after days of battling claims from omarosa, the white house chose to announce the president revoked the security clearance of john brennan and reviewing the status of nine others. all officials the president clearly dislikes for comments made or actions taken. what the president did is about national security and not about silencing critics, they say. let's look at who they are singling out. john brennan has been critical of the president and james comey as has been michael hayden, also a cnn contributor. acting attorney general sally yates, he fired her and rails against obama's security adviser

susan rice and the same for andrew mccabe, lisa page, and bruce orr. everyone on that list is a critic or someone the president locked horns with, a point not lost in the white house briefing room. >> how can americans not interpret that as a getting back against his critics and isn't it also an attempt to curtail the freedom of speech by penalizing them for being critical? >> not at all. the president has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it. he is fulfilling that responsibility. this is specific to mr. brennan and the others are currently under review. >> keeping him honest, we are learning intelligence officials are not involved in the president's decision, not the top ranking official. jim schutto learned that dan

coates was not consulted on the brennan decision and whoever had to proof read the president's statement was taken off good. they missed this. it's dated the 26th of last month suggesting the president meat the decision back then, but waited until now to make it public. the white house blames a cut and paste error and claimed no the to know. it raises the possibility that the president was waiting for the right moment such as before the verdict in the paul manafort case or in the middle of the fight with omarosa. was this an effort to change the subject away from the allegations that she made? we will talk more about our guest about that shortly. to the point about whether this is about pay back or not, they were given a chance to provide evidence that there was a procedure being followed and standards being applied. here's how that played out asking sarah sanders against

john brennan that he misled congress in 2014. >> you outlined two areas of contradictory or erroneous testimony from brennan. is that the only standard by which this administration is asserting he should have his security clearance revoked? >> again, i laid out the reasons in the opening statement. specific to director brennan. the others are currently under review. >> my question is, is that the standard. you have to c et cetera it at a certain date in the future. does that mean you could lose your security clearance? >> this is on a case by case basis. this is why each is being reviewed. >> it's hard to know what to glean from that except they are offering a test for who gets the clearance. the bill of particulars seems to draw from his own vocal

criticism of the president. >> mr. brennan recently leveraged his status as a former high ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the television about this administration. his recent conduct by increasingly frenzied content with access to the most closely held secrets, the very aim of our adversaries which is to sew division and chaos. it should be in national and not personal interest. >> lying and making unfounded allegations is bad. like saying the former of the united states is not born in america or wire tapped trump tower. also bad are wild outbursts on the internet and television. saying this is clearly out. when you give a low life a break

and give her a job at the white house. good work for general kelly for quickly firing that dog. >> for instance, you wouldn't want anyone to share classified information when they come to visit like the president did, nor is it probably a good idea to sit for more than two weeks on word that your national security adviser may be compromised while all the while he retains access to the deepest secrets which is what happened. here's how sale yates described it to me. her warning to don mcgahn about the evidence against michael flynn. >> i said i had a very sensitive matter i needed to discuss that day and it needed to be in person. >> when you met, were you in his office? >> his office is a skiff. >> it's unusual to have the

acting attorney general coming over and doing this on urgent notice? >> sure. mr. mcgahn got it. he knew it was serious and important. >> you wanted the white house to act. >> absolutely, yes. we expected the white house to act. >> did you expect them to act quickly? >> yes. >> there was urgency to the information. >> yes. >> sally yates gave the warning on january 26th and flynn stepped down on the 13th of february. for more than two weeks, he might pose a threat to national security and chose to do nothing. he is said to be under review by the administration, retired air force agent, michael hayden. what he is basically threatening to do to you and others. >> so first of all with regard to john, it was personal and it was vindictive. frankly it was an overall

judgment that john was being somewhat effective. i'm here at dulles and i have been traveling all day. the tape you played of sarah sanders describing why the president did it, i can translate for you, anderson. john brennan's life experience gives him legitimacy to say a lot of the things he is saying and the white house couldn't stand for that. you have got the misuse of power with regard to john. now the others, myself included, that was a threat that was put out there from the white house press room. in essence, we are under review. that's simply telling us we are all being watched. we need to be careful. i don't think that's going to affect any of us, but the fact that the threat was made is disappointing. finally, one final thing. this is a big one, one that matters. the white house just messaged the entire american intelligence

