administration. so a pretty ballsy move from that guy. >> sara murray, thanks very much. a quick reminder. don't miss anderson's daily interactive newscast on facebook where you get to pick some of the stories he covers. it's called full circle and you can see it week nights at 6:25 eastern time. that's the news today. i want to hand it over now to my good friend and colleague, chris cuomo on "cuomo prime time." thank you, jim. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." he got a tremendous response. that's how trump now justifies yanking john brennan's security clearance. and he signals who is likely next. is this strongman behavior really a good move? anthony scaramucci is well plugged in to trump's advisers and thinking, so let's put it to the test. and should we let someone else fight our battles? a private military force sound good to you? the man who is trying to convince trump to run the afghan war is here.

a man under scrutiny for collusion with russians by bob mueller. and you remember that grand idea to put on a military parade and show off our troops? who came up with it? our commander in chief. but now the president wants you to think he's the one saving your taxpayer dollars by canceling it because costs were too high. long week? relax with a glass and let's get after it. they call it the graveyard of empires for a reason. afghanistan now the u.s. involvement, 17 years. trump added troops and money, but the situation is sideways at best. now, if my next guest has his way, he's going to be the one to run it, not the pentagon. and the president may be considering his proposal. who is he? erik prince, the founder of blackwater. he's also the brother of trump's education secretary, betsy

devos. but most relevant, he is someone that's being looked at by bob mueller as part of the collusion probe. mr. prince, thank you for taking the opportunity? >> thanks for having me. >> so did i get it right? do you believe the president is considering your proposal? >> look, i've been paying attention to afghanistan for a long time, longer than most. in 1998 already i sponsored an afghan peace conference trying to get the then king to return to afghanistan and to make peace long before 9/11. having been at this for 17 years now as a country, spent trillions of dollars, thousands of dead americans, and we're still not winning, the president gave the pentagon what they wanted last year, which was more money and more troops. and it hasn't worked. you know, just this last week, you've had suicide bombing, killing 50 kids, taking entrance exams, four simultaneous attacks across the country. thousands of afghan dead, and the u.n. has reported that this is the highest number of

civilian casualties ever in afghanistan. >> why would your way be better? >> look, what worked after 9/11 was a small, unconventional approach. a few cia officers, a few special forces backed by air power, and they decimated the taliban in a matter of weeks. when we switched six months in to a very conventional approach, we basically repeated the soviet battle plan is we now how that worked in the 80s. it didn't. going back to small and unconventional, this is not a privatization. you already have 15,000 u.s. troops and 30,000 contractors in country. my plan takes it down to about 2,000 active duty special forces and about 6,000 contractors. >> what we're told about why general mattis and secretary of state pompeo, why they don't like it -- and by the way, mattis said today he disputes the idea that trump is frustrated by what's going on there, losing his resolve and considering any other way. but they it lacks too much the way you want to do it. it lacks oversight. it lacks accountability. it lacks planning.

it lacks color of authority. you know, the u.s. flag carries symbolic significance as opposed to a bunch of mer sen aris. >> sure. >> how do you make up for those deficiencies. >> here's the difference. you have couldn' continuity. you have chain of command. for the last 17 years, you've had u.s. troops go there for anywhere from six months to a year. they spend a few months learning the area. you lift that entire unit up, and you send them home never to return to the same area, send a whole new unit back in to start over. we've done that 30 times now, and the pentagon has never addressed that kind of rotation and continuity. >> but at least we know what they're doing, mr. prince. there's accountability. >> sure. >> there's oversight. >> and you know what, here's the thing. but here's the thing. the kind of contractors that would go back in there are the same kind of people that are there now, only they're going as a civilian, as a contractor with the same skills and the same

