this, that unlike other investigations where you have a crime and that's where you begin and instead they are starting this investigation without a crime. is that fair? >> i don't think it is. what he's misunderstanding or comprehending is, show me the crime, the term collusion is an undefinable concept in terms of a statute that it attaches to and tl wouit would be able to st the collusion was more than just that. it was a criminal action taking place. to suggest that this is somehow a premature conclusion, that would be right if they had made a conclusion. what they have done is say, look, we've got an investigation, we've got a special counsel now. we're going to investigate whether or not there is some link or connection or reason why there have been so many misstatements on verifiable