community. if you stand up and say things that upset the president or with which he disagrees, he will punish you. that is a horrible message to send to folks who are there to tell you objective truth. >> let's drill down on the last point. it's a very important one and one maybe that got lost in the coverage today. plain the role of what officials are supposed to be doing for the president just in terms of giving the president information that the president may not want to hear. if they suddenly are afraid, that can have a big impact and potentially negative impact? >> yeah. and to be fair to this president, it happens to all presidents. we call at this time phenomenon of the unpleasant fact. you go in with something that cuts across the president's policy, politics, preferences or personality, you better be ready to stand your ground and that's

always hard. what we just saw here is a president who seems to be willing to punish those people, admittedly all out of government, who want to stand our ground. that's a disservice to himself. he is under cutting the very people who should be able to bring him things. we had serious arguments within the bush administration with regard to iranian weapons of mass destruction and whether or not they stop their nuclear weapons program. deep arguments. the president never, the vice president never tried to dele t delegitimize us. >> can you spline why officials such as yourself retain security clearances or traditionally have. it's not a status symbol or a favor. there is a reason for it. >> yeah. there is.

frankly it's not confined to the most senior levels. there are tens of thousands of folks in my status as retired who retain their clearances for very positive reasons. they go work for industry. they are advisers to the government. they are called in. in my case and i will tell you candidly, i formal lized an informal process by cotifying that directors would have a permanent clearance so i could call on them at any time. the fact that we are being singled out is being tied to our monetizing this or why do these guys have this, it's only the small group they are paying attention to. the universe of people like us is really large and for good reason. >> i think the point of i imagine a lonely position

running the cia, given the amount of information you have access to to call up a former head of the cia and talk about a specific issue from the past that that person may have dealt w that would seem to have value. >> absolutely. in my own life as a retiree, i had the agency call me and say mr. director, do you remember that trip to islamabad in '07, do you remember the meeting with -- the written record is not quite clear and they want to plumb your memory to make sure they have a get position when it comes to talking to the pakastanis. i called folks in and said this one has me stumped. you have seen this before? is this new or is it just new to me? you ask these good folk who is offer you advice. >> the reporting that the president did not consult with

the current director of national intelligence on this, does that surprise you? if this really is a legitimate review based on national security issues, is he somebody looped in? >> yeah. it shocked me and did not surprise me. it shocked me that this would be done without any sense of process. it did not surprise me because frankly i don't want to imply anything. i can't imagine senator coates or any of the other leaders signing on to this for cause. saying this was a good idea because. i'm not surprised at all that they were not consulted. i'm shocked that the white house thought it was okay not to consult them. >> do you think your security clearance is going to be taken away? >> i don't know.

but anderson, i hope this interview is evidence. i don't intend to change what i say or think or write. i will let the chips fall where they may. i had a clearance for about 50 years. and i don't need to keep it in perpetuity until the day i die, particularly if my retaining a clearance would seem to be sending a signal that i somehow accommodated my beliefs to the demands of the current administration. >> i appreciate you getting off the plan and talking to us. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i want to bring in our analyst and david gergen back to richard nixon who had a his of his own enemies. what do you make of president trump today? the back dated statement not with standing, how much is this about changing the subject?

how much of this is having power against his critic or something else? >> the back dating of that statement is important. i don't think it was back dated. i think there tends to be a keystone cop aspect about how this is executed by this administration. it wasn't even looked at. it was fired off. i think part of this is the white house has been really shaken up by the omarosa book. they have seemed unable to get his hands on it. he doesn't know what's on the tapes. being out of control is something that makes him feel very nervous and anxious and uncomfortable. some of this is looking strong as if you are purchanching some else. i can't get clarity about the guideline. what's the rule? i ask the question what is this division based on? you can't have somebody like

this becoming partisan and can't have a prominent national security official with clearance so at odds with the administration engaging in this way. what about michael flynn who chanted lock her up? >> he had a security clearance on fox. >> correct. there is no consistent standard and the line is clear that these are people that general hayden had it correct. they have been critical of the president and or are tied in some way even if it's distant to the dossier while it did not start the russia investigation, the president insists it did. it's impossible to pick one apart. there are reasons to talk about whether people have clearances in perpetuity. this is not how you have that conversation. >> i don't want to dramatize this, but as far as precedent for this in the history of --