discipline and morality that the u.s. military gave them over -- >> doesn't always work out that way, right? that was part of your drama with blackwater, right? >> you know what, if you want to color private contractors by one incident, that's kind of bullshit -- i'm sorry. that's kind of wrong. it's like coloring your brother incorrectly for saying something dead. >> it's actually nothing like that because you had 17 people killed and 14 were found to be unjustified and that's death, not political talk and rhetoric. >> but the difference is -- >> this is a place for straight talk. stick with that. >> sure, straight talk and those convictions were just thrown out if you follow the detail. >> that process isn't over. what's the biggest idea hot talk aside? the biggest idea is you want to know who the people are and you want to know how to hold them accountable. >> absolutely, and this -- >> who are these guys? they're colombians, they're coming from other places. they're pay for play. they're not americans. >> we're here to talk about afghanistan, and we're sending

u.s. forces -- sorry, former u.s. forces or former nato forces back in that can be organized to have the continuity with afghan forces. you do those three things well and it works. it's the same thing that happened with the east india company or other organizations that have been in places for a long time for centuries. >> east india company? is that what you just said? >> sure. >> that was an arm of colonial oppression. that's why i brought up the uae thing. you say we're talking about afghanistan. you want to talk about my brother. you don't think that's a side step but you think what you're building in the uae is a side step when you put mercs there to help -- >> when you look at historically how unconventional forces are built to stabilize areas, that's how you do it. i'm amazed at the amount of defenders of the military industrial complex there are, that they want to keep spending $62 billion, more than the entire uk defense budget just in afghanistan. you guys are right to complain

about this military parade in washington, which i think is a bad idea. you're blowing through 3 1/2 military parades a day in afghanistan. >> but the only alternative isn't to put in mercenaries. that's why i'm asking you. you have to be careful what happens under your color of authority. you know that. by the way, cheap shots aside, you represented this country with honor as a member of a s.e.a.l. team. you know what i'm talking about, about the integrity that we have to keep in place. that's the concern about private units. >> that's why i've never seen we pull all u.s. forces out but go back to work after 9/11. remember, after 9/11, it was the cia that came up with the idea of a few s.f. guys a i few agency officers with air power that worked. the pentagon wanted to do a conventional invasion of afghanistan via pakistan and they didn't want to do it until the following spring. in the days after 9/11, while their headquarters are still on fire, the best thing that the military comes up with is -- 40,000 soldiers up through pakistan, and it still hasn't

worked. >> to this point, we're waiting for the latest reports from the military. >> for all the nameless, faceless people that want to pooh-pooh this idea, i say come out and debate me. defend the indefensible. it is not working what we're doing in afghanistan right now and please come up with a better idea. >> i hear you about pushing for better ideas. that's why i have you on the show by the way. just because it's not working one way doesn't mean that this alternative is the best, but you're right. it should be debated. let me transition into something else in terms why are you the one offering this. going to the president right now and fronting this situation and saying this is what should happen, you know, that's a political risky move for the president to consider a plan from you, is it not, when you are someone that mueller is looking at for involvement with russians during the campaign? >> look, as i said, as has been publicized, i met with one russian two months after the election as an incidental meeting. there's no collusion. i had nothing to do with any of that. >> why did you go to that

meeting in the seychelles? it had nothing to do with the campaign or trump? >> no, it did not. going back to afghanistan, we're spending too much. >> i heard your argument. this matters too. you're the guy who wants to sell this. people are going to say, wait, the guy who went to the seychelles meeting? >> it doesn't matter as much to the coastal elites because it's generally not their sons and daughters that are doing the fighting and dying. >> i think that's another cheap shot. i think sending mercs into a place sounds like what russia is doing in ukraine and syria. >> the way these veterans, these u.s. military veterans would be employed is as an adjunct to the afghan force which even under the u.n. definition does not make them mercenaries, okay? >> but it still raises -- you raised the legality of it. you're not supposed to be training people abroad as an american as part of foreign conflicts. that's something you'll have to get over also, right? >> all of this is done through the color of u.s. law, under u.s. authorities. men can be held accountable under the ucmj.

