egregious. you're feeding the opposite narrative which i'm saying is symptomatic of the same problem. saying there should be impeachment when you don't know the proof is the same as saying there's never anything wrong because there isn't proof. >> i don't want to ping-pong with you, but i want to be clear on one point. if there is evidence, i would love to come back and talk about that evidence. i think the news media is jumping the gun and talking about collusion when we don't have any evidence -- it could be there -- but no public evidence exists to that point right now, and i think that point should readily be made not only by all politicians and all news outlets. it doesn't exist. it could come. >> don't say it doesn't exist. just say we don't know, and would you agree that calling it a witch hunt and a hoax at this point is also wrong? >> you're splicing my words in that there is no public evidence today. there could be private evidence,