is that what you are seeing? >> i'm saying that any fair inference, they are talking about the doj changing their media policy, and they are talking about the media reg policy, and the one that mark meadows references in his letter to rosenstein, that comes after that. that would seemingly by all accounts happened. >> tucker: but hold on, i'm not here to defend any member of congress or any politician.ng i'm dissecting you a very simple question, what you are dodging, which would suggest you were the one spinning, not me. and the question is simple. are you saying that on the basis of the evidence received today that they were privy to leaking? i don't think you can say that. you can't say that. they were and it's obvious from these texts. >> there is ear about these texts that indicate whether they were leaking or not. incidentally, strzok had a ten hour hearing at a could have asked him at the direct question then nailed him for perjury. >> tucker: that's their problem. i'm not here to defend republicans in congress, that is for sure. i'm here to defend the interest