good evening. it's been seven days since president trump and vladimir putin sat down together behind closed doors of the summit in helsinki. seven days and the white house still will not give a detailed account of what went on between them, what was said, what was decided. and now the president seems to be eagerly trying to do his best to change the subject, tweeting dire threats in all caps at iran, trying to gaslight the public yet again about the fbi surveillance warrants that four republican nominated judges approved targeting carter page, a former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, suspected of being a russian agent. the president also launched a new attack on a newspaper he

hates. none of these, though, are new tricks of mr. trump's trade. but today, there was a new attempted d eed diversion and aw novel way of attacking his highly credentialed critics, all former officials in law enforcement, national security, or the intelligence community. now he wants to punish them for speaking out by stripping them of their security clearances. it began with republican senator rand paul lobbying the president to do it of former cia director john brennan, who has become a vocal critic of the president. so rand paul may have started the idea, but by the time today's white house press beefing was over, the list also included james clapper, former fbi director james comey, former national security adviser susan rice, former dev if i fbi director andrew mccabe and former cia national security agent michael hayden. comey and mccabe no longer have clearances, but that small, important detail didn't stop the white house from attacking them. in any case, here is what the white house said about it at all. >> when you have the highest level of security clearance, when you're the person that holds the nation's deepest, most

sacred secrets at your hands, and you go out and you make false accusations against the president of the united states, he thinks that is a -- something to be very concerned with. >> keeping them honest, for an administration that makes false and misleading statements about people all the time, and for a president who has been documented as uttering falsehoods at the rate of several per day, that's a little rich by itself. but wait -- she went on. there's more. >> the president is exploring these mechanisms to remove security clearance because they politicized and in some cases actually monetized their public service and their security clearances in making baseless accusations of improper contact with russia or being influenced by russia or being influenced by russia against the president is extremely inappropriate. >> so politicizing and monetizing their public service and security clearances. pot, meet kettle. though it's hard to point to a specific instance in which the president has openly traded on

specific intelligence that only he is privy to, he certainly has at almost every juncture possible sought to politicize the business of intelligence gathering, or coopt it. here is his first big appearance as president. >> the military gave us tremendous percentages of votes. we were unbelievably successful in the election with getting the vote of the military, and probably almost everybody in this room voted for me, but i will not ask you to raise your hands if you did. but i would guarantee a big portion. because we're all on the same wavelength, folks. we're all on the same wavelength. >> well, the stars on the wall you see behind him are each member of the cia killed in service to the country, or maybe just a campaign backdrop. you can decide for yourselves. that may seem normal now, but at the time, it shocked a lot of people. until then, the president had never treated career intelligence officers, who are trained to stay away from partisan politics, as

presidential or political. he does consider them political operators and rivals. by our latest count, the president has spoken in political and nonflattering terms about intelligence or members of the intelligence community at least 262 times on twitter since launching his presidential run. and we found those only after looking for a couple of hours this afternoon. but again, politicizing intelligence, that's one thing. it's bad, except that it's when it's members of his campaign and later his administration, then it seems for the president, it's okay. for instance, here's former defense intelligence agency director michael flynn on the campaign trail. and no, no, no, nothing political here at all. >> lock her up! lock her up! >> lock her rup, that's right. lock her up. i'm going to tell you what, it's unbelievable. it's unbelievable. >> unbelievable.

no doubt when he said that, some people took his words more seriously, because after all, as a former intelligence official, he must know things that they don't. no problem trading on that politically, nor apparently does the president have a problem with using the likes of house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes for all kinds of shenanigans to try to manipulate the russian investigation. we'll have more on nunes shortly as yet another claim of his collides with the facts. but right now, cnn national security analyst james clapper, and given the partisan attacks on him, i want to take a moment and walk you through his ample nonpartisan resume. he served as director over intelligence during the obama, as director of intelligence agency under the first president bush and bill clinton. general clapper joined the air force in 1963, served two tours of combat and was the recipient of an air force distinguished service medals, and three distinguished service medals for national intelligence. more recently, he is the author of "facts and fears: hard truths from a life in intelligence."

