but from your background, do you believe that he should have been able to answer this, rather than say, i still don't know. >> i think yes is the answer, simply. what he's doing is relying on what he says is a justice department memorandum from the office of legal counsel that says, he doesn't have to answer questions of that sort. he can essentially rely on past practice to say, this is confidential, i'm not o going to answer it. that memorandum really doesn't say this. it says, this is in the context of executive privilege and has to be asserted as such. in june we asked you about this and said, i'm not going to answer it until the president makes a decision. then they write him a letter saying, you're coming up october 18th to testify. please get an answer from the president. he doesn't get an answer from the president and he defaults to the memorandum and i am not going to take the chance of ruining the possibility of his assertion of executive privilege, he, the president. and i don't think that's really availing. >> what's the standards for holding someone in contempt,