Return to Transcripts main page


Are Evangelicals Giving Trump a Pass on His Behavior?; New Details of White House Cover-Up after Porter Abuse Allegations Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired February 14, 2018 - 07:00   ET


[07:00:07] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: But at the end of the day, the measure is it's not what you say; it's what you do. And do you believe, as an evangelical, that Donald Trump represents what you want to see in a leader?

DAVID BRODY, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, CBN: I will tell you this. That to show that God has a sense of humor, he decided to, out of all people, evangelicals get behind Donald Trump and he becomes this culture warrior. That proves that God has a sense of humor, for sure.

In the book, we interviewed the president in the Oval Office. Sorry, Michael Wolff. But we actually did an interview with the president. And two, with the vice president, as well. Bob Costa in the book for "The Washington Post." Any respect that Hugh Hewitt. There's a lot of folks. This is a deep dive looking at his religious background that relates to his Lutheran roots on the German side, father. Mother, Presbyterian.

By the way, a story in there about how he actually has some DNA and has some Viking blood in him which is -- shouldn't be shocking. He probably wears it as a badge of honor.

CUOMO: I bet he does. Mr. Brody, Thank you for being here. Thanks to you, our international viewers.

Thank you for watching. For you, CNN "NEWSROOM" is next. For our U.S. viewers, NEW DAY continues. We have new information. Let's get after it.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Christopher Wray says that the FI completed a background check into Porter months ago. It certainly goes against what the White House has said.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is a process that doesn't operate within the White House.

The White House Personnel Security Office had not finished their process.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't have clear answers. They're giving us multiple versions of a story and, frankly, just not telling the truth.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Kelly told "The Wall Street Journal" that everything was done right in the Porter matter.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There has to be some accountability here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have seen Russian intentions to have an impact on the next election cycle here.

DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Frankly, the United States is under attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With all due respect, I think the American people are ready for this. We cannot confront this threat when the leader of the government continues to deny that it exists.


ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota.

CUOMO: Finishing my card.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Roses are red, violets -- but I hadn't gotten to the next line.

CUOMO: Uh-oh. All right.

CAMEROTA: I've got to work on those.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. Eight days into the Rob Porter scandal, and the White House is still spinning. White House aides have repeatedly tried to cover up what they knew and when. The new FBI chief who was appointed by President Trump contradicted the White House on Porter's security clearance.

The White House is now trying to shift blame to its personnel security office, not them, though they have known about Rob Porter for the better part of a year.

CUOMO: Now, for whatever reason, the man in the middle of all this is the embattled chief of staff, John Kelly. And he remains right there in the eye of the storm. Sources telling CNN conversations are heating up about who could replace Kelly as he defends his handling of the Porter affair.

And that's not all. The president's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, says, yes, Stormy Daniels was paid to keep quiet, but he personally paid her out of his own money that $130,000. You'll remember Daniels at one time alleged she had an affair with Mr. Trump. She then went back on that. This all happened about a decade ago.

A source tells CNN Cohen only recently told the president about his payment, that the president didn't even know at the time he did it.

We have it all covered. Let's begin with CNN's Abby Phillip, live at the White House. Happy Valentine's Day, Ab. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Happy Valentine's Day, Chris. Good

morning. Today, there's eight days into this Rob Porter scandal, and the White House's days of spin undone just one minute of testimony by FBI director Christopher Wray on the Hill yesterday.

All of this has put John Kelly in the hot seat. And rumors are heating up that he might be replaced soon.


PHILLIP (voice-over): The Trump administration changing its story again about the White House's handling of domestic abuse allegations against former top aide Rob Porter. Hours after FBI Director Chris Wray offered a time line about when Porter's security clearance investigation was completed that directly contradicted the White House's accounts.

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: The FBI submitted a partial report on the investigation in question in March. And then a completed background investigation in late July that soon thereafter we received requests for follow-up inquiry. And we did the follow-up and provided that information in November. And that we administratively closed the file in January. And then earlier this month we received some additional information, and we passed that on, as well.

PHILLIP: Prior to Wray's testimony, the White House had been selling a very different story.

