BBG Watch Commentary
UPDATE: VOA eventually updated its earlier report by inserting toward the end of it two short paragraphs, one of which was a brief quote from the State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki’s comment.
This was done hours after BBC and other media outlets posted their reports focusing specifically on the State Department’s response. VOA did not offer a new or separate report as BBC and other media have done.
The title and the tone of the VOA report, “India-US Row Escalates as Diplomat Heads Home, VOA,” which by the time it was amended was already outdated, were not changed, even though the State Department comment suggested a strong desire on the part of the United States to defuse the diplomatic conflict with India. While the report was generally correct when it was first filed, by the time it was changed it became somewhat misleading as far as a statement of U.S. foreign policy is concerned. Even though a State Department comment was included, the entire report and its title suggested something other than what the State Department spokeswoman was trying to convey — a de-escalation of the dispute with India.
The outdated VOA report includes video of the Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman. VOA did not attach video of the State Department spokeswoman to its old report. It also seems strange that comments from the State Department spokeswoman in Washington were being reported from New Delhi after a delay of many hours.
BBC and many media outlets, especially in Asia, have been reporting for at least two to three hours on State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki’s statement today that the U.S. deeply regrets the Indian government’s decision to expel one of of American diplomats in reaction to the expulsion from the U.S. of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade who was arrested in New York on charges of visa fraud and underpaying her housekeeper.
As of 6PM ET, Friday, the Voice of America English news website still has nothing on the latest U.S. State Department reaction and U.S. call for ending the diplomatic dispute with India.
A lengthy BBC report with a video clip of U.S. State Department spokeswoman already shows over 500 Facebook “Likes” and over 500 Tweets as of 5:00 PM ET Friday.
“US diplomat to leave Delhi embassy amid Khobragade row,” BBC, 10 January 2014 Last updated at 16:07 (4:07PM) ET.
“I can confirm that a U.S. official accredited to the Mission India – to Mission India will be leaving post at the request of the Government of India. We deeply regret that the Indian Government felt it was necessary to expel one of our diplomatic personnel. This has clearly been a challenging time in the U.S.-India relationship. We expect and hope that this will now come to closure and the Indians will now take significant steps with us to improve our relationship and return it to a more constructive place.
I don’t have any other specific details in terms of the individual and the name of the individual or their specific travel plans at this point,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said earlier today.
As of 6PM ET, hours after the State Department briefing was concluded, the Voice of America English website still has no report on any U.S. official reaction to the requested departure from India of a U.S. diplomat.
The Voice of America failed to report on yesterday’s comment by the State Department spokeswoman expressing concern over violations of the rule of law in Turkey.
Today’s State Department briefing had considerable amount of information about the U.S. justice system and diplomatic procedures that could have helped foreign audiences understand how the U.S.-Indian dispute developed.
Earlier today, a report posted on the VOA website mentioned that India has asked the American Embassy in New Delhi to withdraw one of its officers. The report, from New Delhi, included a video clip of Syed Akbaruddin, Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman. The report was posted before the State Department press briefing on Friday and did not include any U.S. reactions to the expulsion of a U.S. diplomat ordered by the Indian government.
Why is the Voice of America still not reporting on today’s the State Department’s reaction to the U.S.-India diplomatic dispute hours after other media have posted their reports?
###
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing by Spokesperson Jen Psaki in Washington, DC., January 10, 2014
QUESTION: In a comment attributed to a senior U.S. State Department official yesterday, late, the senior State Department official stated that the U.S. Government had approved the transfer of the Indian diplomat to the Indian mission to the United Nations; that the U.S. Government had then – therefore giving her diplomatic immunity – that the U.S. Government had then requested waiving —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — her diplomatic immunity; that the Indian Government refused and that she was going home.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Here’s what I don’t get: Why would you ask, given that on December the 19th and December the 20th in the briefings you and Marie made clear that were she to be granted diplomatic immunity, she would still be liable for any alleged offenses committed prior to that.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So why would you – why are you asking for her diplomatic immunity to be waived once she has been transferred to the Indian mission to the UN? Is she accused of having committed new crimes post that point?
