who approached him to say hello or to have a brief discussion. is that the kind of thing that he should immediately walk away from and say i can t talk to any of you ambassadors and the fact he had contact with some 25 ambassadors in 2016, you know, is that conversational meeting that happened at the rnc with a group of other people? isn t that a stretch to say it s something that was improper? i think we need more information. when you sit in front of a congressional committee in a hearing to be confirmed to be attorney general and volunteer the language that you did not have conversations with the russians and now that s been shown not to be true, whether or not those were in the context of his work as a senator, this is part of the overall story. and it just underscores that there are a lot of unanswered questions about the russian interference in this election and people like marco rubio have said this isn t partisan. next time it could happen to republicans. we as republicans sh
data we have. and administration after administration in both parties, of both parties, have really protected all of the agencies that collect data. and this data is not only important to scientists, it s important to business people, businesses make decisions on the basis of this data. it s important to local governments. if there is any messing around with government data so that there is less of it, and this is important stuff to have, or it s no longer reliable, this is bad for everybody, or everybody except the people who consciously want to lie with numbers. and so i think what you re seeing in the agencies, conservatives always complain, civil servants are more liberal than the rest of the country, they don t like republican presidents. they probably are somewhat more liberal. but what s going on here is much more fundamental. they re concerned with a government that is opposed to the very mission of their agencies. this isn t partisan. we ve had great republican epa
investigation play out, get all the facts out there. once he and the american people have had a chance to look at that, i think he needs to make that decision. what reaction have you received from secretary clinton in wake of these breaking developments in the last 24 hours? well, i think she s very concerned, like we all are, that the bedrock of our country, of our democratic process, our free and fair elections and the idea that either government officials like the fbi who are supposed to be very far above politics or foreign aggressors like vladimir putin are intervening in our elections. that s a big problem. and i think she s glad, like we all are, that this is going to be investigated, addressed. we should make sure, democrats and republicans, that this never happens givagain. that s a really important point here. i ve been concerned the president elect has tried to make this a partisan issue. this isn t partisan. the election is over.
clinton said this is all politics, republicans like yourself trying to hurt her presidential campaign. here she is in iowa this week. i won t get down in the mud with them. i won t play politics with the national security, or dishonor the memory of those who we lost. i won t pretend. that this is anything other than what it is, the same old partisan games we ve seen so many times before. congressman gowdy, same old partisan games? well, the inspector general isn t partisan, neither one of them, they were nominated by president obama and confirmed by harry reid-led senate, the fbi is not partisan. i get that she s frustrated. her poll numbers are tanking, folks who never thought about getting into the race are getting in the race, but she need not blame house republicans for having her own personal server for exclusively using private e-mail, for telling us
let s be clear here. what she said in the clip that you just showed is not true according to the reports that we have from the wall street journal out of the inspectors general. they are saying that she did receive or send classified information that was classified at the time, not information that was later deemed to be classified, but classified at the time whether it was labeled properly or not. so they are saying that without question she did send this and that s why they are referring it to the justice department so that is just not a true statement. she says there s nothing out there that contradicts what she s saying. the report itself couldn t digits what she sees saying and it s a serious problem because you don t want this hanging over your head if you re running for president. the inspector general isn t partisan, independent investigators referring this on to the justice department. seems pretty heavy. is this about trust essentially? oh i think this is all about trus