RAJ SHAH, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What we know about Rob Porter specifically, and that's the incident that everybody's talking about, is that his background check investigation had not been completed yet. It was still in the -- in the investigative process and had yet to be a adjudicated.

[07:05:10] SANDERS: The process for the background was ongoing. And the White House had not received any specific papers regarding the completion of that background check.

PHILLIP: Press secretary Sarah Sanders now conceding the FBI probe was finished and trying to shift blame to a different office in the White House.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who's telling the truth?

SANDERS: All right. Well, as I said, the FBI portion was closed. The White House personnel security office, who is the one that makes the recommendation for adjudication, had not finished their process and therefore not made a recommendation to the White House.

PHILLIP: But on Monday, Sanders specifically said that the White House was not involved with security clearances.

SANDERS: This is a process that isn't -- doesn't operate within the White House. It's handled by our law enforcement and the intelligence community. PHILLIP: The administration's inability to get their story straight

again raising questions about the future of chief of staff John Kelly, who learned about the allegations months ago. Multiple sources tell CNN the president has not yet made a decision to replace Kelly but that conversations about a possible successor are heating up.

Kelly telling "The Wall Street Journal" that his handling of the Porter scandal was, quote, "all done right." Even after Sarah Sanders admitted otherwise.

SANDERS: We're looking at that internally and agree that there are things we could have done better.

PHILLIP: CNN has learned not only was the White House willing to overlook red flags in Porter's background, they were also in serious talks about promoting him to be Kelly's deputy chief of staff.

President Trump again declining to comment about Porter's alleged victims, despite his administration's insistence that he supports them.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you believe Rob Porter's ex-wives? Do you believe Rob Porter's ex-wives, Mr. President?


TRUMP: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... do you have a message to...

TRUMP: Thank you very much. Thank you.


PHILLIP: Well, all of that is happening, and then there's this. This $130,000 payment that we now know the president's personal attorney Michael Cohen made to porn star Stormy Daniels after he attempted to try to shut down these rumors that the president had an affair with her about a decade ago.

A source tells CNN that Cohen only told the president about it recently, although that may not be worth a whole lot as the scandal continues.

Meanwhile, it is infrastructure week at the White House here, and all of this news is really overshadowing that push the White House has been trying to make for the president's infrastructure campaign -- Alisyn and Chris.

CAMEROTA: Abby, stop giving us so much to talk about. Thank you very much. Narrow the reporting. Thank you very much for all of that.

Let's bring in CNN Politics reporter and editor at large Chris Cillizza and CNN political analyst David Gregory. So David, let's just start with the Rob Porter fallout that continues.

It was very interesting to hear director Chris Wray, FBI director, talk about how many separate times the FBI alerted the White House about Rob Porter's background, what they learned in the background checks. We know the ex-wives came forward with their stories of violence that he allegedly perpetrated against them.

So it may be technically true that it was the Office of Presidential Personnel that had the decision about whether or not he was going to get security clearance. But they knew, and they could have gotten rid of him much sooner.

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, and I think when you look at the level of bungling on this, how they mishandled this through their insensitivity or covering up things. Or just being misleading. It becomes clear what it would have looked like to do the right thing. You know, it's true that not everything went up to the presidential level. Certainly, there is a process around checks, background checks. But this was a high-profile guy. Someone who more recently was dating Hope Hicks apparently, who's a senior adviser to the president.

And then the president giving the kind of statements he gave, it doesn't acknowledge the ex-wives or the accusations making it so much worse.

And then on top of that, you have all the leaking coming out of the White House that isolates and ostracizes Kelly, who I don't necessarily think is in real danger of losing his job. Because I don't think that that's a step that the president would want to take.

But here is just another example. You know, Chris Wray standing up for the integrity of the FBI despite the attacks on it, saying sorry, what you're told is not accurate. Here's how it actually went down, which only creates more problems and more questions for the White House. It wasn't coming clean on this.

CUOMO: I mean, look, by any indications, the truth on one level of this is pretty simple. They knew what they needed to know about Porter, and they knew for a long time and chose to do nothing.