obviously people had security clearances revoked. have they ever had them revoked for being a critic of the president? >> everyone is scrambling to find the answer to that. so far no one found that it has. there is no apparent cause here. i think maggie makes an important point that theoretically, there is no reason why when officials leave public service, they should carry their cleanerances with them. they can get a one-day clearance and have a frank conversation, but the way the president goes about these things, as usual, is so ob nuxuous and outrageous and destructive of norms, he tramples upon whatever argument they may have and instead what you have is a clear cut case, i don't think there is

controversy, but he is going after critics to silence and punish them because brennan in particular has been tough on him. what is lost in all of this, i will make one final point. the tradition that they have frequently reached out to the other side and asked for help. asked for wisdom or experience. when john kennedy had his bay of pigs, he called on president eisenhower to help him think it through. bill clinton said the most important adviser he had was none other than richard nixon. they had private conversations going and barack obama, who did he look to for a model of how to do foreign policy? george hb bush and jim baker. all of that has been lost. when you get beyond the trump personality and all of his

obsessions, we are losing something very fundamental. >> everybody knows about president nixon famous for having enemies. is this comparable to that? >> yes, but it's worse. it's hard to make an argument that richard nixon was a threat to the security, the national security of the united states. in this statement from the president and his people, they are saying that brennan's erratic behavior and conduct threatened the national security. it's the erratic behavior and conduct of donald trump that is a threat to the national security through actions such as this and through what we saw in helsinki and through what we saw in the oval office in the presence of the russian ambassador when he revealed national securities. this is a reckless president of the united states with no regard for the rule of law or tradition and for decency in terms of people expressing their

legitimate freedom of speech. this, mr. brennan has a right to freedom of speech. critic or no critic. it shouldn't strip him of the ability to practice his livelihood. he has been a great patriotic american and served presidents of both parties. this is an unheard of, unprecedented action by a retributive president of the united states abusing his authority. >> i want to pick it up after the break because it's an important one. the omarosa story is trump versus lesser trumps. find out what he thinks. the paul manafort case is up to the injury. we will have details of closing arguments and what the judge said after the break.

(thomas) nice choices! you see, now verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plans like you mix and match your flavors. so you get what you want, without paying for things you don't. number 6. i know. where do i put it? in my belly. (vo) one family. different unlimited plans. starting at $40 per line on the network you deserve. i do. check out the new united explorer card.

saving on this! saving on this! saving in here. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com but it's tough to gete enough of their nutrients. 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.

what's critical thinking like? a basketball costs $14. what's team spirit worth? (cheers) what's it worth to talk to your mom? what's the value of a walk in the woods? the value of capital is to create, not just wealth, but things that matter. morgan stanley where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com.

>> before the break, michael hayden offered a sting critique of the decision to pull john brennan's security clearance and threaten that of others. >> that was a threat that was put out there from the white house press room. in essence, we are under review. that's simply telling us we are all being watch and need to be careful. i don't think that will affect any of us, but the fact that the threat was made is disappointing. finally, this is a big one. one that really matters. the white house just messaged the entire american intelligence community. if you stand up and say things that upset the president or with which he disagrees, he will punish you. >> maggie, you just heard them say this is not going to change anything. clapper said the same thing.

how likely is it, do you think, that the president will do to him when they do it john bren n brennan. >> including people who didn't have their clearances anymore, i mentioned this in the previous blog. unfortunately clouds as serious as i think it is aimed at trying and supposed to be an anvil over people's heads. i might do this and might not. you should be careful. since only i the president know where this line is, if you cross it, only i will know. you should be afraid of that. paul ryan when the president started this a couple of weeks ago, the house speaker said he thought the president was trolling people with this. in other words, trying to provoke a reaction. wasn't really serious. what donald trump said gets dismiss side that's how he talks. he clearly said this a few times. if you took out the name

president trump and put in president obama and he did something similar, how quickly would this congress be reacting and calling for a hearing and all sorts of other things. >> how little republicans are reacting right now. the fact that the president said john brennan has displaced erratic conduct and behavior, it would be funny or ironic if it wasn't serious and coming from the president of the united states. >> it's very rich for this white house to be talking about erratic behavior of john brennan and his wild outbursts. it's just unbelievable that they choose those rationals. >> if the president sees a way clear and has a path forward, bring the ax down on the other people, he will do that. he is trying to delegitimize people and minimize their

