collection. i mean, i read thousands not thousands, but i read many reports where i was the person masked, but i was having a discussion with a foreign diplomat. i read reports of other diplomats complaining about u.s. diplomats and i could tell who it was. it was masked again. so i think there are so many questions left unanswered here. can we go to the most logical explanation? somebody supportive of trump wanted to scour anything they could find to support the president s contention that he was somehow surveilled. right. and it s like, voila, i found something that kind of, sort of, somewhat vindicates to borrow a phrase that the president used, maybe somewhat vindicates him. that s what this smells like. here s what s weird, this came from the executive branch. the president of the united states could have ordered, fwrougt his desk every communication surveillance that referenced somebody. why is it being routed through the legislative branch doesn t it give it more
are so specific in terms of what we, what we did that it will reveal sources and methods. i don t think it s an attempt to keep something from the american people. actually they re very proud of what they ve been able to do. and that s the harsh reality of it. we have stopped numerous attacks on this country, and electronic surveillance, what we are talking about here, has dope more of that has done more of that than anything else, truth be told. bill: so you re convinced the system works and should be kept in place, and, i don t know, would you even argue that maybe the system needs to be expanded more than it is today? well, i think what will happen, bill, just as we ve been conducting surveillance of communications since the beginning of war, and as technology changed from wire to telephone and now to the internet, the communication surveillance has got to change with it. so it wouldn t surprise me that five years from now we will have some different capacity to