MS. PSAKI: So let me try to address this. There’s a couple of updates. I know there’s been some confusion —
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: — out there in the reports. We did put out a statement last night confirming, of course, as you mentioned, that we accepted the request to accredit Dr. Khobragade, and we accepted that request on Wednesday, January 8th. It’s important to note – unfortunately we don’t have discussions about this every day in here, but – that we would only refuse accreditation and a request for accreditation like this in rare circumstances such as events related to national security risks.
So to your point, Arshad, we then requested a waiver of the immunity. It wasn’t granting immunity; it was granting – accrediting UN accreditation, which immunity comes with that. We requested a waiver of the immunity, which is standard practice. That’s government policy to request that. It doesn’t conflict with what we said before. When there are serious – it’s an indication of the serious charges, the seriousness of the charges that have been waged against her.
So that hasn’t – those charges still remain in place. That hasn’t changed. We requested the immunity. It was denied, and —
QUESTION: Why —
QUESTION: Requested the waiver.
MS. PSAKI: I’m sorry, we requested the waiver. It was denied. And our policy as a government is to then ask for that individual to depart when there are serious charges involved.
QUESTION: Why did you request the waiver of her immunity?
MS. PSAKI: Well, if there – if a waiver of immunity is granted, then you can move forward with the charges.
QUESTION: So you could not move forward with the prosecution of the prior charges —
MS. PSAKI: For the time —
QUESTION: Let me finish.
MS. PSAKI: Sorry, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just, yeah, so you could not move forward with her being prosecuted for the charges previously brought against her without waiving the immunity that you had just conferred on her?
MS. PSAKI: Only for the time she has the immunity, only the time an individual has the immunity. Let me just give one update on this as well.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: So, as you all know and we’ve discussed in here, representatives of members of the United Nations enjoy immunity from personal arrest or detention. However, her accreditation in this case to the UN does not remove existing charges, as we’ve talked about consistently. In addition, now that she has left the United States, she no longer enjoys immunity. So that was applicable for her time here while she was serving for the UN. In the MFA statement, they made clear she was being transferred over to the foreign ministry in India.
QUESTION: So why did you grant her – why did you approve her transfer and thereby confer upon her immunity that made it impossible for the period of that transfer for her to be prosecuted by another arm of the U.S. Government?
MS. PSAKI: Because, Arshad, unless it is an event of – related to national security risks, like espionage, it would be very unlikely or very rare for us to decline a request for an accreditation.
QUESTION: I get that it’s rare. What I don’t get is why it is a higher virtue for the U.S. Government to ensure that she could not be prosecuted once she acquired the diplomatic immunity than it is for the United States Government to prosecute accused felons.
MS. PSAKI: Well, these are two different processes. Her – the charges against her have not changed. Once she departed – prior to her departure it was conveyed to her and to the Government of India that she is not permitted to return to the United States except to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Her name would be placed in visa and immigration lookout systems to prevent the routine issuance of any future visa, and upon her departure, a warrant may be issued for her arrest. This does not change the charges. The charges remain in place. There are processes that are standard processes in each of these cases which we were abiding by throughout this process.
QUESTION: But why is it more important for the U.S. Government to grant her immunity, ensure that she doesn’t prosecuted during that —
MS. PSAKI: We did not grant her immunity.
QUESTION: — let me – wait —
MS. PSAKI: We approved accreditation. That’s part of it.
QUESTION: — that led to – but that led to her being conferred with diplomatic immunity?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So I think that’s – I mean, I get your point, but the point still is the United States Government took an action that resulted in her receiving diplomatic immunity —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — ensuring she couldn’t be prosecuted for the time that she had that immunity, and then it let her go. And what I don’t understand and I think there may be an answer that maybe your relations, your diplomatic relations with India are more important than your ensuring that the laws of the U.S. Government are upheld.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would refute your claim that we’re not upholding the laws of the U.S. Government.
QUESTION: Really.
MS. PSAKI: There’s a judicial process —
QUESTION: She’s being prosecuted?