Similarly, the president chose to do nothing about addressing the victims of domestic violence. And it's not going to go away, because it matters too much. Mr. President, today is another day to do the right thing.

Cillizza, to Gregory's point, Trump may not want to move on Kelly. Why would he? He keeps sweating talent. He said he was going to drain the swamp. It seems like the swampiest place we've ever seen in this kind of capacity.

[07:10:09] But what about Kelly and his appetite to take this kind of beating from his own on the inside? He's never had to endure anything like this.

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS CORRESPONDENT AND EDITOR AT LARGE: Yes. No, he has not. Some of the background quotes, you know, White House official quotes...

CUOMO: Not good.

CILLIZZA: ... coming out of the administration are rough. Some of them in "The Washington Post" are calling him a big fat liar, which is a remarkable quote even to say without your name attached to it.

CUOMO: Well, they're not going to attach a name to that. Because nobody is going to say that to John Kelly to his face. Let me tell you that.

CILLIZZA: That is true. But it does -- I do think it speaks a little bit, Chris, to the sort of -- he may have lost the team. You know how you say that with a coach. The team's just not motivated for him anymore; they don't believe in him. That's the dangerous thing for John Kelly.

Now Donald Trump, to David's point, Donald Trump may not care about that. We know Donald Trump has an affection for generals. We know that he and General Kelly, particularly on immigration, I think are more soul mates than we were initially aware of. And they may be more ideological soul mates than we were initially aware of.

That said, I do think there is a danger of having lost the team and sort of not being able to be that respected figure, particularly given how Kelly set himself up. He said when he came in, "I'm not going to try to manage Donald Trump. I'm going to manage the staff. I'm going to make sure we as a staff are working in the best way that we know how to help Donald Trump. That hasn't been the case up until now. That will be my goal."

I don't know if you can execute on that goal if you have lost the confidence of the staff. Now, if you still (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the president, he can stay in that job for as long as the president wants you to. But I do think he is a little bit -- he, John Kelly, is in the danger zone at the moment.

CAMEROTA: Well, listen, David, I mean, I just want to challenge you on you saying that you don't think the president is inclined to do that, to replace John Kelly. Because he -- it did seem for a while that he had lost the confidence of the president when, after John Kelly came out and said that the president wasn't sort of fully informed during the campaign about immigration. There were reports that the president wasn't happy about that.

So here are the names being floated if John Kelly is to be replaced. There's Gary Cohn, chief economic advisor. There's Congressman Kevin McCarthy who, as you know, is House majority leader and Starbursts giver to the president.

CUOMO: Of which only two colors, thought.

CAMEROTA: Yes. The strawberry and the orange.

CUOMO: Only the reds and the pinks.

CAMEROTA: So he -- if that isn't a credential for chief of staff, I don't know what is. All right?

And then there's also Mick Mulvaney, who already has two jobs, but OK. He can take on a third.

GREGORY: You know, in this White House in particular, being chief of staff makes you incredibly vulnerable to controversy, to being undermined because of the president you're working for. And whatever people think about John Kelly, mistakes he may have made, controversial statements he's made, working for this president is incredibly difficult.

I also -- so, you know, the question -- because you're working for a president who, among other things, is going to undermine you by putting toxins in the water and spreading information about you. He's so transparent that way.

You know, if you take a step back on all this, any organization dealing with something like this would benefit from being both fair and more transparent than they've been. I think it's fair to say there are people within the White House who had a blind spot for Rob Porter, just like a lot of people who know him do. Who know him or are close to him who think he is a terrific guy and know that through their relationships with him and are incredibly pained and surprised by all that has transpired.

But I think there's a way to communicate that pain and confusion and consternation while also saying, "We're listening to all the steps along the way and trying to do the right thing." And that's just not what the White House has done here.

By misleading, by not acting on certain things, and then by initially trying to fight back, you know, when the Politico is reporting about they've got reporters in there to get his story. And then the president not even coming out and saying "What a horrible situation for these women who have been through something awful, for somebody who we care about. We have to take this seriously. We ultimately did. And this is just horrible for everybody." He didn't do anything like that.