so, general clapper, you actually learned about this, i understand, in real-time, while you were watching the white house briefing today, about them trying to take away a security clearance from you. i'm wondering what went through your mind when you heard that and now that you've had some time to digest that, where are you at with all this? >> well, yeah, that's how i learned about it, just like everybody else. i had no prior official notification that my clearance was under consideration for revocation. so it was quite amazing. i didn't know what to make of it at first and was a bit speechless, to tell you the truth. i think after having reflected on it, to me, i think this is a real abuse of the clearance system, just to use it to attack political opponents, or people that have been critical of the president, and, you know, is that now going to become a criterion for attaining a

clearance anywhere in the government? is a pledge of loyalty to president trump? and of course it has all kinds of first amendment implications which are deeply disturbing. >> that's the kind of concern a ripple effect something like this might actually have. that's the message it sends, that if you speak out against the president, you can have your security clearance removed. if you toe the line, if you're devin nunes hustling to the white house in the middle of the night, then you're okay. >> well, or what else might the president decide we're not entitled to? retired pay? medical benefits? where does this stop? just as a way of, again, retaliating against political opponents. and, you know, i won't go into all the ironies here, anderson. i think you covered that pretty well in your opening. >> cnn is reporting that the president is actually pleased with how all of this is playing

out. that it's a new way for him to make the deep state argument, which the president believes fires up his base, probably he thinks distracts from the deafening silence on what actually happened in that closed door meeting with vladimir putin seven days ago, which we still don't know about. the irony of all of this is that the white house is accusing you of politicizing intelligence when, in fact, as we talked about, you know, this president seems to have in problem politicizing it when it is to his ends. >> exactly. and that's one of the many implications here that, as you alluded, all kinds of ironies here. i mean, this is a classic do as i say, not as i do. >> you know, last week, after many contortions, the president finally said that russia did meddle in the 2016 election, but then, you know, initially when he read the statement, he ad-libbed and it could have been other people. there were a lot of people out there. then he did basically come out and say it. fast forward to yesterday. he tweeted that russian

interference, quote, is all a big hoax, which then sarah sanders tried to clean up today by saying, well, he's only referring to the claims of collusion. do you buy that? he's said this time and time and time again. of people are getting -- i am, t certainly, getting a bad case of whiplash, in trying to figure out the statements, the back ped amming and then the corrections. it's very, very confusing. and the issue, i guess, is, when it comes down to it, the president cannot accept the fact that there was meddling by the russians and that that causes questions to be raised about the legitimacy of his election. and when we first briefed him about our findings about russian meddling in early january of 2017, that was kind of his reaction, and he hasn't changed since.

so he really has a schizophrenic reaction here. i think the other problem is conflating the russian meddling with collusion. and they really are two different things. >> right. >> the russian meddling is a profound threat to this country, and it is really disturbing when the commander in chief won't consistently recognize it. >> yeah. the idea that the white house, i mean, how much cleanup have they had to do in the last seven days when only if -- if only we knew what he had actually talked about one-on-one with vladimir putin, who knows how much of that would have to be cleared up or cleaned up by the white house, but there is no cleaning up because nobody knows what was talked about. director clapper, thank you. appreciate talking to you. chief political analyst gloria borger joins us now, along with steve hall and carrie cordero. is this a well planned out and thought out idea? two of the people at the white house were looking to revoke his

security clearance to don't even have a security clearance, mccabe and comey. but does this seem thought out the you? >> no. i mean, what does seem thought out lately, these days? >> that's true. >> no, not at all. i mean, it seems to me that the president had a meeting with senator rand paul earlier today who suggested that, you know, he didn't like what brennan had been saying about the president and that he ought to have his security cleesarance revoked. and so, they had a conversation, and then after that, at some point, i guess the president decided that would be a really good idea and decided to add other people, his so-called public enemies list. at least nixon's was private. this is out here. of his critics and added this. and then sarah sanders gets a question. she is completely prepared for it, by the way, a list of people, and i think this is something the president just decide he wanted to do to stick it to them, to tell you the truth. >> steve, i mean, the president

can technically do this, i assume, but from a strategic standpoint, do you think it's a smart idea? how do you think merely putting this on the idea will be received in the intelligence community? >> well, anderson, you know, it's -- the morale in the intelligence community right now is -- there's got to be some difficult times going on, because, of course, this president has been very consistent with attacking the intelligence community. i was, you know, i was reminded by your lead-in piece there about the president standing in front of the wall of stars at cia headquarters, and i remember thinking how inappropriate it was for him to basically make another campaign speech there. that said, cia and all the other intelligence community members, there is a cross section of society. he's got supporters on both sides. let me just say, i've met and served under all of these men that the president is now essentially disparaging, at least on the cia side, and, you know, the integrity and the professionalism and the patriotism there is just unquestioned.

