welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. president trump vigorously defends stripping former cia chief john brennan of his security clearance. the president says the reviews are tremendous and that he never respected brennan. and he suggests there's more in the works, singling out a current justice department official and making clear he's targeting people he views as responsible for the russia election interference investigation, or rigged witch hunt, in the president's words. plus, 9 1/2 hours and counting. the paul manafort jury now in day two of its deliberations. its verdict, of course, the

first big courtroom test for the russia special counsel. and the president doesn't hesitate to weigh in. >> i think the whole manafort trial is very sad. he happens to be a very good person. i think it's very sad what they've done to paul manafort. >> we begin this hour with a defiant, energized president trump standing firm behind his decision to revoke the security clearance of the former cia director john brennan. the president says he's getting rave reviews and he loves a good fight. >> security clearances are very important to me. very, very important. i've had a tremendous response for having done that. there's no silence. if anything, i'm giving them a bigger voice. many people don't even know who he is. now he has a bigger voice, and that's okay with me because i like taking on voices like that. i've never respected him. >> as you listen to the president, it's clearer and clearer he's directing his anger

at the people he blames for the genesis of the russia investigation. also clear, if you listen today, that he has little interest in dealing directly with the special counsel, robert mueller. the president says he's done nothing wrong, so the special counsel should go ahead, wrap things up. >> mr. mueller is highly conflicted. in fact, comey is like his best friend. i could go into conflict after conflict. but sadly, mr. mueller is conflicted. but let him write his report. we did nothing. there's no collusion. if he was doing an honest report, he'd write it on the other side because when you look at criminality and you look at problems, take a look at what they did, including colluding with the russians. the other side. >> cnn's jeremy diamond joins us live from the white house. you were on the south lawn listening to the president, trying to throw questions at the president there. he's clearly energized by this fight. what else did you take away from that? >> reporter: it's true, john.

it's been some weeks since the president has come over to talk to the press before boarding marine one. recently he's taken to ignoring the press and going straight up there. it was interesting to see how energized the president is about this fight and how he so closely links this issue of revoking security clearances with the mueller investigation. we saw the president there when he's talking about john brennan, saying he's gotten a tremendous response for revoking his security clearance. also then very quickly shifting gears to the russia investigation and talk how it's a rigged witch hunt, a hoax. so it's very clear that the president sees those two issues as linked in his mind. you know, the president also making clear that despite the criticism he's facing, he is planning to move forward with additional security clearances, revoking those security clearances. he spoke in particular about a current justice department official, so we're not just talking about former officials here, but a current justice department official, bruce orr, who has been a frequent target

of the president's ire at the russia investigation, saying he suspects, i'll be taking it away very quickly, is what the president said there. i think, as you can see, the president relishing a fight here and making clear that he is not going to shrink away in the face of the criticism he has faced this week from members of the republican, democratic parties and more broadly members of the national security community. >> jeremy diamond live at the white house. appreciate it. am i getting ahead of it here? when i listen to the president, i know the public line is the president really wants to testify, and his attorneys keep telling him, don't do that, mr. president, it's a perjury trap. mueller's conflicted, comey's his best friend. that won't pass a fact check. they know each other. they're not best friends. but he should write his report. he should write his report. i took that as i'm not testifying, move on. >> no question.

i think it has been a lingering question if he's going to testify. that's been part of the pr strategy. that's not part of the legal strategy. that's been clear probably for several months, certainly in the last week or so. the president saying right there, write his report. he's setting up for what he intends to say is a system that's rigged against him. so why would he sit down with him? i thought he seems to be almost, you know, urging him to do it. there's no way i can see now he would sit down regardless of the narrow scope which they've been talking about. rudy giuliani has been talking about it for weeks and weeks. it simply is not going to happen. in my mind, it's over, the discussion is over, he's not going to sit down with him. >> he calls him conflicted. he attacked the paul manafort trial, which we'll get to later in the program, which is ongoing. the sitting president of the united states weighing in on a trial while the jury is in the room deliberating. we'll get to that later. but the president connects the dots for you. you don't have to. he talks about john brennan. he talks about bruce orr.

