ultimately comes down to him. sam, i mean, to me what was striking to watch the president yesterday in the rose garden was that his command of the issues seemed charitably extremely thin. but this is a place in which he is watching cable news all the time, and that is how he is producing his opinions on things. he doesn t have deeply held strategic visions or world view or a thick ideology or politics. he s sort of watching cable news, and that s how he s making these decisions. yeah, i mean that s conceivable. i mean it s also conceivable that that s a story. i mean within weeks of him being inaugurated, we killed eight children in yemen, one of whom was an american citizen. we did. right. we just killed over 200 people in mosul in bombing attacks. so it s qui possible he not aware of that and just those children he saw for the first time on television in syria have created this incredible change of heart, or it s also more
here is that and i m reaching would be that in the course of monitoring some foreign individual, as often happens, an american was picked up talking to that person. that s conceivable, but i m really speculating. we don t know. and you are not alone in your speculation or concern. several lawmakers, including top republicans have been skeptical or said outright as we heard yesterday, there is nothing if you look at wiretapping per se. that s flat out wrong. if you broaden it we still don t have any proof. where does this go from here? i think we have to see how these congressional investigations go with director comey going up there and speaking on a classified basis. if we start to see leaks out of that, i think then we will now know at that point we will know at that point that these committees can t get this done. increasingly i think this is only going to get done by some sort of independent commission that looks at it objectively
haven t seen all the data, the intelligence, the documents, she haven t had key figures in this investigation including law enforcement and intelligence officials testify. you have the republican shareman this morning saying there is no there there and he has been told that. you have the democratic ranking member a couple of hours later saying we have not reached and conclusion and could not reach a conclusion. that is a glaring contradiction between the two leading members of what should be a bipartisan center. one other point i would note, nunes this morning, and we were asking him about communications. the question of collusion, that s a farther step down the line, just were their communications between trump advisors and russians during the campaign. adam schiff used the word collusion. he didn t say he left the possibility open. that is remarkably significant. and it really raises questions about how this investigation is going to proceed in a bipartisan
investigation. schiff certainly doesn t say i have given no occasion there is no will there. in fact, he makes the opposite point. saying we haven t seen the evidence or heard the testimony to make any such conclusion. ? jim. that s not suggest. you could have a bigger contradiction, conceivable, on that issue whether it is an open or closed question, the republican chairman virtually closed the question. the democratic ranking member said we have got a long way to go not just on establishes but on establishing whether there is collusion. that s not just spin. it is a remarkably different view of where the investigation stands before it gets underway. and a different view of their responsibility. that s really the key issue. i would agree that there is a difference as to whether one believes it is an open decision or not. and there is a contradiction there. but my point was that adam schiff, who has seen evidence let s be honest. he has not reviewed a lot of
whether there was communications with the trump campaign and russian officials, he was saying that was revealing classified information? i don t think that s revealing classified information. let me make a couple of points. i disagree with jim in this respect. what representativeship schiff did was not contradict devin nunes. that wasn t the opposite of what devin said. devin said there is no there there, that s true. he said there is nothing there. schiff didn t say there is a there there. that would be a contradiction. what he said is we don t know. and we want to find out more. and we need more information. but he didn t say that there was any etched. in fact, he was clear in stating that so far we don t have any evidence that we need more. that s not a contradiction. if nunes was saying we cannot conclude that there was something, he was or if he was saying we haven t been able to conclude there is something there, in a way i guess you could argue they were saying the same