experience in the public square and wants to take some of the fire if he can and minimize who he is before the mueller report comes down and we have a big new national debate. the more he can get rid of critics, the better from his point of view. john brennan is going to have more access to the airwaves as a result of this. >> do you have any doubt, maggie, you talked about this before, doubt any doubt in part with the announcement of it today is a desire to change the discussion away from omarosa? >> not just omarosa, but when the mueller investigation is closing in on donald trump, his family, and his associates in terms of real collusion and obstruction of justice. it's no accident whatsoever. the other thing what we are seeing is this is what dictators do. this is a dictatorial exercise of power that should frighten

and call on all republicans this to say mr. president, you cannot do this. you are trying to inhibit free speech of people who may be in opposition to you, about you they have a right to express themselves. this is an act of auth oritarianism and his total disregard fur the first amendment when he calls the press the enemy of the people. the bureaucracy that served the nation well through the last 20 or 25 years is also being called enemy of the people by a president whose actions are e him in cal to the people this of country. this is to district from his conduct and behavior which is beyond anything we have seen from any president of the united

states. certainly in my lifetime, including richard nixon. >> what would you make of hayden's raising concerns about the impact it has on others about their willingness to how to speak truth to power when briefing the president and giving information that the president doesn't want to hear. and perhaps willingness and what happens when they leave positions that they can't keep a security clearance for a corporate job or continue a career. >> it's a legitimate concern and you can have a rational discussion about how people are kept when they leave their jobs. that is a separate conversation about whether they might be critical of the person in the seat. i think in terms of the effect it has on people currently there, it could have a chilling effect on how people give him information and how people are

willing to be forth coming and it's an effect on whistle blower who is could be speaking to authorities and the special counsel's investigators and all kinds of people. this is -- we have not seen something like that this that i can remember and it is stunning and will get dismissed as he's trying to change the subject or this is all about omarosa. those things are true, but it's a dramatic escalation from anything we have seen him do. it's a reminder of how much our system is norms, not laws. it's hard to engine congress not acting. paul ryan has been completely silent about this today. >> for this being a big escalation, it's hard to imagine what might happen if the president is cornered in a legal

framework by mueller or in some other way. what norm will then be pushed over. if this is what's happening at this stage, if there actually is more than smoke, if there is fire in these allegations, there is no really telling what direction it's going to potentially lash out at. >> i agree. they go to karl's point. this president has strong au authoritarian instincts and uses animal instincts. we don't know what he's going to do next because he will knock over all the norms. he is destructive. he is contempuous. past traditions and people. this is all about saving him and

preserving his legitimacy. i think we are in very, very unknown territory. i don't think the danger frankly is that of civil servants and national security officials feeling inhibited about talking to the president. that has been out there since the beginning. i think the real issue here is whether the president is going to knock over all the norms and whether the next president is going back to a tradition or we will be in a different place where lying is acceptable and this obnoxious behavior is acceptable. >> thank you very much. whether or not the president's announcement was designed as a distraction, omarosa continues to make headlines, and what her employment in the white house says about the people the president surrounds himself with. what will you discover with a lens made by essilor?

sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down. a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package and get a second pair of qualifying lenses free. essilor. better sight. better life.

tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is your insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup.

everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! for a limited time, when you get fast, reliable internet, you can add voice for just $24.95 more per month. call or go online today. call or go on line today. as we noted, the date listed on the revoked security clearance was made to distract from omarosa making against the white house. they wrote about the fight

against newman and the president carrying the headline, the revenge of the lesser trumps. here with our political commentator, the problem with being donald trump is not just being donald trump, but the lesser trumps and the versions of yourself that you create and the echoes of yourself you inspire. they are devour you in the end. what do you mean by the lesser trumps? who i that are and is he being devoured by them? >> they are trying their best. i'm talking about omarosa and michael cohen and some extent paul manafort. he saw bits of himself in them and turning his lessons against him. as you watch omarosa on the book tour, she reminds you of donald trump meeting out of the revelations and contradicting herself and leaving us to puzzle