he talks about maybe revoking other clearances. all about who was there, who he blames for the beginning of the russia meddling investigation. then he gets into bob mueller, james comey, another one of the people on that list, if you will, and connects it all. again, i want to get to the security clearance issue, but when you listen to the president on the issue of the special counsel, i've never heard him more plainly give a hint that i'm done, don't think i'm going to answer questions, mr. mueller. >> yeah, i think it's become pretty clear that the president and his lawyers want to force mueller and his team to take this all the way to the supreme court. that's both a legal strategy and i think a pr strategy. i think they think it would look bad for mueller to take this to the supreme court to subpoena the president. they think that mueller would come out looking like he's flexing his muscles and pushing this case to the utmost. >> of course, it depends on the facts in the end, but you're

dead right politically in the short-term. until we know what mueller knows, the president's team thinks it helps them politically, at least in the short scope of the midterm elections. the president says he gets rave reviews. if you're like the president and your dvr is all fox news prime time, it's true, the president is getting rave reviews. he's also getting pushback from serious members of the intelligence community and the military community dating back decades. a letter now, 13, i believe, now signed by william webster, former director of the cia in the '80s and '90s. george tenet, porter goss, michael hayden, leon panetta, david petraeus, robert gates, james clapper. this is a serious list of people, many of whom, whatever your poll tickles, are titics ao kept us safe after 9/11. they're saying the president is

wrong. to be clear, a lot of them think john brennan has become too partisan. a lot of them would tell you they think john brennan has become too much of a democrat in what he says on television. but they say that's not the point. this is america. he has that first amendment right. the president is sending a chilling sign when he says, i took his security clearance, now i'm looking for somebody else. >> this is a remarkable letter. this is from members who served in the significant positions in the national security apparatus, the intelligence security apparatus under democratic and republican presidents. most of them have been quiet, have not spoken out. this is something they're really sticking their neck out and telling the president he's, quote, stifling free speech. when the president says he's getting rave reviews, not just fox news, on capitol hill, republican after republican for the most part have been defending the president. a lot of them don't like john brennan. they also don't want to get crosswise with the president. they don't want to be the subject of his ire in any way. the question that i have is that if the president continues to strip other people's security

clearances, what will the reaction be then from his party? will they continue to stand by him, or will some start to speak out, like these intelligence officials are, because they're clearly concerned about the precedent this sets. >> the picture you're seeing, that's air force one. the president is going up to new york. he has a luncheon with some reporters, and other business. we'll keep an eye on the president there, see if he speaks again, or at least watch him deplane. i want to read a little from this letter. very serious people who say some of them disagree with what john brennan has said. they think he's too partisan at times. they think the bigger picture is the president trying to silence his critics, trying to silence somebody who spoke out. we all agree that the president's action regarding john brennan and the threats of civil action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech. you don't have to agree with what john brennan says, and again not all of us do. to agree with his right to say

it, subject his obligation to protect classified information. the white house has not been able to say, john brennan said this, that's classified. they just say, a, the white house says it's because he has a contract with msnbc. they say he's on msnbc all the time. he has said the president's behavior is treasonous. he has said some things that are beyond what the others have said. however, they have not been able to say that he's shared any classified information. the president himself told "the wall street journal" it's not about what he says on television. it's about the fact he was there in the obama administration when they started looking into russian meddling. >> and it's as remarkable and strongly worded, i think we can all be skeptical whether that's going to have any influence on trump himself and how far he pushes his new mission to revoke more security clearances. we reported last night just how eager the president is to revoke even more security clearances. and he wants to do it soon. remember, a few months ago he was really fixated on his pardon power. he really enjoys looking like