we're not a political group of people. we don't -- it's just not the way it works. i've served on a lot of developing countries, and this is the way it works there. you get a new president, you get a new prime minister. they look at the guys that they don't like politically anymore, and they pull their clearances or they pull their salaries or throw them into jail. so, this is -- this is very, in my view, you know, something that's very common in developing countries, but unfortunately, the united states ought not to be doing these types of things. >> yeah, i mean, carrie, the administration is thinking of doing these because these people have politicized intelligence, i mean, which is almost laughable if it wasn't so kind of just serious and sad, i guess. to steve's point, this is the kind of stuff you think about happening, i don't know, under mugabe in zimbabwe or some part of the world where democracy is not as prized as, you know, and dissent isn't as allowed and transparency isn't prized as it is, supposedly, here.

>> yeah, that's right, anderson. i think it's worth us taking a minute to pause on why it is that these intelligence community leaders have been speaking out, because that's really what this is. the president has identified individuals, most of those on the list who have been in some way critical of him, and the reason i think that former senior intelligence community professionals, particularly those as steven says are not normally individuals who would speak out publicly or who would engage publicly. the reason they've done it, which is the same way i feel as a former national security lawyer in government, is because we have spent years or decades of our lives working on matters involving foreign adversaries, repressive regimes, the taliban, terrorist organizations, russia, north korea, all these other countries that don't have the rights that we have and the press freedoms and are not transparent and lie to their citizens.

and so, i think that that really has been a motivation for these former intelligence community leaders who normally would not be engaging publicly, i don't think, in the way that we are seeing them. >> yeah, i mean, steve, it's a really important point that carrie just made, that yes, it is not normal for former heads of the cia and other agencies in parts of the intelligence community to be forward like this. but i don't think it says anything about them or their patriotism. in fact, i think it says a lot about their genuine concern that they have. i don't think any of them like being front and center and speaking out like this. >> anderson, i can tell you for me, it's -- and certainly, i'm not former director of the cia, but i can tell you for me, it was a hard thing to be able to have to learn to sit down in front of a television camera or speak to journalists because your entire career you're told, look, you're the silent warriors. you're on the dark side.

you are not going to talk about any of your activities. so, it is not at all a natural or easy thing to do, and you get a lot of criticism for it, as well. it would be really easy for a guy like jim clapper, who i hold in the highest regard, to basically say look, i'm going to have a nice quiet retirement after, what is it, 60 years of service? the guy's been around forever, being a patriot. maybe write a book. a lot of people write a book to include past presidents, to include the current president, and just sort of relax and take it easy in retirement as opposed to opening himself up to this type of criticism and denigration. and instead, he said, no, it's important that i speak out about this, because i understand it and other people who are not, you know, who are lay people need to understand it, too. that's certainly the way i feel about it and i think it's the way these guys feel about it, too. that's an excellent point that carrie made. it's remarkable that all these folks are standing up, senior intelligence leaders and speaking out like this. >> gloria, how much of this white house putting this out front and center is to take attention away from the stories

they think are damaging them, certainly from the week they've had of the president's saying things and them having to correct it and the whole thing with helsinki? >> i'm sure part of it is. look, the president is a master at changing the subject, you know, with a tweet. he did that this morning, you know, with iran, for example. we were talking about going to war with iran this morning, now we're onto this. i think for the president, this fits into his deep state narrative, that the deep state has been against him from day one, and the deep state not only being the obama administration, but people who served before obama, and these are people who had been outspoken against him because he takes everything personally, because they believe he is not taking the russian spying seriously enough, and so i think this fits into his general sort of i didn't like the justice department, either, now it may be better because my people are there.

i didn't like the intelligence community, maybe now it's better because my people are there. so, this is -- you know, this is part of his whole thing of saying, it was them against us. and of course intelligence should never be that way. >> yeah. >> intelligence operatives are not partisan. >> gloria borger, steve hall, carrie cordero, thanks very much. coming up next, attorney michael avenatti on the additional tapes he says michael cohen made of donald trump, and what happened when he and cohen met at dinner recently. could they actually work together? i'll talk to him than. later, my interview with tia coleman. the incredible story of that sinking duck boat in missouri. tia lost her husband, her three children and five other family members in the blink of an eye. her strength and her faith is extraordinary. so is the outpouring of support she's getting. you'll hear from her ahead on "360."

