NBC's Chuck Todd asked Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) to react to David Brooks' comments on Sunday's Meet The Press and his latest column in The New York Times where he ponders what if anything does Trump have to do with Russia.



"I'm bothered by the lack of emerging evidence about the underlying crime -- that there was actually collusion or coordination between the Trump White House [and the Russians]," Brooks said on the Sunday morning show.



"He is growing skeptical that with all the leaks that have come out, there's never been a leak about that. What do you say to David Brooks and others that are starting to question whether there's any there there?" Chuck Todd asked the Democratic Senator.



Warner only said that the intelligence community agrees that the Russians intervened in the election but was unable to tie Trump to any of it or cite any proof of collusion.



From Tuesday's broadcast of Meet The Press Daily:





CHUCK TODD: Can you answer this criticism from David Brooks both on the show and this morning in his column. And he writes, 'As the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians.'



He is growing skeptical that with all the leaks that have come out, there's never been a leak about that. What do you say to David Brooks and others that are starting to question whether there's any there there?



SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): What I would say is let's take this in order. First of all, we absolutely know that the Russians tried to intervene in our election system.



They hacked into the DNC and they also used weaponized information. Everyone from all the intelligence communities, virtually every Senator, Democrat and Republican, agrees with that fact. The only person, frankly, who seems to reject that notion is the president himself who calls this 'fake news' or a 'witch hunt.' He's just factually wrong.



The second piece is we are still at the relatively early stages, I'm not going to give a percentage, as we start to deal with those affiliates of the Trump campaign who at least have been rumored or talked about having contacts with the Russians.



I would have expected to have more of that work done. But who could have ever predicted that the president himself would have gone out and fired FBI Director Comey, that he would be launching these rumors that he might be firing, potentially firing special prosecutor Mueller?



That has actually taken time away from the further conversations with those Trump officials who may have been involved with the Russians.