he's strong, that he has all the power. this isn't the first time the president has tussled with the national security establishment, but again, clearly sees this as a good political issue for him. we see him saying this morning looking at revoking more security clearances. this isn't going to be an issue that dies down. also the timing as well. we know for brennan's security clearance, this is something signed off on not this week but frankly three weeks ago. sources told us that senior advisers in the white house had actually suggested or advises the president to come out with this news to deflect from all the other news going on, especially with omarosa's new book. >> can i make a quick point on this? >> please. >> the intelligence officials say that this is an effort to silence brennan. this is going to do nothing to silence john brennan. i don't think the president intends it to. i think this will elevate brennan. it will give him a larger megaphone. i think the president's been pretty clear that he wants to go

toe to toe with brennan. he does best when he has an adversary and when he's punching somebody he disagrees with. he did it with lying ted cruz, with little marco rubio. now it's with john brennan. >> it's a great point you make. to that point, i want you to listen to general michael hayden, one of the officials who signed on to this letter, former cia director, also director of the national security agency at one point. i may have that title wrong. he says, the risk here is the president will actually hurt himself because he needs to get honest advice from members of the intelligence community. general hayden says if the president singles you out like this, strips your security clearance, he's worried people won't be honest. >> the danger there is what the president has messaged to these 100,000 americans who do this on behalf of the republic is that if you say things with which he disagrees or things that make him angry, he is quite willing to punish you. that's a horrible, even implicit

message to the intelligence community. frankly, john, it's really a bad deal for the president because he needs these people to feel free to come in and tell him even unhappy news. >> critics will say these guys are just protecting their own institutions, if you will. i've known general hayden going on 15 years now. always found him to be -- again, he's involved in these conversations, some of them political, but he's a straight shooter who's a patriot. that's who the president's picking a fight with. >> no doubt. and he makes the point there, i think a good one, that this president receives his briefings in very different ways. we already know he's at odds with his director of national intelligence, dan coats. so this definitely is an opening for someone -- the president likes to be surrounded by people who agree with him. he likes yes men. i think this is something that feeds that. back to your point earlier, he does want an opponent, no doubt about it. he does want a fight with brennan. this is probably good for his base. i'm not sure the president minds any of this.

he's fine with this argument happening. but where does it go from here? certainly not good for the country. >> and in many ways, forgive the reference, but it's partly like it's a pregame show or preseason football in the sense that until we know what mueller knows, the president has decided not to get in the motorcade and is walking around. i was about to toss it to a break. until we know what mueller knows, we don't know how big of a deal some of these things are. let's watch the president as he moves over here. let's continue the conversation as we do. among those not on this particular letter but writing a separate letter is navy admiral retired william mcraven. he was responsible, he was the leader of the operation that brought bin laden to justice, a special operator in the military, fighting the war on terrorism, had rolings in ires d afghanistan. we see the president shaking hands with some of the military personnel. through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, yhumiliated us on

the world stage, and worst of all, divided us as a nation. if you think your mccarthy era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. the criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be. it's remarkable on several fronts. number one, that a retired admiral would challenge the president like this, the president's decision to revoke john brennan's security clearance. and that we have so many now retired admirals or people with cia director as their title involved now in a political fight with the president of the united states. >> and the question is, does the president care? it sounds like he does not care that these people are raising these concerns. kellyanne conway was asked about that this morning. she pushed back on it, was not that worried about it. mcraven has also raised concerns in the past about the president calling the press the enemy of the people, said he believed that was one of the greatest threats to democracy, trying to tear down the institution of the

press. really, this is an escalation from a fight that happened during the campaign. remember all the national security officials from both parties coming out, raising significant concerns with then-candidate trump. the president has continually gone after the intelligence community from the day he took office, up until today. so the voices that are speaking out now, it's going to fall on deaf ears. >> and not just the intelligence community. the law enforcement community as well. whether it's the former fbi director james comey or his former deputy andrew mccabe, whether it's his current attorney general jeff sessions. just last week, the president was tweeting we need a real attorney general. bruce ohr, a senior career official at the justice department right now. you've had a president -- this is not normal. make of it what you will, but you have a sitting president who has attacked the highest level people and the institutions of law enforcement. some of the highest level people in the institutions of the intelligence community. because this happens so often, we think another day in donald trump's america, but this is far from normal. >> i think it goes to this idea

