how we viewed his tenure. i don't think there is any country in the world that is clear about the regime and this repression of the iranian people then the u.s., we've made that clear. so it would be a close one and two i would think. we have been quite clear not just with the word from seniormost leaders, but actions including imposing sanctions on the government and entities for destabilizing actions and repression. reporter: a message to those iranians, that have been killed

by this guy? >> our policy has not changed and will not change. reporter: the origin of the crash, are there official implications? >> i've seen statements that it was the result of a technical favor. hold on, i would not want to offer any assessments about the impact. ron? ron? good, yeah. reporter: i know you are clear, but it's difficult to report on the statement use put out, official condolences. everything you're talking about is supporting human rights. and then there was another statement following your statement, a second statement,

you felt that you have to do more explanation? >> you are referring to the half hour before i came to the podium. not a long lag of time. reporter: how can i report on your condolences talking about the iranian people. how can we tell the iranian people who are happy on social media, how will we report? you do not have any diplomatic ties with the government. >> first of all i would never presume to tell anyone, but you can look at not just the statements today, but repeated statements by the president and secretary of state and other members of the administration. and our actions to hold them accountable and support for the

will in their struggle. those will not change. reporter: do these have anything to do with direct talks with iran? >> i will say that i will not draw conclusions. about? >> he was going to be the acting foreign minister. how do you feel about him? /i have no comment. josh? reporter: seems like you are taking a -- approach to this. anyway. >> i've heard the reference, i

think i would have caught it. >> well done, i will do my best. if my questions were not interrupted so often. go ahead, it is tough to get it all out. you jump in. >> is actually john done anyway. but in all seriousness, condolences are a slap in the face to iranian women and a slap in the face to people being repressed. listening to what you said today, who is the target audience, what effect are you hoping it will have. you can't expect that the family will find consolation in the u.s. governments statement. is it a courtesy to the government? we did not hear this when

pragoshian died. mr. miller: he is not a head of state. it is the type of statement the united states makes including with objectionable people as we have done. it does not change our view of him, the regime or the policy. reporter: you did not acknowledge reelection or say anything about that? now you are saying official. mr. miller: it is a different situation. reporter: i'm just wondering what are you trying to accomplish by saying this gesture? is it supposed to have a humanitarian effect on the families of the people who died? is you hope it -- is it something you hope will be reciprocated? mr. miller: it is the current

step while being clear what our view is of the regime. reporter: the help iran got from the u.s., this is just to confirm, this was the aftermath of the crash and they needed help with rescue efforts? >> they did ask for assistance. i will not get into the details of that. i am just not going to get into the details. i will not get into the details from here. ultimately we were not able to offer assistance. reporter: can you say through the usual channels? mr. miller: i will not get into channel talk, i'm not going to get into the conversation. reporter: there are opposition groups and reports of supporters

threatening celebrate her's, telling them there will be consequences if they came forward. mr. miller: one of the points that we made was iran will select a new president and as they go through the process we will support the people's ability to express fundamental freedom. we have seen those freedoms cracked down on, is there freedom of speech and other freedoms so i am not surprised we see official reaction. we will look at this the same way we looked at past crackdowns to people exercising their rights and if there are steps, we will not hesitate to do so. reporter: is there concern that this could affect stability?

mr. miller: i will not offer assessment, but we are always concerned about anything that could cause instability. it's why you have seen the administration so engaged to keep the conflict in gaza from escalating and spiraling out of control. that will be our policy goal, not connected to this death, but for its own thing. any on this? go ahead. reporter: do you have comments on the former iranian minister who said the u.s. is one of the main responsible for the crash? mr. miller: we are not going to apologize for sanctions regimes at all. the iranian government used aircraft to transport equipment to support terrorism so we will

continue to enforce our sanctions including the regime on aircraft for use by the iranian government. it is the iranian government responsible for the decision to fly a 45-year-old helicopter in poor weather conditions. reporter: do you confirm or reject talks with iran? mr. miller: we have the ability to send iran messages, but i will not comment. reporter: thank you matt. first, this weekend, this was done after putin and she jinping announced north korea. do you assess that north carolina, -- north korea, china [inaudible]

mr. miller: the pentagon put out a statement this weekend and i would refer you to that. when it comes to the cooperation between russia and north korea, it should be a concern of anyone interested in maintaining peace including the prc. it's a point the secretary made clear. we think that is something that should concern china as well and china should use influence to push back on that increasing cooperation. it is not a decision they have made as of yet. reporter: the un security council a lower is weakening, so how can you sanction north korea? mr. miller: have been secure

that the security council has not spoken with one voice on the case for violation of resolutions because there has not been unity, they have escalated ballistic missile launches and violating resolutions. we urge beijing to encourage them to refrain that behavior and return to the negotiating table. reporter: back on the question of jurisdiction. because they are not a state actor, they do not have jurisdiction, in 2014, your colleague was up here. the statement was that they convicted the commander of the militia for work crimes against humanity. the case is taking a significant step for victims. they went on to say the

apprehension of sylvester, the leader of a rebel militia was subject to an arrest warrant by the icc. the state department is offering a reward for arrest. in 2014 it was the position that they would put out and award for -- reward for the arrest. so why does that not apply? mr. miller: we supported the work of the icc. i do not know the jurisdictional questions. ultimately the jurisdiction is one of two state parties, a signatory to their own statute under jurisdiction. you have israel not a signatory. palestinians do not represent a state so they cannot sign a

statute. i cannot speak to other cases. reporter: quick thoughts about whether the u.s. feels hamas has agreed -- director burns was involved in that. are you saying that is not the case? mr. miller: i will not speak to reporting. there has been reporting all over the map. so ms. right, some is partially right, some is completely wrong. the reporting that they accepted a proposal was not accurate. they offered amendments. some are significant and they claimed they accepted the proposal, that did not happen. reporter: briefly, the drc you guys have supported. or offered rewards.

