y. z. which will fit my narrative and all of you guys are going to see that you were wrong this whole time and you get permutations of that from every direction and it's really grotesque that we get to the point where we're so excited that we might be proven correct by an act of violence that it's going to fit our narrative that we don't even bother to say whatever just happened this was tragic people lost their lives we just jump straight to this you guys are going to finally understand i'm right and that's really grotesque. one thing that's exciting for me to think about is what we really mean when we say we you know in the united states there's a tendency to say well. you know x. y. z. is happening we have to do something and there's it's very easy to just say we think that we means you know the military of our particular state but there's a different we there's women all over the world who are dealing with the whatever they are and these women can work in solidarity with one another as women

y or z. from which multiple treaties they've pulled out of, to cyber security. anybody you've talked to in intelligence work or counter terrorism work over the past two decades will tell you, we have never effectively cooperated with the russian security sources on islamic terrorism, because they don't give us what we need. they're not interested in al qaeda or isis. you can talk to bob bear about that, anyone else who comes on cnn. >> ellis, we have your mike hopefully worked out this time. do you believe it's clear where donald trump is coming from. he tweeted this morning, saying in his conversation with vladimir putin he vehemently denied it, i've already given my opinion. he makes it clear. is it imperative that the president find another means in which to make it clear? where is he on the russian meddling, what he said to putin, and what the conclusion was if there are more sanctions or penalties or something later? >> i don't think the president wants to. i think he's made it very clear what he thinks, he doesn't believe it, he believes putin more than he

claiming in making x, y, and z from, you have almost no way of checking it even from the public pulls the underlying survey data -- and those no way of checking. versus the state in which tends to be more open that we can get to quickly make the determination whether not the correlation make sense whether the data was looked at the wrong way. to me that's important because there's a lot of people these days have access to the internet and can write crazy things and claims. people believe them important to me to be able to check those. >> i disagree. i think they have severe weaknesses and speed in which they have a small number and basically every subarea. i don't think those areas are always small. the five people written even though there many more people to assess the quality of work certainly a little bit more transparent than it is. i think that's helpful. i got phone calls, i wrote about the flaky one time. relatively old men from massachusetts. >> let's go to the left,. >> thank you. joe scholz with scripts. one thing that came out earlier in the presentation was being asked the right questions. another element that i think is important is asked the right people