taking place yesterday, that of judge kavanaugh. he declined to speak about hypotheticals, in specific hypothetical of presidential subpoenas though he has in the past and he certainly addressed other hypothetical situations in yesterday's hearing. what is the justification for that? why was he able to get away with some hypotheticals and other hes would answer? >> reporter: i would say today the reality is that people who want the know where he stands on issues that he has, as you acknowledged, written about in the past, specifically in the minnesota law review, will continue to question him and ask if he can provide some level of clarity for where he stands when it comes to how commanders in chief should be treated when they are found to have done something in violation of the law while in office. i think what he is trying to do obviously is not be pigeon holed into a firm answer and position like his writings have suggested he should be. that's going to be a problem for