sometimes a day at the ballpark is more than just a day at the ballpark. stadium pa : all military members stand and be recognized. sometimes fans cheer for those who wear a different uniform. no matter where or when you served, t-mobile stands ready to serve you. that's why we're providing half off family lines to all military. stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs.

then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com but it's tough to gete enough of their nutrients. start winning today. new one a day with nature's medley is the only complete multivitamin with antioxidants from one total serving of fruits and veggies try new one a day with nature's medley. chicken! that's right, chicken?! candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

just for a shot. but why go back there when you can stay homefice with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $25 per dose with copay card. but behr premium stain y can weather any weather.

overall #1 rated, weathers it all. find our most advanced formula exclusively at the home depot. well, esurance makes it simple and affordable. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.

well, federal prosecutors are saying the fbi seized a dozen audio recordings made by president trump's former personal lawyer michael cohen. now, a source says this includes a recording between mr. trump and cohen discussing a payment made to karen mcdougal, a former "playboy" model who said she had a month's long affair with trump before he became president. the president of course denies the affair. a key figure in all this is attorney michael avenatti who represents adult film star stormy daniels, who also said she had an affair with donald trump, which he also denies. michael avenatti joins me now. so michael, only one of these 12 tapes include a conversation between president trump and michael cohen that we know about. you said yesterday that you know there are more tapes of president trump that michael cohen recorded, that there are in fact multiple tapes of the president. are you absolutely 100% sure on that? how do you know that? >> well, i don't know which 12 tapes have now been turned over. i believe that there are recordings beyond 12, anderson, and i know for a fact that there

is more than one recording between michael cohen and donald trump. as i sit here right now, i don't know which specific 12 we're talking about or the press is reporting on. so i can't comment as to whether within those 12 there is more than one with the president's voice on it. >> do you know are there ones -- you said you know there are other ones with the president. it was reported there were ones of hangups or voicemail saying, hey, call me back. do you know that -- do you know for a fact there are actually conversation, other conversations that michael cohen recorded with the president? >> yes, there is more than one recording of a conversation that michael cohen had with the president. >> and you can't say how you know that? >> i'm not willing, and i can't say how i know it, but it is a fact, just as i've said that there was more than one recording that was seized in connection with the raids or the execution of the search warrants, i should say. >> do you believe there are recorded conversations between

president and michael cohen discussing the payment made to your client stormy daniels? because obviously the one conversation that we know about is related to karen mcdougal. >> that i do not know, but i do believe within the collection of recordings, and again, i don't know if it's within the 12 recordings, but i believe that there are recordings. i know there are recordings between michael cohen and keith davidson relating to my client. >> cnn has been reporting today that you ran into michael cohen at a restaurant and you pitched cohen on working together against president trump at that encounter. is that, in fact, true? >> well, part of it's true. i ran into michael cohen at a restaurant called scalinatella. it was last monday night in new york. he and i had a very lengthy and cordial and frank discussion. we agreed to follow up with subsequent communications. i'm not going to get into the details of what we discussed, but the reporting suggesting that i pitched him on teaming up against donald trump is

absolutely false. that's not what happened. subsequent to that communication, i've had multiple communications with brent blakley and lanny davis, both attorneys with michael cohen. at no point in time did anyone complain that my communication with michael cohen was improper or otherwise for the simple reason that it wasn't. it was not improper. in fact, it was a very cordial discussion and i thought it was very productive. >> do you believe, though, that you could work with michael cohen? because obviously in your representation for stormy daniels, you know, you've been very tough on michael cohen publicly. you've said that there has been an evolution of your position towards cohen recently. can you explain that? >> i don't know if we can work with michael cohen or not, anderson. i guess that's the easiest way for me to say it. the only way that we're going to cooperate with michael cohen or have him cooperate with us is if he makes it clear that he is truly ready to do the right thing, that if he is truly ready to release the documents,