MS. PSAKI: Let me finish.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: There’s a judicial process underway. There was an indictment issued yesterday, as you know. There’s also a standard process that is underway that is underway in cases like these as well. So we followed that process from here. It doesn’t change the charges. The charges are not wiped. The judicial system – and that’s led by the Southern District of New York – can reiterate that and make that absolutely clear. This is not related to anything other than following the process here, working through the best way to manage a difficult circumstance.
QUESTION: But she’s not being prosecuted is the whole point. And when I raised the question of upholding the laws, the laws normally would require that somebody who did not, when they allegedly committed the crimes, enjoy immunity that would prevent their prosecution be prosecuted for it, have their day in court, and either be acquitted or convicted; whereas you have contrived a circumstance whereby she will not face that unless she returns to the United States someday.
MS. PSAKI: I think it’s inaccurate to say we’ve contrived a circumstance. There are two processes here in place – how we manage an application for accreditation with the UN. We handled that in the standard way we would handle it unless an individual poses a national security risk. There is a judicial process. That is ongoing. I just reiterated what was conveyed to her on her departure, what has been conveyed to the Government of India. That doesn’t change. Her charges are not wiped.
QUESTION: But why would it not have been better – why would it not have been more in the interest of the United States Government for her to have been – to have faced prosecution?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, again, because there are different processes in place, if India had waived the immunity, then that would have been a process that would have been undergone if she were not a diplomat. There are a lot of scenarios that are not related to what the reality of this case is, so what we were following was the processes that were appropriate for this case.
QUESTION: But I still don’t understand why it is not more in the interest of the United States Government to ensure – I mean, look, if any diplomat knows that basically they can allegedly flout U.S. laws and allegedly mistreat and underpay domestic workers, and allegedly commit visa fraud, right, and the worst that’s going to happen to them is that they get sent home, then you – then the deterrent effect of violating the law and being penalized for it goes away. So I don’t —
MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s far from what happened – is happening here. So I would argue with your —
QUESTION: She’s being prosecuted?
MS. PSAKI: — with your characterization. Again, the charges remain in place. The Southern District of New York runs point on that. All of this was conveyed to her and made clear. She no longer has immunity. So there are a lot of events at play here, Arshad, and what we’re working throughis the best way to manage the process with all of those pieces in place.
QUESTION: So is it correct that she, as well as the Government of India, have been told that if – should she attempt to return, if she should apply for a visa, it will be denied, one, or approved only if she comes back to submit to the jurisdiction of the – at least until the statute of limitations runs out.
MS. PSAKI: Right. I wouldn’t —
QUESTION: I mean, we are talking about a person here who has children who I believe are U.S. citizens, correct?
MS. PSAKI: That is my understanding by the reports in the media.
QUESTION: As – right. As is her husband. So she has been – is it correct that she’s been told she can’t come back except – unless she comes back to face the charges?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think this is a very important characterization here because we wouldn’t speak to or outright claim a denial of a visa. But obviously, as I outlined, there are a couple of pieces that you touched on. So if she is return – permitted – she is not permitted to return unless – except to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. She will be put on – her name would be placed in the visa and immigration lookout system that’s, obviously, as people apply for visas. And of course, I mentioned the third one about a warrant as well. So I just wanted to be specific.
QUESTION: No, sorry. What was the warrant?
MS. PSAKI: Upon her departure, a warrant may be issued for her arrest.
QUESTION: Upon her departure from —
MS. PSAKI: From the United States.
QUESTION: Well, she’s left. Has one been issued?
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the Department of Justice and the Southern District of New York for any details on that.
QUESTION: Okay. But then does that mean that you would like – you would ask Interpol to put out a red notice or something on her?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to get into a hypothetical. I’ll let them speak to the judicial part of this and any other details.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Roz.