to the president's that there's a deep state. he's drawing out this deep state. he's not totally wrong about it. there are career diplomats, public servants, and others who have spent a long time working in government who abide by a set of traditions and principles that the president simply does not abide by. when he does things like revoking the security clearance that is inconsistent with the traditions that past presidents have hued to, he draws out people who believe strongly in adhering to those principles. i think demonstrates there is, you know -- deep state may be the wrong term, but a group of people who believe strongly in tradition. >> those traditions aren't necessarily negative. republicans and democrats for years have -- >> it's a bipartisan tradition, absolutely. >> he has every right, he won the election. he has every right to disrupt those traditions and asooim tsae

boss now. but he makes the distinction this deep state is trying to rig his guilt. that's a lot different than saying, you know, the state department should move more quickly when i want to do this. we're going to sneak in a break. we'll keep our eye on the president. when we come back, republicans on capitol hill normally you might expect a little outrage, a little caution when the president starts revoking security clearances. so far, the president seems to be in good standing with his own party. might the proximity to the election have something to do with that?

overwhelming air fresheners can send you running... so try febreze one. with no aerosols and no heavy perfumes. so you can spray and stay. febreze one.

-morning. -morning. -what do we got? -keep an eye on that branch. might get windy. have a good shift. fire pit. last use -- 0600. i'd stay close. morning. ♪ get ready to switch. protected by flo. should say, "protected by alan and jamie." -right? -should it? when you bundle home and auto... run, alan! ...you get more than just savings. you get 'round-the-clock protection. welcome back. if you were with us at the top of the program, you heard the president in very strong language make his case as he has in the past but quite passionately today that the fbi, the justice department, the special counsel are biased against him, that they're continuing what the president calls a witch hunt because of a bias against him. the president getting a bit of help on that front today from a key ally on capitol hill,

republican senator lindsey graham of south carolina, sending a letter to the fbi director. it can be a bit confusing because graham starts by referencing an investigation of senator diane feinstein of california, a democrat's campaign. it came to the fbi's attention that a chinese man who was serving as feinstein's driver might be acting as an intelligence agent. senator graham in his letter writes this, although i appreciate the fbi's diligence in identifying the staffer with potential ties to the chinese government and providing senator feinstein with a defensive briefing, i'm deeply troubled that the trump campaign was not afforded the same treatment when the fbi began to suspect that campaign's staffers had improper ties to the russian government. he's alleging there could be a double standard. in a way, again, putting the fbi back on its heels. >> he's been taking these steps increasingly over the last couple of months. he's been demanding a second special counsel to investigate what he views are problems with

the way the russia investigation was carried out and the way the clinton investigation was carried out. it's essentially confirming or giving some ammunition to the president and his critics who have zbgone after the russia investigation. it's interesting to see the evolution of lindsey graham in the trump presidency. he is increasingly a trump ally. he views things done in the russia investigation as improper. it's also interesting to see some of trump's former 2016 critic become allies on russia, like rand paul, for instance, someone who's now playing a role of an emissary of sorts with russian leaders in light of defending the president after helsinki. graham has not done that, but he's raising concerns about the russia investigation. a lot of republicans are on the same side. >> is it because of new information he's learned? or is it because he's worried in trump's republican party that to be seen as a critic of the president it can hurt you? this is the same lindsey graham