through it. knowing that will capture the news cycle. who does that sound like? the president of the united states. that's one of the reasons it is mesmerizing to us and one of the reasons it gets deep under his skin. >> one of the reasons the white house is struggling to figure out how to counter act this. >> and doing a terrible job. would she get the attention she has this week? would her book be at number two the last time i looked if donald trump had not tweeted what he had. he made it worse. >> at least 10 tweets about her. >> he did the same with fire and fury. this is not a strategy and him deciding it's the best course. he is operating on anger and emotion alone. >> tim o'brien who was sued by donald trump. he said donald trump and omarosa are kind red spirits. are there similarities by the way they counter punch the

method they use? >> it's hard to say that omarosa did not have an example of how to be an effective communicator and an example of how to punch hard and didn't have an effective example of the then donald trump when she was a person appearing on the apprentice. from 2004 to 2017, she was attached to the donald trump enterprise and his orbit. she understands. she knows. in the book, she attributes, the first book is attributed to donald trump and the board room and learning for him. there is truth to the fact that she might have learned how to be strong, how to be effective and how to be what she is doing now in terms of manipulating the

media to get what they want. that's what donald trump was known for doing in the past. right now what you see, i don't think these are lesser trumps. i think what you saw and you see are people who signed up because they believed in the president's make america great again agenda. they wanted to serve and were inspired by him. the american people said you know what, if i can have non-traditional people who believe in trying to help make america great again, i will take him over people like the governor of new york who said america was never that great. >> do you believe omarosa was inspired and wanted to serve for the purposes? >> absolutely. absolutely. no question about it. in omarosa's earlier book, she said that she wanted to be -- i think she said she wanted to be a billionaire like him. >> the white house is different than wanting to be a billionaire. >> that's true. she was inspired by his message

and wanted to be effective in opening up the party and take the message to the black community. that's why she signed up to work the campaign. >> what happened? >> she was fired. her feelings were hurt and she realized her money stream was over. she decided to go against him and she was plotting a lot of this along the way because again it's about survival. the president views people and lynn patton said this. he views people in wins and losses. she said i have to win and be number one. >> on the one hand she was a true believer and got in for the right reasons and the firing turned her, but seems like she was playing the ground work for quite a while recording stuff from back in what, 2016? before she was even in the white house. that would seem to indicate a level of fore thought that wasn't just freaking out over being fired. >> i don't want to believe that

the omarosa that i know or that i knew, the omarosa that was talking to the american people and to the black community since 2016 was that diabolical. to be doing that since then. >> all right. >> i don't believe that she was doing that because she was so convincing to me and other people that she believed in this president. >> that are reflects well on you that you don't want to believe that about her, but the evidence from i'm not a student of the celebrity apprentice or whatever she was on, that seemed to be her calling card. after she was fired and i mean she was fasterfumasterful. >> that are is the sunniest spin on omarosa i have heard. i wish i had that kind of

idealism. she is the epitome of an opportunist and she was tape roaring conversations not because she was aboard to make america great again, but she was an opportunist who saw the walls closing in and she wanted protection. >> she has been on talk shows and dissing people from -- this has been her calling card from the get go, hasn't it? >> it has been her calling card, but a lot of people and i think the president felt that when she signed up to be in public service. she signed up to be there again and work on the campaign. it was not omarosa the actress and reality tv star, but omarosa, the person who wants to serve and serve this president. that is what donald trump inspired in people and why so many people came and elected him president. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. up next, a jury is set to begin deliberation on the paul

manafort fraud trail. we will have the both arguments when we continue. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

uby making it easy to verifye you hyour car and driver.ome, uber is moving in a new direction. forward. 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!

deliberations begin tomorrow morning in the case of paul manafort after closing arguments were heard today. he is facing tax evasion and bank charge. the defense didn't call a single witness. they put 3 kwea88 exhibits into evidence. joining us with more, what was the prosecution's closing argument? >> prosecutors stressed two main

themes here today. first of all, paul manafort is not above the law. they repeatedly accused him of lying. they said he lied to the government. he lied to the book keepers. he also lied to the bankers. they said his financial records and e-mails were just littered with lies. lying was the big theme for prosecutors. they also talked about rick gates, paul manafort's former right hand man who since flipped. he is cooperating with the special counsel and they said look, rick gates may not be a boy scout, but the function of rick gates was to corroborate the evidence there in black and white there in the do you means. they said don't believe all of these bad things the defense team is saying about rick gates. take his testimony and match it up with the documents and we believe we proved our case. >> they were pointing out the experience of the do you means and the defense was trying to go after rick gates.

