Transcript for Jen Psaki: GOP Letter to Iran 'Is Harmful to American National Security'
And we start with the ran. The White House. Two he went further than that yesterday regarding the latter group. Only the flagrant partisan attempt to interfere in the negotiations reckless irresponsible and misguided I assume you agree with. Yes. And those terms all to the altar of the letter was on television show this morning. Talking about what his reasoning is hall of the main off the electrical and that we're reasoning behind it I'm a little bit confused because. The reasons that he said were writing this letter. Appear to be exactly the same reasons the same thing that the administration's negotiating for cards withdrew completely to the congress won't accept a deal because we're committed to stopping Iran from getting in nuclear weapon. Is that not the administration's. Point of view. Well I'm not gonna go point by point your out of context point I think all of this may all let me take a point. The same principle author of the letter make clear that their goal is to undermine negotiations that the issues we're taking what the with the letter. I understand what is it is it not the administration's gold prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Of course that number one number two in textile branch leaders need to understand that any deal that gives them move on today tomorrow and you fifteen years from now will not be accepted by the United States congress. Would such a deal be accepted by the administration. As a path to say that if Iran's leaders need to understand that any deal that gives them a two on today tomorrow ten years fifteen years from now will not be accepted by the united stable congress can wield such a deal came to minus require raising these points again I think we weren't we've been pretty clear I what is it we're taking a letter signed by 47 senators right. I am asking you ago based on what he said this morning. His goal and the school of the signers of this letter appeared to be exactly what the administration has said its own goals. Well in that as we outlined yesterday we believe and as my colleagues the White House have spoken to extensively. And and I mobile I'll get to this point this type of letter which was signed by 47 members of the senate. Is harmful to American national security because it inserts. Met these members into the middle of very sensitive negotiations. Negotiations that have historically for. Not just decades but centuries taken place between the president of the executive branch and foreign countries furthermore. As reefs seen historically. Or not just seen historic let's know historically. That we believe that there should be continuity from president to president in terms of US foreign policy of course there are differences of agreement but you can't robbery represented. Saying that you're going to change things are you going to change the policy. As what we see is there right I just. He was asked what would an acceptable deal looked like puke and his response was complete nuclear disarmament by. Is Europe stated that ring currently has nuclear weapons. I think we've spoken expense are at our concerns about Iran is it not affect the case with the administration's negotiating for the deal that he wants to see. Would result. In Iran never not being able to have a nuclear weapon and and and and desist mental and what. For but I'm not sinners aren't anymore so make 28 interviewed done by the author who already done damage in the letter OK so. The but it's my question is. The goal that he outlined. And the other signatories of the letter presumably outlined is the same as the administration's goal to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear clearly there's a problem because they. Don't believe you can you think of the reason why. 47 members of the senate. Would think that the administration is bent on allowing Iran or giving Iran a pathway to develop a nuclear weapon. I will not speak for what they're thinking as I think we've spoken to what are you is Pamela. Is the administration's position opponents of the opponents it would be emerging you'll look and it's going to be adopted the slogan no bomb for Iran is it not the case that the administration given what it said could adopt the same slogan. I'm not putting up new slogans here you have a specific at this I'm saying is no bomb for rare in the pool of the administration I think we've stated goal many times which we have. We're not going to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons do we have more on Iran for. Adjustments some argue that the letter amounts you trees and that it's in violation of the seventies. And you know and Logan a big day for John Adams yet right so what what's your take and that do you think it but it's in violation of the law. Well I'm not aware many conversations within the United States government regarding whether sect senator cotton and on the other signatories violated the Logan act. This is a legal question. So it certainly defer to others. Said the Deaton but generally think it's within their legal rights cannot deny legal analysis at yup we've spoken to what our concerns are just and just a combination of the fact that we believe it's harmful to America's national security for anyone to insert themselves and the middle the very sensitive negotiation. And a long history we have working cooperatively with nations around the globe and seeking to advance our. Interests where legally allowed bipartisanship. Issues to stop at the water's edge to god my pocket. If there is and are in agreement it very well last fifteen years which would be. The next presidency and FBI. Several presidents could have to administer this agreement and the could be actions required by the congress in terms of removing sanctions. Watched shouldn't Friedman. Of that duration. Which requires some crushed congressional action at some point that the sanctions. Be submitted to the congress and in some form. For approval or vote of some. Well we have envisioned and I'll get see your question but let me just reiterate we have envisioned a role for congress. There has been in the past there is right now there will be in the future. Congress had a role in building the sanctions regime to your point and so at some point and the duration of this agreement congress will be heard on the sanctions. Relief and there'll be a role for congress to play and lifting sanctions. On the line is part of the agreement also to your point that would be some time from now he says we know that's not something that we're discussing as an immediate. Part of this. Discussion this is not it wouldn't be after and I talked about this a little bit yesterday. But it wouldn't be accurate to call list. It's not I'm not and I are comparing it to a treaty but it's it's different from pastor there are. There are. Comparisons I think I could make to send some historic examples but this is a multi lateral. Understanding. Between many countries including. And the Iranians so there's a role for congress to play not just in consultations which is something that's ongoing but obviously is part of the sanctions. Regime which would be the implementation up. But the role that you envision congress plaintiffs to be here and I know you dresses before it is to make it is clear it's sure you cannot envision. Freeze any. It is a multilateral agreement to congress for any kind of vote as to whether they think it's in the nation's interest even though it. It's going to be an agreement. Of huge consequence and persecute entering. And that's one of the correct but that's one of the reasons we have been consulting very closely with them there of been a range of hearings both. Public hearings many many private hearings to hear from them to discuss with them the status of the agreement and so. My last questions why why do you not think it's appropriate to ask the congress that we think congress has an appropriate role the one that I outlined. We're not considering a different role for congress.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.