CUOMO: One in four women women. This is one of the major causes of homicide for women in this society. He can't just ignore it the way he did. It's not going to go away. Chris Cillizza, something else that's popped its head up, is the alleged affair with the porn lady, Stormy Daniels. She said she had an affair -- we call her a star. Is that a fair appraisal of her? Had she risen to that level?

CAMEROTA: I think so.

CILLIZZA: Porn actress.

CUOMO: Cillizza, this is your area. So do you -- anyway, let me ask you this.

So the idea was whether it happened or not and whether she was paid off. Michael Cohen, the president's lawyer, says, "Yes, I paid money, part of a nondisclosure agreement. I paid it. Trump didn't even know at the time. The money came out of my account. I was never reimbursed. It wasn't about a campaign contribution. It was about me taking care of someone I care about. The reason I did it..."

[07:15:08] CAMEROTA: Stormy Daniels.

CUOMO: ... even though it was not true, a story doesn't have to be true to be hurtful. This was at the same time of the "Access Hollywood" situation. That's why I did it. The president only recently found out.

CILLIZZA: I mean -- OK.

CUOMO: Not the vote of confidence.

CILLIZZA: Well, I mean, it's $130,000. It's not $1,000, which even that's a decent chunk of change. But 130 grand that he paid as a preemptive strike against a false claim in a campaign in which more than a dozen women came forward with credible allegations that Donald Trump had engaged in sexually inappropriate or sexually...

CUOMO: That he had a relationship with this woman. They had pictures together. He had tried to help her in different ways. She had a lot more on him than other people who had allegations. That would be the argument to why you would address this one specifically.

CILLIZZA: Right. I just -- the Michael Cohen, it just doesn't -- sorry. It just doesn't pass the smell test. I think we can overthink things. But why would a personal lawyer, unbeknownst to a client, make a $130,000 payment as a preemptive strike against something that he says is not true? I just -- again, like, if I told you that happened on the street with my personal lawyer you'd say, "Hey, we're friends but that sounds dicey."

CAMEROTA: Lawyers don't usually dip into their own pockets, you're saying, to pay for their own clients?

CILLIZZA: Yes, dip into their own pockets.

CUOMO: In a lot of situations, they can't. It would be unethical in a lot of the situations.


CUOMO: David, what's your take?

GREGORY: I mean, I think -- I don't know a lot of lawyers who ethically would make any move like this. I mean, that's the big question. Also, I'm just very skeptical that there wasn't some kind of a payback to his lawyer on this. The whole thing just sounds fishy and then is another round of embarrassment for the White House.

CAMEROTA: There was reporting on this...


CILLIZZA: Ask yourself this, if any other situation, if a politician's personal lawyer paid a porn star making allegations of a long-running affair of 100 -- $130,000, allegedly from just his private money, no connection, what would you think? I mean, it's not that complicated.

CUOMO: Right, but as you say, everything is new. We've never seen anything like any of this.

CILLIZZA: True. Through the looking glass.

CUOMO: And look, I think Michael Cohen knows in order for this story to be fully believed, they're going to have to hear it from his own mouth. So we'll see if that happens.

CAMEROTA: All right. David, Chris, thank you.

CUOMO: So what about the House Democrats? What's going on there? Well, they're demanding Republicans do more to address the security clearance issue that popped up with Rob Porter in the White House. What is the GOP response? We ask Congressman Jim Jordan next.


[07:21:39] CUOMO: The director of the FBI, who was selected by Donald Trump as a change agent, says that his bureau's background investigation into former White House aide Rob Porter wrapped up in July. The investigation was closed last month.

This contradicts the White House's repeated claims that they didn't know about abuse allegations against Porter because the background check was still ongoing.

Let's discuss with Republican Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio. He was the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.

Happy Valentine's Day, Congressman.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R), OHIO: You, too, Chris.

CUOMO: Uh-oh. I don't hear Jim Jordan. Do you guys hear Jim Jordan?


CUOMO: You heard him?

CAMEROTA: He said, "You, too, Chris."

CUOMO: Oh, he did? I don't hear him. Speak again, Congressman.

JORDAN: Happy Valentine's to you.

CUOMO: I don't hear him. Can I have yours?