QUESTION: Can I ask a broader housekeeping question?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Because we’re talking about violations of U.S. law and this Administration has tried to drive home the point that human trafficking is a priority for stopping, and these charges fall under that rubric, what are foreign diplomats told about following U.S. laws when it comes to bringing in domestic workers and governesses and whomever —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — while they’re here? How are they briefed on this? Is there a brochure? Is there a class they have to take on U.S. laws? What is it that they have to know, because any American citizen knows that ignorance of the law does not prevent you from being prosecuted if you violate those laws?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Roz, let me just reiterate, since you gave me the opportunity, that the fact that the Department of State investigated this matter and requested the Indians waive immunity so that she could face the charges against her shows how seriously we take these issues, human trafficking issues and all of the charges that have been placed against her.
We are committed – and this is standard practice as we communicate with foreign diplomats, of course – to ensuring all domestic workers are paid for all hours worked. We continue to work with foreign missions in the United States to ensure all diplomatic and consular personnel are aware of and abiding by their obligations under United States law. So that is what we communicate as a standard practice.
QUESTION: Can you say in practical terms how they learn this information, since obviously there is a difference in the way that domestic workers are treated in India, across the Middle East, in sub-Saharan Africa, for example?
MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s – we communicate what the United States laws are here. I don’t have any additional level of detail in terms of how. Obviously, we communicate with diplomatic missions in a range of ways, especially as new diplomats are coming in.
QUESTION: Then I just want to come back to Matt’s point about her family ties, being connected here in the U.S. Has a catch-22 essentially been set up for Ms. Khobragade that she –her children are still here, as we understand it – that the only way that she’s going to be able to have freedom of movement, at least to come to the United States, is to submit to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Roz, I wouldn’t characterize it that way. I laid out what legally would be required if she were to return. I can’t speak to her plans or the plans of her family. That is just, as the U.S. Government, what would happen if she were to return.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on the family thing?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Don’t you think the U.S. is following double standards? On the one hand, you go out of the way to evacuate an Indian citizen just for the purpose of, you said here, for uniting the family, right, of the family of the maid? U.S. Embassy paid the tickets and brought them here, gave them the green card. On the other hand, they are here, they are U.S. citizens, husband and two children, and then you are not allowing them to unite together in the U.S. Isn’t it a double standard (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: I would not agree with your assessment. I can’t, for privacy reasons, speak to the status of the maid and her family. In this specific case, we were following and abiding – and in some ways in reference to what Roz was referencing and what Arshad was talking about, about the United States laws, what the United States laws are – abiding by what our processes are. And of course, the Department of Justice has their own process.
QUESTION: So you can’t, for privacy reasons, talk about the status of the maid, but you’re more than happy to talk about the status of this diplomat who – right? Is that because she’s been charged with a crime?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, this is —
QUESTION: Has she forfeited her right to privacy? Because I —
MS. PSAKI: She’s not a – she’s —
QUESTION: Neither is the maid. So I just want to make sure that we’re going to be consistent about this —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — in future cases.
MS. PSAKI: I know you like consistency, Matt.
QUESTION: In future cases where people have been charged with crimes and you’ve – and you refuse to talk about things because of the – because of privacy issues, I’m going to raise this point –
MS. PSAKI: I look forward to it. Every case is different.
QUESTION: Can I just —
QUESTION: And then I just have one more thing —
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: — which is you have been – the foreign ministry, the Indian foreign ministry, says that they have asked you to remove one person from your Embassy. Have you been – is that correct? Have you been told?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Who is that person? Are they coming back? And are you hopeful that this now ends this rather unfortunate saga?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. I can confirm that a U.S. official accredited to the Mission India – to Mission India will be leaving post at the request of the Government of India. We deeply regret that the Indian Government felt it was necessary to expel one of our diplomatic personnel. This has clearly been a challenging time in the U.S.-India relationship. We expect and hope that this will now come to closure and the Indians will now take significant steps with us to improve our relationship and return it to a more constructive place.
I don’t have any other specific details in terms of the individual and the name of the individual or their specific travel plans at this point.
QUESTION: Did they PNG a specific person, or did they just ask you to reduce the head count by one?
MS. PSAKI: It was an individual.
QUESTION: An individual?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And do you understand why they selected that particular individual?
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the Government of India for their explanation of that.