who says of bob mueller, he's a good guy, a good pick, i think he's the right pick at the right time, i have complete koconfidee in mr. mueller. that's a very different lindsey graham over the last year and a half than in this letter today. >> we've heard since the beginning of the mueller investigation last year that republicans on capitol hill by and large support mueller doing his job. that's the message we've gotten for some time. as the investigation has gone on for more than a year now, you are starting to sense that impatience from republicans. they're telling us in different ways, you know, they still say, look, we support the mueller investigation. we should do his job. but they are signaling very strongly that they're getting quite impatient, especially before the midterms. >> the republicans control the house and the senate. is this the right approach to it? they've brought this up in some hearings. they bring it up when rod rosenstein's in the chair and beat him up a little. have they or will they -- why not have a series of public

hearings? they have the power. they have the committees. call these people up to answer questions in a sustained, comprehensive way that gives the witnesses chances to answer questio questions about these things and lays it all out as opposed to sending letters that make a political statement but don't allow the public discourse for everybody to see. >> i mean, i would argue that what we've seen of hearings on capitol hill is not necessarily more conducive to the public discourse. >> it doesn't have to be that way though. >> but it is. >> i think -- call me skeptical about this, the latest example here from senator graham, but this is someone very close to john mccain and still talks to john mccain a lot. this is a republican senator who's worried about his own politics in south carolina. make no mistake about it. i'm not saying he doesn't believe what he's saying necessarily about some issues, but he's trying to have the president's back here. it's the president's republican party. people are afraid to challenge him. >> still, i will say, again, the

context of it makes you suspicious because of what's been happening in the politics. but once the investigation is over and it won't undermine anything, i think i would love to know. if they had information on george papadopoulos, paul manafort that might have some context with russians, should the president have been given a heads up? now, he was given -- we know he was given a heads up at one point about be aware, russia is meddling in the election. what we don't know is the specificity of that. was anybody in the campaign singled out? senator graham seems to think not. >> we don't know that. there was a briefing. we don't know what the situation was. there was a suggestion some informants were placed in the campaign. graham doesn't say that in the letter, but other republicans have. the fbi has pushed back on that. you continue to hear that level of allegation being laid out by a number of republicans who are trying to side with the president. >> we will wait for christopher wray. a quick break for us.

when we come back, paul manafort waiting on a jury, day two of deliberations in his trial. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from an allergy pill? flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. flonase.

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. itthat's why i lovel the daily fiber wfiber choice,ood alone. with the fiber found in many fruits and vegetables. fiber choice. the number one ge recommended chewable prebiotic fiber. welcome back. the paul manafort jury now nearing its tenth hour of deliberations. that, of course, not stopping the president from weighing in. >> i don't talk about that now. i don't talk about that.

i think the whole manafort trial is very sad. when you look at what's going on there, i think it's a very sad day for hour country. he worked for me for a very short period of time, but you know what, he happens to be a very good person, and i think it's very sad what they've done to paul manafort. >> the judge in the trial saying earlier today he's optimistic for a verdict sometime soon. until then, court watchers debating the meaning of this question from the jury and what it portends for mr. manafort's fate. the jury yesterday asking the judge to redefine reasonable doubt. joining me now to share their insights, former number two during the ken starr whitewater investigation. let me start with the president. norms are broken every day in this presidency. for a president of the united states, forget the name, any president of the united states to speak publicly during a trial

of somebody -- this trial is mostly nothing to do with the trump campaign, but to speak publicly about a trial while a jury is in the room, huh? >> very troubling. he's got his own justice department prosecutors. it's not just mueller's people. he's got his own doj prosecutors there working on that case. i think what's really going on here, unfortunately, is it only takes one juror to get a hung jury. one of our final trials was in the eastern district of virginia, when i worked for ken starr. the jury deadlocked 11-1 for conviction. we talked to the jurors afterwards. there was one person on that jury who was not going to vote against bill clinton. all you need is one juror. that's one of the things that makes the president's comments so very disturbing. >> so let's come back to the jury. it's a risky business. it's been a while, but i used to cover trials when i started this business. the jury comes back with questions. that's when everyone starts trying to get the ouija board.