right? >> at one point the defense attorney kevin downing turn to the jury and said point blank, rick gates has been lying to you. the defense is trying to flip this saying the only reason rick gates cooperate side to save himself from prison. they said that prosecutors were desperate to make their case against manafort and that's why they relied on rick gates. the defense team also did something controversial in the courtroom today. they told the jury the special counsel really only prosecuted paul manafort as part of the broader case in this russia investigation. that was supposed to be barred from the courtroom. there was supposed to be no mention of the russia and collusion investigation or president trump. the judge instructed the jury, disregard what the defense team has told you and do not pay attention to the theory that the defense team has put out there.

the defense team had a very aggressive closing argument trying to go after everything the prosecution put forth as well as rick gates himself. >> appreciate it. chief legal analyst and prosecutor jeffrey toobin. is there any chance paul manafort walks? >> i have been wrong before and i was wrong about the o.j. simpson case a couple of decades ago, but this case seems to be a slam dunk. to this day, i don't understand what the defense is in this case. i followed the whole case. the tax returns are false. you can say rick gates is the worst person on earth, the tax returns are lying. the bank applications are full of lies. and the defense had nothing to say about that. this case is a complete mystery why it went to trial.

. >> the fact that the defense didn't put any witnesses on the stand, they are not going to put manafort, but did it surprise you they didn't put anybody? >> it's usually the case that the defendants put their case in through the cross-examination of the government's witnesses. it is also usually the case that defendants get convicted. especially in federal court and especially in the northern district of virginia and rocket docket where it's a pro prosecution jury pool upwards of 90% get convicted. in a case like this, i don't see the choice the jury has. >> it does seem smart for the prosecution and the obvious thing to do is put your faith in the documents. if you don't believe rick gates, fine, he may be unreliable, but the do you means alone are enough. >> especially in federal court,

they use cooperators all the time. the defense attorneys say they are liars and terrible people and the government chose these people. the prosecutors said we didn't choose the witnesses. paul manafort chose the witnesses in this case. he's the one who was partners with rick gates and he's the who was working with these foreign he's telling you what they did together. >> it's the argument some are making. >> i was thinking the same thing. exactly. suddenly she's so terrible. at least donald trump doesn't have to worry at this moment about a prosecution. >> in terms of manafort's legal troubles. they have life after this. there's more. >> a similar but somewhat different case is due in just a few weeks in the district of columbia in washington. i have my doubts about whether that case will actually go to

trial. >> why? >> i don't believe manafort has the resources or will to go through this again. >> >> you think a plea bargain? >> well, i don't think he has any bargaining power. i think he would just as they say eat the indictment. i think he would just simply plead guilty because the expense. it's very draining to sit there and listen to people say terrible things about you. it's very expensive -- >> it's like being on twitter. >> yeah. except more jail afterwards. >> all right, jeff toobin, thanks very much. we'll see. let's check in with chris, see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. chris? >> how are you doing, my friend? interesting show. i am watching and learning as we go along. we have james clapper on tonight to give us some perspective not just on whether he likes this move or not. i love listening to general hayden talk about the practicalities. i want to dig into that more with clapper. how much did he use the team before him to help him in his job? what does he know about the current team and what might happen and what might this move to all that? of course as you noted earlier,

this is a big fat distraction. and we're not going to let us distract it -- let it distract us from what matters. we're going to talk about this top ten enemies list, what this is really about and what they don't want us to talk about tonight. we'll get after it anyway. >> all right. nine minutes from now. chris, thanks very much. i'll see you then. up next, i've done a lot of stories certainly on immigration issues. never quite seen a story like this. we'll explain ahead. what does help for heart fait looks like this. entresto is a heart failure pill that helped keep people alive and out of the hospital. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. ♪ the beat goes on. yeah!

we hide hotel names, so you can find four star hotels at two star prices. h-o-t-w-i-r-e (e-e-e-e)

if you're a regular viewer you've heard a lot of angles on the immigration issue. we talk to people on all sides of the story. we've crawled through drug tunnels between the u.s. and mexico. we haven't seen a story quite like this like the one gary tuchman filed for us tonight. and we should note we've just gotten word there has been some significant development in the story. we'll bring you that in a moment. but first here's gary's report. >> this is a bathroom. >> reporter: angela becerra seems like a normal 4-year-old american girl living in colorado with her two american parents. >> i like bread with salt and chocolate bread with candy. >> chocolate bread with candy?

