On Wednesday's New Day on CNN, it was another case of Philip Mudd going over the top into violent imagery against a Republican official as the CNN counterterrorism analyst declared that South Carolina Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy "ought to have his a** kicked" for asking former CIA Director John Brennan if he had seen "evidence" of the Donald Trump campaign colluding with Russia.
Last December, Mudd notably flew off the handle about then-RNC official Sean Spicer as he proclaimed that he would like to "jump through the TV" and "take him behind the shed," tearing into Spicer as "someone who doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground."
At about 6:55 a.m. ET, co-host Chris Cuomo brought up the argument conservatives are making that Brennan has stated there is "no evidence of actual collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia, asking for Mudd's response. After the CNN analyst argued that the CIA collects intelligence and does not deal with the issue of what is considered "evidence," co-host Alisyn Camerota recalled that it has been "frustrating" to people to hear debates about definitions of words. She then brought up Rep. Gowdy questioning Brennan. Camerota:
But it ends up just being frustrating to people listening because it devolves into this debate over semantics -- intel versus evidence -- and, in fact, it got a little heated when Congressman Trey Gowdy -- and let me just play this for you and you can respond. Watch this.
Then came several edited clips of Brennan and Gowdy:
REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Did you have evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors?
JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: As I said, Mr. Gowdy, I don't do evidence.
GOWDY CLIP #1: I appreciate that you don't do evidence, Director Brennan.
GOWDY CLIP #2: You and I both know what the word "evidence" means.
GOWDY CLIP #3: It's a really 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 intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign.
Camerota added: "See, Phil, that's what's so frustrating. Did collusion exist? That's the burning question that everyone wants answered. And then Brennan says, 'Well, I know of contacts and communication.'"
Mudd began his response:
Well, Trey Gowdy ought to have his ass kicked. He knows the difference between intelligence and evidence. Let me tell you something, Alisyn. If you're an American citizen and the National Security Agency collects intelligence -- that is, intercepts of Russians who report what you've said, do you think it's fair to go into a court and say that that's evidence that you did something wrong?
He then added:
That's why the FBI is going to take a year or more to investigate this because the American citizens involved in this have a right to have evidence presented in a court beyond a conversation that a Russian official reports. In my world, this distinction is black and white. It is a hard line, and I know it's frustrating for the American people, but I hope they don't want evidence to be perceived as something that a Russian official says and that's it and you can be convicted on that. It's not.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Wednesday, May 24, New Day on CNN:
6:55 a.m. ET
CHRIS CUOMO: To those who do not want to believe there is any collusion, they say, "John Brennan just said it. There is no proof. They've been investigating this forever. There are leaks all over the place, and no evidence of actual collusion. This is a hoax. The President's right." Your response?(...)
PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Let's watch this over the next day or two because Sean Spicer and the White House have consistently mis-portrayed what intelligence officials are saying. Let me give you a clear distinction between intelligence and investigations. The intel guys are going to get the intelligence. That is, for example, intercepts of Russian communications showing at most one half of the story and, more than likely, significantly less than one-half.
They do not have visibility -- that is, intel guys like the DNI, the director of National Intelligence and the CIA director -- into the significant part of the investigation that's conducted by the FBI -- interviews of American citizens, looks into their travel, into their financial records, so of course the intel guys are going to say, "I saw some smoke when Russian people talked about their interactions with the Americans," but there's no way you can look at one half of the conversation and draw a conclusion about collusion.
ALISYN CAMEROTA: I don't know, Phil.
MUDD: Oh, yeah, absolutely.
CAMEROTA: I hear you, and I understand exactly what you're saying. And, of course, you're right. But it ends up just being frustrating to people listening because it devolves into this debate over semantics -- intel versus evidence -- and, in fact, it got a little heated when Congressman Trey Gowdy -- and let me just play this for you and you can respond. Watch this.
REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Did you have evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors?
JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: As I said, Mr. Gowdy, I don't do evidence.
GOWDY: I appreciate that you don't do evidence, Director Brennan.
GOWDY: You and I both know what the word "evidence" means.
GOWDY: It's a really 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 intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign.
CAMEROTA: See, Phil, that's what's so frustrating. Did collusion exist? That's the burning question that everyone wants answered. And then Brennan says, "Well, I know of contacts and communication."
MUDD: Well, Trey Gowdy ought to have his ass kicked. He knows the difference between intelligence and evidence. Let me tell you something, Alisyn. If you're an American citizen and the National Security Agency collects intelligence -- that is, intercepts of Russians who report what you've said, do you think it's fair to go into a court and say that that's evidence that you did something wrong? That's why the FBI is going to take a year or more to investigate this because the American citizens involved in this have a right to have evidence presented in a court beyond a conversation that a Russian official reports.
In my world, this distinction is black and white. It is a hard line, and I know it's frustrating for the American people, but I hope they don't want evidence to be perceived as something that a Russian official says and that's it and you can be convicted on that. It's not.
CAMEROTA: Okay, you win. You win.
CUOMO: He does. and I'll tell you what. We're seeing it this morning. Even here, people are saying, "Well, look, Brennan said he saw no proof. He did not say that. He said, "I don't know," and that's a huge distinction. And while it may be frustrating, a lot of things in life are frustrating, Phil Mudd, especially when they're complex. And if you cheapen them, you end up distorting what they actually are.
