today. it s different than protecting sources and methods. the law is the official interpretation of the government. it ought to be public. and too often the interpretation has been kept secret, and that s what s wrong. do you think, though, in terms of what the president has been reluctant to release to you on the intelligence committee, do you think that he has a case to make? do you see his side of the argument that it might be dangerous to release the information, even just to the senate? is there an argument to be made on that side? the president of course is the commander in chief. and the constitution vests in the president these enormous powers. but they are not unchecked. there are limits. and that s what the president and i talked about on the phone. he has some ideas that i think are worth talking about in terms of this national conversation about how to strike a strong balance, a strong set of checks and balances in a very different era. this is a time when the lines ar
declined to answer was different so i m glad i had a chance to clear it up. you have no information about the bernie sanders campaign, hillary clinton campaign, or any other candidates or campaigns? no. okay. let s revisit the topic, miss yates, that you and senator cornin were talki cornyn were talking about. is it correct that the constitution vests the executive authority and the president? yes. and if an attorney general disagrees with a policy decision of the president, a policy decision that is lawful, does the attorney general have the authority to direct the department of justice to defy the president s order? i don t know whether the attorney general has the authority to do that or not, but i don t think it would be a good idea, and that s not what i did in this case. well, are you familiar with 8us c-section 1182? not off the top of my head, no. it is the binding salt try authority north executive order