QUESTION: And when you say that you hope that this will now come to closure and that the Indian Government will take steps – I don’t remember the exact words, but to restore a more constructive relationship —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — do you have any reason to think that they’re actually going to do that? I mean, they could have just – they got their diplomat back; they could’ve just let it go rather than PNGing somebody. So what makes you think that they’re actually going to lay this to rest and be constructive?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, time will tell. And as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. So we’re looking to move our relationship forward, we’re looking to move past this challenging time, and we hope they’ll be a partner in that.
QUESTION: So the —
QUESTION: And the technical – on a technical thing —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — you described their decision as an expulsion and some – and PNG. Was the Indian diplomat PNG’d?
MS. PSAKI: No. It – we would qualify it differently.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Can you say —
QUESTION: Just a follow up?
QUESTION: — and you may not want to specify because this is a security question —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — but we’ve all seen the video of the security barriers being towed away from outside the U.S. Embassy. Has the U.S. requested that the physical barriers be reinstated? And in – unless and until they do that, what security measures have been enhanced in order to protect the U.S. mission in New Delhi?
MS. PSAKI: It’s a good question, Roz. I don’t have any particular updates on it today. I will see – check with our team and see what level of concern – if there’s a level of concern and what update we can provide to all of you.
Lalit.
QUESTION: You said there are a lot of differences between India and U.S., at least on consular matters. Is – that’s going to be part of your discussions when – between the two countries now?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Lalit, as we’ve said a couple of times in here, as there are issues that the Indians want to raise, as there are issues that we may want to raise, we’ll raise those privately. But I think the larger point here is that there are a lot of strategic and economic issues that we work together on and we’re eager to get back to that partnership.
QUESTION: But do you get the sense that after this issue is resolved – it looks like is it resolved from your point of view?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re certainly – we certainly expect that this period will come to closure, and we are eager to move forward.
QUESTION: And in the process —
MS. PSAKI: Anymore on India?
QUESTION: Yeah, one more on India.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: In the process of granting – considering and granting Ms. Khobragade’s immunity —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — was it taken into consideration that one of the crimes she was accused of, which is visa fraud, does entail potential national security risks?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speak to what we consider and how our considerations work with national security risks and what that means. One of the examples I can give you is espionage. That would qualify, of course, as a national security risk. Obviously, that’s always taken into account. In this case, clearly we moved forward with the re-accreditation – accreditation.
QUESTION: Are you worried that this might set a precedent for someone who would otherwise not be allowed into the United States being brought in under a fraudulent visa?
MS. PSAKI: In what – I think obviously the fact that we have issued these charges, the fact that they have – we have asked for a waiver of immunity, the fact that we have asked her to return to India, speaks to our – the seriousness with which we take this case, and no one should take it or indicate that there’s an openness to a precedent.
QUESTION: Just on the technical aspect of what I was asking about before —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — if you do not regard her departure from here as an expulsion and a PNG, and you do – and the Indians did PNG and expel your diplomat, is it – does the Administration or does the State Department consider the Indian reaction to be an act of reciprocity?
MS. PSAKI: I would refer you to the Indians for —
QUESTION: No, no. But this is your interpretation of it —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — because let’s – in many cases where diplomats are expelled, there is – it’s a one-for-one, tit-for-tat kind of thing. You do it with the Russians, you do with Belarus, everything. Do you or do you not regard what the Indians have done to your diplomat as a reciprocal, and thereby justifiable, action?
MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any other further comment on it.
QUESTION: But you do make a distinction between the departure of the Indian diplomat from the U.S. and the departure of the U.S. diplomat from India?
MS. PSAKI: Well, you asked me if it was —
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: — if it was PNG’d, and we would not characterize it that way because it was a different case with a member of – who was accredited by the United Nations.
QUESTION: All right. And then the last —
QUESTION: Was this an Indian overreaction?
MS. PSAKI: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Was it Indian overreaction?
MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve spoken to it. I don’t have any further —
QUESTION: Then the last one is that there is a group, or there is a move afoot from some human rights groups —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — including Indian American human rights groups, to get the Administration to ban or to deny visas for domestic workers of Indian diplomats coming into the United States. One, are you aware of this? And two, if you are or even if you’re not, can you take the question as to whether this is something the Administration might consider?
MS. PSAKI: Sure, I’m happy to. I haven’t heard of that until you mentioned it. Any more on India?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: It’s – you said we are moving forward. But India had two demands. One was an apology and one was a dropping of charges against the Indian diplomat. None of those two have been fulfilled. And so where do we stand today? Is there an apology going to come? Is there – are you going to drop the charges?
MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve spoken to where we stand on this. Obviously, we’ve had a range of conversations behind the scenes with the Indians privately. We’ll let them speak to whether they’re open to and looking to move our relationship forward, and we’re hopeful we’ll be able to do that soon.
QUESTION: No, the question is that – are you considering an apology? Yes or no?
The second is about dropping of charges. Are you considering dropping the charges? Because the charges started from the State Department, not from the judicial – not from the Department of Justice.
MS. PSAKI: The charges were issued by the Department of Justice. Obviously, as I said, the charges remain in place. I would point you to the Department of Justice for any other update on that.
Said?
QUESTION: And the apology?
QUESTION: I want to go to Syria.
MS. PSAKI: Sorry, go ahead. Sorry, go ahead.
QUESTION: And the apology part.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything further for you. We’ve said in the past we expressed regret around some of the circumstances. Obviously, there have been weeks that have passed. A number of conversations have happened behind the scenes, and we’re looking to move things forward.
QUESTION: India. India, please.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Yes, first of all the – in a bigger issue, I mean, are you reconsidering or are you taking into consideration to reconsider the diplomatic immunity issue in order some of these loopholes will not be used by more than 190 countries out there?
MS. PSAKI: We don’t consider it a loophole. I’m not aware of any consideration of changing our policy.
QUESTION: And the second one is related to – at the peak of this crisis, there was, like, contacts, phone calls, whatever, between officials involved with that.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: In the last 24 hours, are there any contact or not?
MS. PSAKI: We have remained in very close contact both on the ground through our ambassador, through senior officials here at the State Department, with the Indians as we work to move our relationship forward.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Diplomatic immunity was for less than 24 hours, I believe, given the sequence of events that you gave us.
MS. PSAKI: I think that’s, I guess, a correct – I will leave it to you the mathematical number of hours. But —
QUESTION: And also, technically, her visa has now been revoked, then? She no longer has an American visa?
MS. PSAKI: I have to check on that specifically. I think what I conveyed before was that if she applied for a visa – let me just go back to this. One moment.
QUESTION: Yeah, I think you said something like if she applied for a visa, there’d be some – yeah. But I mean —
MS. PSAKI: Her name will be placed in the visa and immigration lookout system.
QUESTION: So that was just that her visa’s been revoked as she left the country?
MS. PSAKI: Let me check on that specific technicality for you. I just don’t want to speak out of turn.
QUESTION: Just to mark, as I’m sure Matt would like to, you just answered a question both hypothetical and about a visa application. If she applied for a visa, her name would be placed on a watch list.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t think that’s —
QUESTION: I’d just like to thank you for that.
MS. PSAKI: Her name would be placed in the visa and immigration – that was what – what I said was what was conveyed to her when she departed, so it wasn’t actually a hypothetical.
QUESTION: And it was issued –
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Hasn’t it already been put on the watch list?
MS. PSAKI: Well, that was what was conveyed to her. Obviously, she’s en route and I don’t have the exact tick-tock of the exact timestamp.
QUESTION: And she was issued the G visa, G-1 visa, right?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I just don’t have any other updates on it specifically.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Any more on India?
QUESTION: No. Can we move on?
MS. PSAKI: Yeah. One more on India, and then we can move on.
QUESTION: Just on – can you give us a – you might take this question – that – has there been in the history – how many diplomats have been imprisoned, arrested, and strip-searched?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any statistics along those lines and it’s unlikely that anything like that would be public, but I’ll check on that for you.
Said.