define reasonable doubt. does that tell you, what? are there any clues to that? should the prosecution be worried? they're not sure what reasonable doubt is? >> i would have been worried last night. as a prosecutor, you really don't like to even hear the phrase reasonable doubt. don't even like to say it in the courtroom myself when i was a prosecutor. the timing was worrisome yesterday. it seemed very early for them to be asking that. it could have indicated some dissension. on the other hand, it's been quiet today in terms of substantive questions. they may have been taking care of their initial doubts, whatever they thought was a little weaker. maybe they're certain about the rest of the case. sometimes they do that. >> and anything out of the courtroom today? >> no, all we know is lunch was delivered to them just a short time ago. so they're working through lunch, which is always a good sign. and i think the point here is we all kind of sit around. this is probably the worst time for lawyers who are trying this case. you're just trying to read tea

leaves. but nothing. it seems like they're just working. even their questions yesterday really had to do with the law. it doesn't sound like any of the questions had to do with the evidence or they had any doubts about the evidence. it really had to do with the law, which is what you would normally see with jurors. they're working through the different charges and have questions about the law. >> again, just for those of you maybe not paying day-to-day attention to the trial, five counts of tax fraud, four counts of hiding foreign bank accounts, nine counts of bank fraud. the president says it's sad what they're doing. if there's evidence to support that, that's the government's job, is it not? whether he's the former trump campaign chairman or whether he's a businessman who has nothing to do with politics. >> if you're looking at it as an isolated trial, of course the president is echoing some of the comments made by the judge, unfortunately, in this case, who says look, you're only after manafort because you're really going after trump. i don't think it's right, but the law allows you to do it. my take on the questions is you can't tell anything from the

questions -- there's only one question the jury asked that was really substantive and important. it was, what if you don't control 50% of a foreign bank account on paper but you really do control disposition of the assets? do you have to file? do you have to notify the irs on that? the judge re-read the portion of the jury instructions that said, yes, you do. that was really the only thing that i thought was significant because that's really a question that could be answered and that's crucial to some of the counts. >> a smart question related to very complicated overseas banking rules. that tells you the jury is plugged in right there. do you make anything of it? we got 18 criminal charges, 27 prosecution witnesses, no witnesses called by the defense. the constitution says you do not have to present a defense. the constitution says the defendant does no the have to testify. from your experience, does that matter to a jury? are they in there saying, why, why did paul manafort say nothing? why didn't they give us anybody

to challenge? they challenged rick gates in cross, but why didn't they bring anybody in to help us? >> i think that's in the back of their minds a little bit, but i think that jurors tend to really follow the judge's instructions. when they're told not to consider that, they don't. i think the defense is sending a slight message that we feel confident. we're happy to sit back and attack and say they haven't proven their case. of course, as a practical matter, they may have lacked any good evidence to put forth. >> i also think what we're seeing from this jury, it looks like that had no effect on them. they've been deliberating, when you think about it, 10, 11 hours now. that's a lot of time. it's clear the fact that manafort did not up the defense had no effect so far, at least in terms of how they're thinking from what we're seeing. >> and a quick last point. news organizations are going to see this judge this afternoon. they're trying to get transcripts of conferences in pull asides. they want those released. looks like the judge is inclined to do that with the exception possibly of the one conversation about rick gates not testifying

about something very significant, right? >> right. this is a special counsel investigation. they had a side bar that he sealed. these are all sealed transcripts now. the judge sealing these transcripts, he said he's going to release some of them. obviously the one where they talked about rick gates' cooperation and other information he's bron vieen pro the special counsel, that's knot goi -- not going to be made public. up next, a maine democrat wants to throw his republican opponent literally overboard. where we give you more t s for you thing. and here's where we shrink the biggest names in entertainment so we can fit them into our unlimited wireless plan. who's first? no. this isn't permanent, right? ask him. [terry squeals.] get unlimited data, live tv, and your choice of an extra on us. more for your thing. that's our thing.