CAMEROTA: Yes, you can have mine.

CUOMO: Bring it out, yes. Let's hear Jim Jordan. Otherwise they're going to have a conspiracy theory that I'm trying not to hear him. JORDAN: I can hear you.

CUOMO: Let's talk to Jim together, because I don't hear him. All right. T

Jim, talk again. Let me hear you.

JORDAN: Yes, well, Happy Valentine's Day.

CUOMO: Here we go. Here we go. Conspiracy -- thank you, Alisyn.

JORDAN: First time I've -- Chris, first time I've ever told a guy "Happy Valentine's Day" three times in -- in one day.

CUOMO: Well, and got -- and gotten the response you were looking for. I say thank you very much to you, as well.

All right. Sir, we've got trouble. Let's talk about trouble. Christopher Wray, thank you very much. Can I have my brain back?

The -- the FBI director says, "We gave him the information." I don't think there's much of an open question about whether or not the White House knew what it needed to know about Rob Porter if they wanted to move on him. That's a political decision. That's about political judgment. Put it to the side.

Clearance issues. He was looking at highly-classified information, whatever the president was going to see. You care about this issue of how this information is cared for. He didn't have the right kind of clearance. A lot of people in this White House do not. DNI head Dan Coats, a man you respect, says the system is broken. Do you agree? And if so, what can you do about it?

JORDAN: A couple things. First of all, Rob Porter no longer works at the White House. And if what is alleged that he did is actually true, then he should face the harshest consequences possible.

Second, I do think that everyone agrees that maybe there needs to be some changes in how security clearances and personnel decisions are made. I think everyone understands that. And my guess is the White House is going to correct those things going forward.

CUOMO: And what kinds of corrections do you see? You can put me on camera. Other people see Phil messing around with me. People should get to know the staff a little bit better on this show, Jim Jordan. I have this huge Italian man behind me there for a second. He has a red shirt on. It's OK. It's Valentine's Day.

All right. I can hear you again. So the -- the pushback here is this. This is a dangerous situation, because you have people with good reason that shouldn't have clearance, and the White House is letting them get by in anyway. You have dozens. You have more than usual. This has taken longer than it should have. It's irresponsible. Do you agree?

JORDAN: Well, again, Chris, I don't know all the ins and outs, the timeline and everything that happened. What I do know is...

CUOMO: Never stopped you before.

JORDAN: Well, but what I do know is General Kelly's service to this country is unbelievable. I know that his son has made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. I know he loves this country. And I think that he will correct it. If he stays in that position he will correct the situation. I think the White House has been very clear about that. That's what needs to happen.

I don't know what kind of access Mr. Porter had to certain information, but I think that that's something that needs to be corrected as we move forward. And I believe it will be with -- with this White House.

[07:25:06] CUOMO: Do you have confidence in keeping General John Kelly as chief of staff?

JORDAN: I think that's a question for the president of the United States. I will tell you my limited interaction with the general has been positive. Like I said, I respect the services he has given his service over his entire career. Obviously, respect the service and sacrifice his family has made for this country. But that's a question for the president and what he thinks will best serve the needs of the American people.

CUOMO: I just wanted to ask you about this, because you have expressed such sensitivity towards classified information and how it's used and how it's safeguarded. And this seems, at a minimum, reckless.

You keep being given information about an individual that could very easily compromise him with other people if they knew about the information. And yet you let them keep seeing everything the president of the United States is doing to see.

JORDAN: Well, again, I don't know what meetings Mr. Porter was in, which one he wasn't.

CUOMO: No, you know what he did. He presented information to the president on a regular basis that was often classified. He was very high up there.

JORDAN: But -- but, Chris, to compare it to the FBI doing what they did, taking a campaign document, dressing it all up as legitimate intelligence and presenting it to a FISA court, a secret court to get...

CUOMO: You don't know that that's what happened.

JORDAN: We do know that's what happened.

CUOMO: You don't know that's what happened.

JORDAN: To compare it to that, I think, is not an apt comparison.

CUOMO: All right. Fine. So let's -- let's go with your own -- let's go with your own comparison. Let's jump to that.

