but when it comes to telling congress about those conversations the white house wanted him to refuse, and he did. but i m confused because is this a formal invocation of executive privilege by the white house? no, i mean, this is the broadest effort to effectively gag a witness we have seen. in the past, we have had a witness that might refuse to answer a question about a specific conversation with the president. and claim, well, we want to preserve the white house s ability to invoke a privilege down the road. now, we don t recognize that either. but we have not been able to prevail upon the majority to follow up by subpoenaing these people. and when they were subpoenaed insisting on an answer. here was a very different situation. it wasn t merely a conversation with the president they sought to preserve some later claim of privilege. but rather any conversation that took place during the time on the transition and any conversation meeting, whatever, we couldn t even ask about wer
certainty and degree of stability when lieutenant general are mcmaster became national security adviser and increased role also for general mattis. so mattis and mcmaster are key to maintaining a certain element of stability which is also ensuring not only domestically, but yeah, this notion that a lot of our allies were worried seems to have settled down a little bit. slowly over time, increasingly, but it will be a process. let s talk about his schedule. he is supposed to be meeting with mahmoud abbas. there are is talk about the u.s. possibly moving the embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem. what is at stake here, what are we expecting to see here? a conversation meeting with abbas, it s an issue that obviously during the campaign then candidate trump had made many firm statements, obviously moving the embassy to jerusalem, but once he became president, it becameambiguous.