get hurt and that we are going to be assaulted or that we are going to face continual harassment and discrimination. nelson says she is glad that the tsa is resuming self-defense classes for flight crews. she helps the program will become mandatory. he is calling on the faa to make permanent its zero-tolerance policy for bad behavior. in other words, no more warnings. violators will be fine. that is in addition to criminal prosecution that can lead to 20 years in prison for interfering with a flight crew. sandra: serious stuff. eric: npo being criticized for letting its new policy of letting their dominant journalists protest. they are saying that new policy eliminates a blanket prohibition from participating in public events. as well as vague language to.
and his disquiet as to what was happening. there is another issue as to bolton. there could be a legitimate claim of executive privilege for some of his interactions with the president. i mean, we often talk about executive privilege, and the court has never precisely defined what s covered but interactions between the president s top foreign policy adviser and the president about foreign policy, you could see a court saying, you know what? if the president doesn t want that disclosed i, judge, am not going to disclose it. jeff, do you think he might not then testify at all, even if he was given a subpoena? see, i don t think executive privilege is always defined narrowly. certainly his conversations with the other aides, not the president, i don t think there s any way those would be covered by executive privilege. i can t imagine a blanket prohibition on his testimony. but there could be some questions where there would be a
executive privilege, and the court has never precisely defined what s covered. but interactions between the president s top foreign policy adviser and the president about foreign policy, you could see a court saying, you know what? if the president doesn t want that disclosed, i, judge, am not going to disclose it. so then, jeff, do you think he might not then testify at all even if he was given a subpoena? see, i don t think the executive privilege is always defined narrowly, and certainly his conversations with the other aides, not the president i don t think there s any way those would be covered by executive privilege. so i can t imagine a blanket prohibition on his testimony, but there could be some questions where there would be a legitimate invocation of the privilege. jen, the reporting from jake tapper that lieutenant colonel vindman told congressional investigators that he believed the president was attempting a quid pro quo with military aid for ukraine, that certa
i d rather not talk about the course of the negotiation and we arrived at the language we did. is north korea still moving or making advancements undertaking nuclear program? may i answer that question in a different setting? you can t answer that question here? yeah. i d prefer not to. we d love to provide that setting for you soon. happy to do it if we need to. i m happy to do that. senator, here i m not trying to be cute. we re engaged in a complex negotiation with a difficult adversary and each of the activity that is we undertake is not going to be fully apparent to the world at the moment it is undertaken and processes and discussions that will be had that are important that they not be realtimed disclosed and then it s obvious why i chose not to answer one or the other and therefore it seems to me that a blanket prohibition on heading down that path is the only way
we did. is north korea still making advancements to undertake a nuclear program? may i answer that question in a different setting? you can t answer that question here? yeah, i d prefer not to. we would love to provide that soon. happy to do it if we need to. i m not trying to be cute. we re engaged in a complex negotiation with a difficult adversary. each of the activities that we undertake is not fully apparent to the world at the moment it s undertaken. will there will be processes and discussions. it s important that they re not disclosed. as i answer one question and choose not to answer another, it s obvious why i chose not to answer one or the other and therefore it seems that a blanket prohibition on heading down that path is the only way to ensure that i have the opportunity to negotiate this thing in a way that isn t being