You do not know what happened in that FISA application. You guys keep calling it the secret court, which is not fair to the American people. The FISA court was created as an oversight mechanism by Congress. It's not a secret court, and you haven't even seen the application.

JORDAN: Chris, have you -- have you ever read a transcript from the FISA court? Have you ever seen an application and take it to the FISA court?


JORDAN: I haven't, but that's...

CUOMO: That's why I don't have an opinion about them. I don't judge them when I haven't seen them.

JORDAN: Well, we know people who have seen the application and what they told us...

CUOMO: You know one. And Trey Gowdy since then, who will now be on the show today, he wants to resign. He wants to get away from this mess. And he says it doesn't change the Russia probe.

JORDAN: Well, it does change the fact that we now know that they took a campaign document to a court to get a secret warrant to spy on a fellow citizen. That is a fact.

CUOMO: It was part of an application.

JORDAN: That's why I've called -- that's why I've called on Christopher Wray to let us see the application -- I've called on him months ago. Show us the application. Show us the transcript. I'm for making everything transparent, including the Democrat memo, frankly, when it's done in a way that's consistent with our sources and methods.

CUOMO: Well, that's a big "if," though, right? But that gives you -- that gives you...

JORDAN: ... the intelligence community.

CUOMO: That's a hedge. Hold on a second, hold on a second. I don't want to talk over you. One, you just gave yourself an out on the Democrat memo that you expressly didn't want on the Republican memo. Subject to what the intelligence community -- you did an end-run around them with the Nunes memo. You treated them like there was some dirty object; they were part of a toxic political...

JORDAN: The same standard applies to the Nunes memo.

CUOMO: No, no, no. You didn't deal with the IFC (ph) on the Nunes memo.

JORDAN: ... as the majority memo.

CUOMO: You didn't even use them. You didn't even use them.

JORDAN: Republicans on the committee voted to release both memos. Democrats only voted to release the...

CUOMO: And you delayed it. You put in a delay so you could get your message out first. You painted this picture of the intelligence community as nefarious. You could have put them out at the same time.

JORDAN: It's the exact same process.

CUOMO: It's not the exact same process.

JORDAN: Yes, it is.

CUOMO: Why is the intelligence community, why is the FBI, why are they meeting and talking about the memo and discussing what to redact when they didn't with yours?

JORDAN: Chris, because when you do something wrong, you don't want it made public.

CUOMO: So now it's a different standard. So they did something wrong. But it's OK to use them on the Democrat memo.

JORDAN: When they use a campaign research document, don't tell the court it's a campaign research document.

CUOMO: They did tell the court. They did tell the court.

JORDAN: When you you -- when you -- based on what Mr. Gowdy and Mr. Grassley have told us, what we saw in the Grassley memo a few weeks ago, when you look at how they explained that it was a political context of this dossier, it's the most convoluted, circuitous way to explain something. Why didn't they just say it?

CUOMO: That's -- that's your impression.

JORDAN: Tell the court the truth. That's -- that's what people have read.

CUOMO: Let me -- let me respond. OK? Here's a suggestion. And by the way, we're both coming at this from a position of ignorance, because either of us has seen it. You want to rely on what somebody else has said, whether or not they were politically motivated, that's your choice.

Here's two things. One, they didn't bring it up, because it wasn't -- first of all, they did put it in the application. Right? Even your guy suggested that it was in there before the judge. And this would be an application that would be renewed at least three times. OK?

JORDAN: Right.

CUOMO: So obviously, there was something going on there that was seen as highly legitimate. But they may not have, because you are the one exaggerating the significance of this dossier information. Maybe they didn't get it into it that deeply, because it was just one part of a huge application.

And remember something else that you're assuming, Jim Jordan, that you have to explain to our audience. You say they did this because it was during a campaign, and they wanted to hurt Donald Trump. This happened weeks before the end of the election. It wound up happening after the election was there. That's when the surveillance was going on. What kind of caper is this? That this is what they came up with to hurt President Trump, is to put a surveillance on Carter Page, a guy who had almost no real connection to Trump in his own -- you know, to his own understanding?