they refused to look at that, because it didn't fit narrative that "the new york times" wanted to write. it is reprehensible what they've done. so i do question so many of these things. one, if that's how the intelligence was based, then it clearly is wrong and we were willing to offer proof to that point. second, the report was not conclusive among the 17 intelligence agencies. they admit that. three, if the cia is so convinced of this, why won't they go on the record and say that it was, as they did with the dnc? this is -- i mean, i believe that there are people within these agencies that are upset with the outcome of the election and are pushing apparently agenda. but the facts don't add up. and i think that the idea that the media immediately sides with these unnamed sources is a problem. you guys are willing to run with whatever comes out as unnamed sources from unnamed agencies, and yet the cia is -- >> okay -- sean, come on! >> go ahead. >> i am sitting here as -- first of all, to your first point. to your first point, the reason