release the recordings, come clean with the american people and talk about what he knows about the president, what he knows about the coverup, what he knows about the payment to my client and otherwise. if he's not ready to do that or is unwilling to do it, we're going to continue to do what we're doing. we're going to keep him as a defendant in the cases, and we're going get to the bottom of this. >> stormy daniels has made an allegation that somebody threatened her years ago. she believes it was somebody from the trump team, though there is no direct evidence at this point of who that person was, or, frankly, no direct evidence that that occurred other than stormy daniels saying that it occurred. if you were to work with michael cohen and there was some there there, i assume that would be something, if he had any knowledge of that, that would be something you would insist he come forward about. >> 100%. that would be a precondition to us doing anything relating to cooperating with michael cohen

or having him cooperate with us. we would need to know exactly what happened relating to that incident in vegas, which my client has been very clear about, unequivocal that it happened. i believe her 100%. that's one example, anderson, of a number of examples that we would need to get to the bottom of. another would be the payment of the $130,000, how that money flowed, was there an agreement for reimbursement, did he discuss with donald trump the campaign finance violation potential? there is a long list of answers that we would need to get before we agreed to do anything with michael cohen. >> michael avenatti, appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. there has been a short delay announced in the upcoming trial of paul manafort, president trump's former campaign chief. the judge in the case says the new date is july 31st. the trial had been scheduled to begin on wednesday. in addition, the judge has granted immunity to five witnesses the prosecution has called. evan perez joins me now with details. evan, you spent the day in the courtroom. why has the trial been delayed?

>> well, it's because the prosecution only turned over about 120,000 pages of documents in the past month to the manafort defense team. and so, the judge said that they could use an extra week in order to prepare for trial. anderson, there's a lot of documents that have to do with laptops and phones and ipads that belong to rick gates, who is paul manafort's business partner, who has now pleaded guilty in this case. >> and what about the five witnesses who have been given immunity? >> so, this is a case that focuses on bank and tax fraud charges. and so these people worked for the bank and for the bookkeeping firm that was handling paul manafort's business for many years. and so, they're being provided limited immunity so that they can come in andch the against paul manafort and also so they don't have to plead the fifth amendment to protect their own legal rights and so they can't be charged for anything they say related to this case, anderson. >> and i understand the judge talked about jury selection today. >> that's right.

the judge made clear that he is going to steer clear of any issues related to russian collusion, any issues related to president trump, and he specifically said that he will not be asking the jurors who they voted for in the 2016 election. >> interesting. evan, thanks very much. appreciate it. coming up, there is an etiquette to twitter. when you type something in all capital letters, it means you're really, really mad. just ahead, a look at president trump's all caps tweet on iran, and if, in fact, he is really, really angry. details ahead. hi, kids! i'm carl and i'm a broker. do you offer $4.95 online equity trades? great question. see, for a full service brokerage like ours, that's tough to do. schwab does it.

next question. do you offer a satisfaction guarantee? a what now? a satisfaction guarantee. like schwab does. man: (scoffing) what are you teaching these kids? ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs, backed by a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab.

if you don't like their answer, any paint can change the way a room looks. but only one can change how it feels. century, from benjamin moore, is the first-ever soft touch matte finish paint. its revolutionary texture unlocks 75 unprecedented colors, each with exquisite depth and richness. it's a difference you can see, touch, and feel. that's proudly particular. century. only at select local paint and hardware stores. century. i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network.

just as he returned to the white house from a weekend at his new jersey golf resort, president trump unleashed an all caps tweet against iran. to iran, president rouhani, the president wrote, "never, ever threaten the united states again or you will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout the history have ever suffered before. we are no longer a country that will stand for your commented demented words of violence and death. be cautious." the president was responding to earlier remarks from the iranian president, which he said any war with iran would be, quote, the mother of all wores, unquote. but as soon as he sent out that tweet, he said there's one world

later who is never in the line of the president's twitter fire, that, of course, would be vladimir putin, the same putin that leads the country that attacks the u.s. elections. there is that and one week on we still don't know the details of what happened in that two hour plus helsinki meeting between the two men. today at the white house press briefing, cnn white house correspondent kaitlan collins kept pressing. >> has the president briefed his national security adviser, his secretary of state, the director of national intelligence and the defense secretary on what exactly was said between him and president putin? >> the president has met and spoken with all of those individuals since his meeting with president putin. >> when he briefs them, is he relying solely on his own memory to tell them what happened during that two-hour meeting? >> the president has met and consulted with all of his national security team, and we feel very confident in the process. >> based on what he remembers -- >> kaitlan, i'm not going to go on the specific details on how the president interacts every single time with his national security team.