there was a big push for that. so i'm glad you said it is not just that. secondly, when you said the icc with israel did not go to israel to interview, they did not go to gaza correct? mr. miller: they will have to speak to that. i do not know. i know they went to gaza. reporter: another icc case or arrest warrant, not just applied, was issued in terms of russia and ukraine. did the prosecutors go to russia to interview the people who were ultimately given -- subjected to arrest warrants? mr. miller: the difference between russia and israel is

israel has accountability and investigations. in russia we are not aware of any investigation. reporter: the difference is neither of them are parties in the world of statute, neither are members. mr. miller: ukraine is and that is why they have jurisdiction. it is one of the parties. reporter: so it is ok if they go to one side, but not the other. mr. miller: that is how jurisdiction is applied. reporter: if you are not a signatory to a conflict, then apparently it is ok if the prosecution does not go to that country, in this case, russia. in this case, israel is not a signatory.

you have a problem -- mr. miller: israel said they will cooperate, russia did not. that is why the trip was important, they said they would cooperate. talking to them about the charges they were prepared to bring. they short-circuited cooperation. russia was never going to cooperate. reporter: israeli officials have been going off about how awful it would be if the icc comes forward with arrest warrants to the point where people were like what are they so concerned about? nothing is happening. now it has happened, but they have made it clear from day one that they do not think this is a legitimate investigation. what makes you think they were to cooperate? mr. miller: they had a trip scheduled for the prosecutor himself with a plan to cooperate. if he made that trip it would be a different circumstance perhaps.

i have a fundamental hard time arguing why he had to bring warrants before he completed the trip. why not see and then make the assessment afterwards, that is not what happened. reporter: in a recent media interview, prime minister modi unveiled how he made an effort to stop israel in gaza by sending an envoy. mr. miller: so i am aware of those comments. i have no comment. reporter: they i draw your attention to a new york times story. transients in their own land describes how the largest muslim communities are raising their children. have you engaged in the region?

mr. miller: we are deeply committed to protecting the right to freedom of religion around the world. we've engaged many including india on equal treatment. reporter: they escalated in the prime minister said washington would consider reinstating the facility. mr. miller: i have no announcements. alex, go ahead and then we will wrap up. reporter: i will give you a chance to respond to this. seeing russia? mr. miller: the u.s. what? reporter: does not want to see russia lose. mr. miller: i do not believe i saw a statement.

the united states -- so, there are two parties. one is russia, the other is ukraine. we want to see ukraine win the war and we have made that clear by providing billions of dollars in security assistance. you've seen the secretary make a speech about the failure russia brought on by launching the conflict. reporter: you want to see russia lose? mr. miller: we want to see russia lose. i'm not sure how we got into a semantic argument, but our position is clear for more than two years now. reporter: the secretaries interview in which she said the use of weapons in russia, -- mr. miller: i have no comments

other than our policy has not changed. reporter: do you know anything about three americans. one dead and two arrested who were involved? mr. miller: first of all, we condemn attacks on residents of the national assembly deputy. local violence and reports of u.s. citizens. with respect, we do not have any record of him being a citizen. whenever a --

reporter: you have access? mr. miller: i can't say that without violating privacy rules. but you know the rule. i know it is silly. reporter: even before -- even before? have they notified you that there are two american citizens arrested? mr. miller: due to the privacy restrictions, there is not much more i can say. i hope to be able to say more as we often are able to do. reporter: and then the guy who apparently died, you have no record of him? mr. miller: no record of him being a u.s. citizen. often times, that is harder to establish if someone is and lpr.

but what i can say is we do not have any record of him being a citizen. reporter: do you have anything to say about the death of an american we saw the statement that the family put out over the weekend and our hearts go out to them. we have engaged extensively to bring him home and speaking seeking a full accounting of his fate. one more. [indiscernible] can you say -- >> i don't have a full understanding. i know some of it has to do with not being acknowledged by the syrian government and the status that he had already been

assigned so it gets into bureaucratic questions but it did not change to seek a full accounting and that work continues. thanks everyone. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024],. captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org. >> c-span ""washington journal" in politics, and public policy. coming you have tuesday morning, heritage foundation discusses federal, state and local crime law enforcement and emmanuel cleaver talks about the israel-hamas war and immigration and congressional issues of the day. join this the conversation live tuesday morning on c-span or

online at c-span. org. >> on tuesday, secretary of state anthony blinken will testify on his trip on ukraine and fighting between israel and hamas and the psident's 2025 budget request watch live 10:30 on c-span 3 and our free mobile video app or online at c-span. org. c-span has been delivering congressional coverage for 45 years. here's highlights. [indiscernible] ukraine, america and the