And other countries are taking advantage of that. What do you think about the scope of our presence at some of these Rule Setting Meetings . What are your plans for the future . Senator, we need to be there. We need to be active. We need to be capable. We need to be value added. We need to come prepared to engage and work for americas interests in these multilateral discussions. I think you described wto in this article. Sounds like we share that sentiment. I couldnt tell you why we werent there. I dont know if it was an absence of people or the absence of focus. I view those as important to get the International Rule of law thats in accord with our view and not the chinese view in that particular instance. You have concerns and i will do my best to make sure were there and were capable. Appreciate it, that answer. I want to get a little bit of clarification with respect to an answer that you gave Senator Menendez at the outset coming back to that meeting with the president on march 22
we ve shared information that goes well beyond what has previously been shared. we ve done so with the am of ensuring that the special counsel and the senate intelligence, house intelligence committee have the information they need to conduct their investigations and you should know we ll do that today and tomorrow and if i m confirmed at the state department, there as well. in the time i have remaining, coming back to the authorization question in syria. you said you bleach telieve the president has the authority to strike syrian forces. what is the what statutory authorization do you draw on to make, to come to that conclusion? senator, i believe that the president has that authority. he certainly has it under article two of the constitution. what s the limiting factor, then, with respect to article two powers? if he can strike syrian forces with no existing statutory authorization? senator, there are rings of law review articles written in answer to that very question. it
we have and we ve done so with aim to ensure that the special counsel and the house intelligence committee have the information they need to conduct their investigations. you should know we ll do that today, tomorrow, and if i m confirmed with the state department, there as well. i want to come back to the authorization question in syria. you said you believe that the president has the authority to strike syrian forz. what statutory authorization. he certainly sdplz. senator, there are rings of law review articles written in response to that very question. it s a highly fact-based
goes well beyond what has previously been shared. we ve done so with the aim of ensuring the special counsel and descendant the senate and house committee, today and tomorrow, i m sure the state department will do that as well. with the time remaining, i want to come back to the authorization question in syria. if you believe the president has the authority to strike syrian forces. what statutory authorization do draw to come to back that conc? if he can strike syrian forces with no existing statutory authorization? there are reams of law review articles written and answer that very question. it gets the highly fact-based, throughout the cia,