>> but this is a sit-down with the russian president. >> it's actually not a rarity. it's a normal practice for two world leaders to be able to have a conversation with one another. >> but not the president of russia. >> actually, it is kind of a rarity to have a two-hour plus meeting with vladimir putin without other people being in the room. joining me to help deconstruct, cnn global affairs analyst max boot. it was interesting to hear the repeated answer or response, because it wasn't really an answer, it was response. she said that the president has met with his national -- individuals of his national security team. she did not say that he had briefed any of them on what was discussed with vladimir putin. >> well, that's exactly right, anderson. and i commend you for keeping your attention on this story, because what you're seeing today at the white house is basically operation distraction. they're trying to take our attention away from russia to talk about security clearances for former officials, to talk about iran. the last thing they want to talk about is russia, because it's so embarrassing, this submissive performance by donald trump with

vladimir putin. and we still don't know exactly what they discussed behind closed doors. in fact, the u.s. government will probably never know, at least from our side, because it's doubtful that trump even remembers everything that occurred or that he would give a full and accurate readout to his own officials. in fact, probably the best way for the u.s. government to find out what happened is to intercept communications among russian officials talking about this meeting. >> well, there would actually be a danger if the president went on the record publicly saying what was discussed and then it turned out that isn't what was discussed or it was opposite or different than what was actually discussed and it turned out the russians have a recording, say, of actually what was discussed. >> absolutely. i mean, you worry about the president being compromised by russia, something that jim clapper and john brennan and other intelligence officials suspect actually happened. well, the reality is that if it's happened in the past, it's probably getting worse, and meetings like this contribute to giving vladimir putin the upper hand, because, undoubtedly, he

has a transcript of what tran transpired behind closed doors and the u.s. government does not. so just as you said, putin has the option of strategically leaking excerpts from these meetings that directly contradict whatever donald trump says. so, this is why presidents don't normally put themselves in this position. they have a third party to attest to what happened. and trump didn't, which itself is highly suspicious, because it suggests that he did not trust his own aides to sit in on his communications with vladimir putin. >> it's so interesting, you know, what you suggest, this idea that he is tweeting suddenly tough talk, trying to be a tough guy, vis-a-vis iran in a tweet, or, you know, talking about taking away the security clearances of former intelligence officials and national security officials and fbi officials, even though there is two fbi officials already had their -- lost their national security clearance when they left the security clearance. >> he is going to grant them a security clearance just so he can take it away again. >> to take it away again. but i mean, the idea that -- it is a classic move by president trump to try to distract.

and we've seen this time and time again. when things aren't going well, you lob a molotov cocktail in one corner of the room and everyone runs over there and looks at it and ignores all the stuff that's been going on that hasn't reflected well on the administration. >> yeah, and sadly, it works, because we in the media, we need fresh news to chew over. and when the president says something, by definition, that is inherently newsworthy. when he makes war-like threats against iran, you have to report that, but at the same time, you're also inadvertently furthering his agenda, because that's what he wants to talk about now. >> you also look what happened last year with north korea going to fire and fury to a summit with kim jong-un to, that there is no more security threat from north korea to now things, you know, the timetable now just seems to be kind of moving, and there is no rush on denuclearization. i mean, could the president's rhetoric toward iran be an attempt to have some sort of unlikely kim-like summit with rouhani, or do you think that's sort of too much three dimensional chess and this is

just, hey, look at the new shiny object over here? >> no, thing is that element of trump trying to repeat what he sees as a north korea triumph. now, why he sees that as a triumph, i have no idea, because it's obvious the north koreans did not make any real concess n concessions, all the concessions were on the u.s. side. so all of the tough talk about rocket man and fire and fury, it didn't actually work. but trump seems to live in this alternative reality where he scored a massive triumph in singapore and wants to repeat it elsewhere. that's why it's hard to take his rhetoric against iran seriously and why i think, you know, his bellicose talk is losing its effectiveness, because, you know, in the last year and a half, we have seen that he is not actually launching wars, that he does not follow up on his war-like threats, which is probably just as well, but it also means that the iranians don't necessarily fear that he's going to attack them, because i think they would anticipate that based on the past, that within a year, if events hold true to form, trump will be praising rouhani as wonderful, smart,

