committee, and i think it applies to the senate committee as well even if it s conducting itself in a different fashion is are these committees equipped to get to the bottom of it to use the term of senator warner. do they have access to what they need to answer the questions everyone has? yeah, i think that s the core question. you know, look, we still have an fbi investigation going on. i don t think either the house or the senate have expressed concern with what the fbi s investigation and the track it s taking. you know, i do share concerns, chris, that this has become politicized. at its core, i think the question every american and every democrat and republican wants to know is did the russians, not the trump campaign, but the russians attempt to interfere with our election. if they did, what exactly did they do? i believe strongly part of what the russians did was try to recruit u.s. persons. i think that is something that, you know, there s a lot of different ten tackles to l
they re standing there. we know they re working together. i ve talked to people on both sides of the committee, and they are making, you know, progress. they ve got a list of 20 people. they re having a hearing tomorrow, which is mostly experts. and i m told that that hearing is largely to kind of show the world that they re doing something, but the real interviews are going to be done in private. that s going to be the kushner interview and the other 19 people. navid, one of the questions that s hung around the house committee, and i think it applies to the senate committee as well even if it s conducting itself in a different fashion is are these committees equipped to get to the bottom of it to use the term of senator warner. do they have access to what they need to answer the questions everyone has? yeah, i think that s the core question. you know, look, we still have an fbi investigation going on. i don t think either the house or the senate have expressed concern with what th
that make us proud to be a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. with that said, we realize that so many people, frankly maybe people watching right now, do share concerns about vetting. anpeople coming into this cotry. so can you talk about that? obviously, there are fears and problems with home-grown terrorism and what have you? is there a more effective way to keep the country secure? is it too difficult to do on a case by case basis, what are your thoughts? that s the irony of this. we re all standing strong against terrorism. finding a way to prevent radicalization in the united states and for radical elements to come here. but this executive order actually doesn t target the specific countries where we re seeing the challenges. for example, in iraq, the front line with our military support, the front line of this war are muslims. and you have in syria, people who are fleeing a brutal dictatorship and regime and they re fleeing for their lives. these are not necessarily te
place expressly to get this deal. we put those sanctions into place to pressure iran back to the negotiating table and to macon sessions on nuclear program. that s what we re going to do. they have to complete their nuclear steps before they receive that sanctions we leaf. they have to continue performing and abiding by this agreement or else the sanctions snap back into place. and we will continue to have sanction on iran related to its support for terrorism, its destabilizing activities in the region precisely because we do share concerns about iran s behavior. we re far safer if they don t have a nuclear weapon. as we talk about what people are saying around the globe, let s talk about what speaker boehner is saying here at home. he s called this deal unacceptable. h he hasn t reviewed the classified annexes, the portions of the deal in total just yet but he says he s going to do everything in his power to stop it. what is the white house strategy to get this sold to an uninterest