visit att.com little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. 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. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

this is not a screensaver.game. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪

topping our political radar today, senator rand paul says he'll ask president trump to lift sanctions that ban some russian lawmakers from visiting the united states. during his trip to moscow this month, senator paul invited members of both houses of the russian federal assembly to washington this fall to continue the dialogue. and he told fox news they've accepted. but u.s. sanctions in place since 2014 block the leaders of both chambers from visiting the united states. honest abe $9.7 million in debt. the abraham lincoln presidential foundation owes that money after taking out a loan 11 years ago to buy some rare lincoln artifacts, including a stove pipe hat. if they can't pay up by october, the museum may have to put some of those items up for auction. if you want to help, there's a

go fund me page. a new political ad releasing here first on "inside politics" featured jar featured jared golden, trying to unseat two-term republican. cnn rates this race a toss-up. it'll be one to watch for november. republicans saying the democrat is too liberal. here's the democrat's response. >> i'm jared golden, and it's time for maine to show washington what needs to go overboard. special interests, career politicians, and bruce, who voted for plans that would gut social security and medicare. >> he pulls up a nice little lobster at the end. it's creative.

how do you differentiate yourself in this environment almost 11 weeks out from the election? that's one of the most competitive races in the country. you have all these national arguments or a local argument? >> it's interesting the air war has started very early compared to other election cycles. speaker paul ryan's super pac has dropped about $10 million in august alone. typically they would wait until after labor day. now they believe they want to define these candidates early. had they want to attack. they know how difficult of an environment this is. they're waging this war now. that was an ad in response to the attacks that have already been waged against that candidate. for the republicans, their chance of keeping the house are increasingly slim. to keep the house, they got to do things like go after these guys, drive up their negatives, tie them to nancy pelosi. >> and note the actual policy issues he raised in that ad. prescription drugs, medicare.

we know that health care has been the most animated issue for democrats. that's why democratic senators are focused on it. if you look at polling, that's what motivated the democratic base. it is no coincidence he's focusing on those issues. the major win during the trump presidency was being able to stop the repeal of the affordable care act. it's also an issue in the supreme court. we'll see that continue through november. >> and there's just so many ads, you can't escape them, especially if you live in these competitive states. we'll see how this race turns out. having a little lobster at the end. i once shot a stand-up in maine using lobsters to make a point. >> got it from you. >> just reminded me of a great trip to maine. so there you go. up next, the politics of the big parade. white house staffers stay on message on the plans even when faced with some obvious distractions. >> i'm very proud to work for a man who loves this country and the men and women in uniform, parade or no parade.

>> and of course the news today is it sounds like -- >> it's the man mowing the lawn. >> trying to get on tv. >> there's a parade going on behind you. m really into this c, but how do i know if i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar.

welcome back. the parade is off, but a tweet war is on. president trump reluctantly cancelling that big military parade he wanted to have here in d.c. this november. the commander in chief says local washington, d.c., politicians are price gouging. the president tweeting this, this morning. local politicians who run washington, d.c., poorly know a windfall when they see it. when asked to give us a price for holding a great celebratory military parade, they wanted a number so ridiculously high that i canceled it. never let someone hold you up. that from the president. d.c.'s mayor taking that attack as a badge of honor, responding in kind. here's her tweet. yep, i'm mayor of washington, d.c., the local politician who finally got through to the reality star in the white house with the realities. $21.6 million of parades, events, side demonstrations in trump america, sad. the president says maybe there can be a parade next year. in the meantime, he'll attend a smaller military parade at a base just outside washington.