>> reporter: but things are far from normal in her household. that's because angela might end up being deported. how could this happen? >> this week you have found out from the u.s. government that it has been denied her becoming a u.s. citizen. >> yes. >> and technically as of august 31st she could be deported. >> yes. >> reporter: angela was born in peru and was abandoned ending up in an orphanage. her parents amy and marco were working in peru at the time, amy working in that same orphanage. she and her husband who is a dual peruvian-u.s. citizen fell in love with the 12-day-old angela and filed to adopt her in peru. >> we knew it would take two years once we were approached and given custody. >> reporter: these peruvian records translated into english show they were given provisional adoption which is legal custody when angela was five months old. the adoption was made official when angela was 2 1/2. the family made the decision to move back home to colorado but first went to the u.s. embassy in lima, peru to ask about the

procedure for angela to become a u.s. citizen. >> we had verbal confirmation from the embassy that it would take -- that they would do everything they could to get it done in two weeks and four weeks maximum. >> reporter: but months went by and nothing happened. this past february amy and marco got a tourist visa for angela and brought her home. but the tourist visa expires on august 31st. and just days ago they got this word from u.s. citizenship and immigration services. angela has been denied. the main reason cited? you have failed to demonstrate that you have had legal custody of the beneficiary for two years prior to filing this form. >> it said we had not demonstrated that we had full legal custody prior to july 2017. and we had it from october 23rd, 2014. and it's stated in four different court documents. >> reporter: u.s. citizenship and immigration services have not returned our phone calls or e-mail. but amy says a person from the agency's missouri office just called her on the phone and told her the agency does have the

right to reopen cases. >> and due to the complexities of your case we have decided to reopen your case. >> reporter: but amy and marco have no idea if that is significant or just lip service. as of now their daughter is still on the verge of being declared undocumented. little angela is scheduled to start preschool five days before she could be deported. >> you want me to hit your hand, right? ah! let me try again. [ laughing ] >> reporter: and if nothing changes this family has to decide whether to go back to peru or keep their daughter here illegally and fight. but they hope the phone call could possibly mean that somebody has seen the wisdom of allowing two american parents to keep their daughter in america. and if that decision comes -- >> we'll make a big party. >> yeah. yes. big party. >> reporter: it will be a great day in this house. >> yes. >> gary joins us now. so i understand there's actually some new developments to the story. what's happening?

>> reporter: huge developments, anderson. just a short while ago i got a call from the congressman for this district, republican congressman mike kaufman. he tells me he had a meeting today with immigration officials here in the denver area and he says the immigration officials have told him they have decided to reverse their decision about angela, that she will be allowed to become a u.s. citizen. this just happening. we're told that they have issued a waiver in the best interest of the child. it will take a few months to finalize everything. but as of right now, she has automatic residency, her parents no longer have anything to worry about. so in a one-week span she was denied. then the case was reopened. then the case has been reversed. we should tell you, anderson, that congressman mike kaufman deserves a lot of credit here. the family reached out to him and he's the one who held this meeting. he's the one who's making the announcement. but to his credit he's giving the news media credit too for all the attention being paid. so either way, for this family, for this little girl, for the parents and for common sense

this is all good news. and now they can have their party. >> really an amazing story. a reminder for our viewers don't miss our interactive daily newscast on facebook full circle. 6:25 every day. you'll find it at facebook.com/anderson cooper full circle. all one word. we'll see you tomorrow. and 8:00 p.m. eastern on cnn tomorrow night. the news continues. want to hand it over to chris cuomo for "cuomo prime time." >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." president trump yanks the security clearance of former cia chief john brennan. why? to punish him for criticizing trump. proving that this president's pettiness extends both to his words and his deeds. and his spokeswoman teased more could come. jim clapper is on that long most unwanted list. could he be next? the former dni is here with his concerns.