great, witty personality that loves his country. so trump is kind of the president who keeps crying wolf. >> yeah. as a powerful leader perhaps. max boot, thanks very much. just ahead, plenty more to come tonight, including something we've literally never seen before. the for the first time, the public is getting to see some of the inner workings of the fisa court who decides the government may conduct electronic surveillance on. as you know, the house intelligence committee chairman has been taking issue with some of its warrants. now for the first time we have documents, court documents. and you might be surprised to learn what they say. that's coming up next. also tonight, only she and her nephew survived the disaster that took nine family members. it's just unthinkable, losing nine of your family members. tia coleman talks to me tonight about what she is going through and the faith that sustains her.

( ♪ ) stop dancing around the pain that's keeping you awake. advil pm gives tossing and turning a rest and silences aches and pains. fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer with advil pm. fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer when it comes to strong bones, are you on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors we chose prolia® to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing;

throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger isn't it time for a new direction? why wait? ask your doctor about prolia.

well, esurance makes finding the right coverage easy. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.

for a guy who claims to have had almost nothing to do with russia, carter page has played at least one major role. he has been in many ways the first so-called victim in trump's demonology of the russia probe. now in the president's view, the surveillance warrants targeting him, carter page, were kind of

original sin, obtained, say the president and others, under false pretenses which tainted everything else. now, that was a view trumpeted by congressman devin nunes, and it's an easy case to make, when hard facts are in short supply. he made it loudly on fox news and in committee statements, echoed by the president and members of the gop. not here, though. he won't come on the program, even though we invite him on a regular basis. over the weekend we got hard facts. the 412 pages supporting documents for warrants against carter page, and keeping them honest, they're not kind of congressman nunes' claims, as to his claim that fbi was biased in seeking to monitor page, the documents give a very good reason. according to the filing, the fbi had evidence that page was, quote, the subject of targeted recruitment by the russian government, and four republican appointed judges agreed. republican-appointed judges. the documents also undermine nunes' claims that the steele dossier was why the government sought the warrants and the political motivations behind the

dossier were concealed from the court. they show the court was informed. in short, even these highly redacted documents, and they are highly redacted, have enough in them to discredit much of the case that nunes has been making. the question is what does the chairman have to say about it? since he won't join us tonight, we asked cnn n ncnn's manu raju to him. what did he say or not say? >> he didn't want to engage, anderson. this has really been a pattern for devin nunes ever since he temporarily stepped aside from running the russia investigation last year facing a swarm of controversy. and reporters have a lot of questions for him, given the fact that his actions are highly consequential. they get the president riled up. it's an apparent effort to undermine the russia investigation, undermine the mueller investigation. but today when i tried to ask him specifically, do you still stand by all of the contents of your memo, despite what was seen, the underlying facts of this carter page fisa application, instead, he attacks

cnn. >> do you really think i'm going to talk to the leading democratic party propaganda? >> that was it? that's all he got? >> that's pretty much it. i mean, and afterwards, i tried to ask him specifically, anderson, whether or not he actually read that surveillance warrant application -- >> there's a lot of reports that he actually doesn't read a lot of the things, the documents he has requested. and we reported that earlier this year too, despite his requests, he does not read those. he relies on trey gowdy, the republican, to read it instead. and he acknowledged not reading this same document earlier this year when he wrote his memo that was based on the underlying -- the application to surveil carter page. he would not answer that question today, anderson, said that i was ignoring the criticism that he was trying to level against cnn and he walked out of the house floor, not wanting to engage any further. >> do we know why he doesn't read and why he relies on trey gowdy to read? >> he has never quite answered

that question either, anderson. i've asked that directly to him. and again, instead of engaging, he just attacks and relies on gowdy instead to do that work. >> yeah, well, fascinating, manu. i appreciate the attempt. thank you very much. i want to check with chris cuomo to see what he's working on for the top of the hour. chris, you read, right? >> when i can. if the words aren't too big, then i call you. >> you rely on blitzer to read. >> we have gone through this stuff, anderson, so we're going to test what the materials that came out about the fisa application show and don't show. we're also going to get very deep into what's happening with iran right now in the united states. we have a theory that there is a play being made by the president that isn't being seen by most to this point. and another black man has been shot dead in florida, this time over a parking space. the law there has been changed recently to make it even easier to kill without consequence. we're taking this on with mr. zimmerman's defense counsel,

