say for examplethal russian ambassador. it's persunt to a court order authorized by federal judges to conduct surveillance against that foreign target and if an american happens to be talking to that target, say for example mike flynn, and you need understand the intelligence report, it's appropriate to understand who is talking to the russian ambassador. that's done all the time. it's appropriate, lawful, necessary to protect national security. and i think president's allegation is not just incorrect, it's dangerous. because when he's out there in the rose garden, talking about national security issues, all of the crisis we've been talking about tonight, the american people have to believe he's coming forward with facts, evidence. that he's basing his statements on information, verifiable intelligence and if he's just shooting from the hip or the lip without anything to back it up, he's not going to be able to be a credible commander and chief. >> what am i missing here? what is susan rice being accused of beyond that proc