and he says he'll also travel to paris for another big military parade there. this isn't all muriel's fault, is it? >> of course not. it's something the president decided to do without any thought. he was in paris a year ago for the bastille day celebration. he got the idea in his mind, wow, this is a good parade. i want to have one like this. it was widely seen inside the pentagon as not being a good idea. a, it would be expensive. even more than that, never mind how expensive it would be, just the image it would show. this is not what the united states has done traditionally. so ever since then, they've been trying to sort of walk it back. by now saying he'll be going to paris after the midterms, i'm not sure that's -- how it's going to be viewed. maybe he'll want to be getting out of town. i think i remember obama taking a trip in 2010 after getting shellacked in the midterms. but the military, no one thought

it was a good idea. >> there was a report, abc news, i believe, that the overall price tag -- the mayor talked about what d.c. said it would need for security and demonstrations. abc saying the overall price was somewhere in the ballpark of $92 million. general mattis, $92 million? >> whoever told you that is probably smoking something that's legal in my state but not northea most states. i'm not dignifying that number with any reply. i would discount that. anybody who said that, i almost guarantee you one thing, they probably need to stay anonymous. no kidding, because you look like an idiot. >> and yet, it was just hours after that the president himself pulls the plug on it. >> 92 million or 21 million, it's still a lot of money. for exactly what? that was a question a lot of people had.

you saw an american allegiance statement saying this money should be spent elsewhere, like providing veterans care. maybe there should be a parade after the war on terrorism is ultimately won. that's been the big concern. not just the money but the focus on military action rather than a celebration. >> it's funny you say that. kellyan kellyanne conway essentially asked, is this spending millions, tens of millions of dollars on a military parade because the president saw one he thought was really cool in paris and wanted to have one, is that a good use of taxpayer money? >> i think the best use of the american tax dollars is to give them the resources and respect they need, not disrespecting the flag and yelling at our brave men and women in uniform when they walk by and saying america was never great. go tell that to all those people in the military. >> that's called a punt. she didn't answer the question about the parade.

she moved on to the increase in military spending the president did win as part of the budget with congress. >> remember, deficit hawk isn't necessarily always the first words that come into mind when you think about the president. he didn't campaign on cutting -- he said he wouldn't touch medicare or social security during the campaign. he was lambasted when he was on the verge of that major spending initiative. you can think when he got the idea of the parade, the idea of the cost was necessarily foremost in his mind. >> you heard kellyanne conway at the end there, talking about saying america was never great. that was a swipe at the new york governor andrew cuomo. you'll hear his latest attempt to correct that in the next hour. thanks for joining us. see you sunday morning. jim sciutto is in for wolf. he'll continue our coverage after a quick break. jimmy's gotten used to his whole room smelling like sweaty odors.

yup, he's gone noseblind. he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this... luckily for all your hard-to-wash fabrics... ...there's febreze fabric refresher. febreze doesn't just mask, it eliminates odors you've... ...gone noseblind to. and try febreze unstopables for fabric. with up to twice the fresh scent power, you'll want to try it... ...again and again and maybe just one more time. indulge in irresistible freshness. febreze unstopables. breathe happy. i knew at that exact moment ... i'm beating this. my main focus was to find a team of doctors. it's not just picking a surgeon, it's picking the care team and feeling secure in where you are.

visit cancercenter.com/breast

i wok(harmonica interrupts)ld... ...and told people about geico... (harmonica interrupts) how they could save 15% or more by... (harmonica interrupts) ...by just calling or going online to geico.com.

(harmonica interrupts) (sighs and chuckles) sorry, are you gonna... (harmonica interrupts) everytime. geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. and now you know.ed- jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill proven to both reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease... ...and lower a1c, with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol,

and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. isn't it time to rethink your type 2 diabetes medication? ask your doctor about jardiance- and get to the heart of what matters. hello. i'm jim sciutto in for wolf blitzer. 1:00 p.m. here in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. show of force, a dozen of america's former senior intelligence officials uniting and rising up against the president's security clearance moves. this as we learn there are even more to come. plus, the president cancelling his own plan for a military parade. hear who and what he blames for the sudden reversal. and disturbing word from the pentagon that china is likely training pilots to target the u.s. with