Chris Cuomo opens this segment of CNN's New Day by talking about John Brennan's testimony and how Republicans insisted he said there is "no evidence of actual collusion."
"Joining us is senior counterterrorism expert Phil Mudd. They say John Brennan just said it. There are leaks all over the place. no evidence of actual collusion. This is a hoax. the president is right. Your response?"
Mudd told Cuomo to keep watching, because the White House "misportrayed" what officials are saying.
"The intel guys will get the intelligence, Russian interceptions showing one half of the story and significantly less than one half. They do not have visibility that is intel guys like the DIA, Director of National Intelligence and CIA director, into the significant part of the investigation that's conducted by the FBI," he explained.
"Interviews of American citizens. Looks into travel and financial. The intel guys will say 'I saw smoke' when Russian people talk about the interactions with the Americans. There's no way you can look at one half of the conversation and draw conclusion of collusion."
They showed a clip of Trey Gowdy from yesterday's hearing:
GOWDY: "Did you have evidence of connection between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors?"
BRENNAN: "As I said, Mr. Gowdy, I don't do evidence."
GOWDY: "I appreciate that. You and I both know what the word evidence means. It is a simple question. Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts?"
BRENNAN: "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign."
Camerota asked, did collusion exist? "That's the burning question everybody wants answered. Brennan says 'I know of contacts and communication.' "
"Trey Gowdy should have his ass kicked," an exasperated Mudd replied.
"He knows the difference. Alisyn, if you are an American citizen and CIA is collecting intercepts of Russians of what you said, is it fair to go to court and say that is evidence of something you did wrong? That will take more than a year to investigate this because the American citizens have a right to have evidence presented in a court beyond a conversation of a Russian official reports." he said.
"This distinction is black and white. It is a hard line. It is frustrating for the American people. I hope they don't want evidence perceived as something a Russian official says. I don't want to be convicted on that."