mike o'mara, and we're going to get to the bottom of where that law is headed. that's what we've got. >> chris, that's in about 12 minutes from now. thank you very much. coming up, when the duck boat capsized during a storm in missouri, you saw the video and it was just a horrific tragedy for the loved ones of the 17 people that didn't make it out alive. for one woman, the loss is simply unimaginable. nine members of her family didn't survive. only she and her nephew survived. her name is tia coleman. she's incredibly brave. i spoke with her tonight. that's next. >> i was so disoriented, and i couldn't see anything. so i just started pushing with my hands, trying to find a way out. and i felt somebody push my leg. um -- and i couldn't find any of my family.

today the coast guard raised the duck boat that capsized in a

storm last week to the surface of table rock lake in missouri. 17 people, as you know, died in the storm. the scope of the tragedy is affecting so many lives, and one person's life in a way that's really almost impossible to even comprehend. tia coleman is her name. ten of her family members were on that boat taking a tour of the lake during a family vacation. only she and her nephew made it out alive. her husband, her three children, and five other members of her family all drowned. i spoke with tia coleman earlier tonight on full circle, our new nightly show on facebook. i heard you say that, you know, your house was always full of kisses, was always full of the patter of little feet. >> uh-huh. yeah. i have a very close-knit family on both sides. my in-laws and my direct family. and we always celebrated birthdays together, christmas. i celebrated almost every day.

and they really loved to be around their family, so there was always happiness in my home, and it was something that was key to me when starting a family. i wanted to be able to have in-laws where we got along, where we all -- where it wasn't, you know, any separation. they were still my family. i wouldn't say those are my in-laws. i would say this is my family. and i felt like i was just truly blessed to have that, to have, you know, two families. sme people don't have one, and i had two families. >> if it's not too hard, and if you don't want to, i certainly understand. can you just try to walk us through what happened? i mean i know the boat started to take on water. i know that they had said there was a storm coming. >> mm-hmm. >> they had mentioned life jackets, but they didn't tell people to put life jackets on in advance. when the water started coming in the boat, what happened?

>> when we first got out to the water, we were so excited because it was hot. it was really hot. and we -- they told us a storm was coming. they told us to make sure we get out to the water first. and it was fine at first, and then it started getting rocky and started -- you know, but water was splashing inside the boat. but as we had been told, the boat can take on up to 18-foot waves. it was 18 to 20 feet, i believe. so it wasn't really scary. we were also told that there are life jackets, and they're above you, but you don't need to know where they are because you won't need to use them. so we didn't. we were told to stay seated in our seats, and we -- from what i can see, the boat -- the people on the boat did what they were

supposed to do. >> do you remember getting tossed into the water? >> it was two to three of us to a seat per the instructions. so i was in the very front seat, and my oldest son, who is on the autism spectrum, was very excitable. so i wanted to make sure i could keep a hold of him where if he saw anything or he got splashed with water. and my baby was asleep, and my husband was holding her. then my middle son was right next to him. so as the first big wave came in, it looked like from what i could tell, it looked like the water just came into the boat, but then it washed out the back. but when the last big wave came in, i lost -- i lost hold of my

baby, and i didn't know the boat had capsized. i thought he just went under. and i jumped up and immediately started floating, and i hit my head on -- i got pretty banged up. i was so disoriented, and i couldn't see anything, so i just started pushing with my hands, trying to find a way out. and i felt somebody push -- push my leg, and i couldn't find any of my family. and i swam, and i swam, and it seemed like the more i swam, the farther in the water i got. and it was so cold. it was so cold, and i remember

just praying, saying, lord, let me get to my babies. let me get to my babies. and i -- i couldn't get to them. and i just let go. i said, if i can't get to them, just let me go. just let me go. if i can't get to my family, let me go. and i let go, and then i felt myself floating. and i felt the water warm up. so i knew i was getting closer to the surface. and then when i came to, there were people that had -- they were throwing out life vests off of a big riverboat. we were next to a big riverboat. they were throwing off life vests and people started jumping in the water. and i just remember them dragging me out because i was trying to just stay -- i was trying to stay afloat, but the water was so heavy, and it kept pushing me back down.