>> but they're not all americans. the guys you have in uae are colombians, south africans. >> i've done some videos on youtube on this matter. u.s. or nato forces working there can be held accountable through the uniform code of military justice just like u.s. forces are. actually a higher level of accountability than any of the 30,000 contractors that are there. and, again, taking it from 30,000 contractors down to 6,000 is hardly a privatization. >> all right. >> it is a rationalization which this country needs. we're $21 trillion in debt. let's stop blowing our blood and treasure endlessly in afghanistan. >> i get the motivation behind the debate. have you had any contact with the probe? have you coordinated with the probe? have you volunteered information to mueller and his men and women? >> as i said two months ago in an interview, yes. i was asked. i was interviewed by the mueller people, cooperated, and haven't heard from them in months. >> i appreciate the candor on that. erik prince, thank you for making the case. >> you're welcome. >> all right.

trump has the manafort verdict, the mueller probe, and the security clearance calamity as well as a cloud of prejudice all hanging over his head. so you know what? it was a great time to bring up the economy. best ever, he says. this is his popular prophylactic against criticism. i'm going to take you through the numbers, and you decide if trump doth boast too much. booking a flight at the last minute doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline.

if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure.

before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira.

all right. let's start with the suggestion that i don't know that a strong economy makes up for calling a

black woman a dog, mitigating the immorality of white power, putting kids in cages. after all, america is a country, not a company, right? the bottom line only justifies so much. it certainly shouldn't be as important as our reputation for decency and freedom. but let's deal with this claim about the economy that trump makes so often. let's fact-check this prophylactic, this protection he uses every time he says or does something that makes america wince. >> we have the strongest economy that we've ever had. we're setting records on the economy. we're setting records. the massive tax cuts and all of the deregulation has really kicked us into gear. black unemployment, the lowest in history. hispanic unemployment, the lowest in history. the economy is maybe better than it's ever been. the numbers are coming out. the best they've ever had. so we're very happy about that. and i think for that reason, i think in november we're going to do extremely well. >> all right. so let's talk about the facts.

the economy grew at a 4.1% rate in the second quarter. that is the fastest pace that we've seen in nearly four years. trump says the fastest ever. wrong, not the fastest ever. not better than obama ever did. the national unemployment rate, all right, fell to 3.9% in july. but take a closer look at that rate. it is better now, but it's part of a steady decline since 2010. again, don't buy this idea that trump made everything change. and remember this. trump used to mock this rate, the unemployment rate, under obama. he used to say it's not the real measure of the job market. why? because it doesn't include those who are working for less money, who are working just as temp workers, or who just quit looking for work altogether. that's all part of underemployment versus unemployment. and you know what? he was right. so why isn't he telling you this number right now that includes

all those folks? 7.5%. almost twice the rate that he's boasting about now. why? because he's looking for an easy score. that's why. here's why it matters, okay? the numbers don't tell what matters most. growth is only as good as the people growing with it, right? so is it the working class people who voted for trump? not nearly as much as it is the rich people like trump. a few pieces of proof here, all right? the gap between the 1% and everybody else, growing. see this part going like a "y" this way? it's the wrong way. you want it to go the other way. it's getting bigger, okay? big reason for that, wage stagnation for most americans. investors in the market killing it, but paycheck people, something different. according to pew research, our average wage has the same purchasing power now as it did 40 years ago. 23 bucks an hour now, same as 4 bucks in 1973.

but now there's this new pat on the back that they're doing. new pat on the back about what works and what doesn't. this is just a quick look for you. what happens in terms of income and tax cut. you see how much you get when you make more? all right. now, they pay more, but, still, is this a middle class tax cut? do they get the majority of the benefit? no. how people of color are treated. this is this new part of the riff of let's look at the economy. the president can't be racist. look at how black unemployment is doing under trump. better than under obama. that's their basic argument. take a listen. >> when president obama left after eight years in office, eight years in office, he had only created 195,000 jobs for african-americans. president trump in his first year and a half has already tripled what president obama did in eight years. >> all right. now, that's not true, okay? if those stats sounded too good, it's because they were. but don't be surprised.

sarah sanders apologized, but what they don't apologize for is exaggerating everything for effect about the economy. here's the truth of those numbers. as i told you, overall unemployment has been dropping. it's the same for black workers. everybody has been getting less unemployed. but let's look a little bit more closely, okay? 6.6% for black americans. 3.4% for white americans. so lowest rate ever sounds like something to boast about, but not when you consider the disparity because this is the challenge, okay? 48% lower than it is for black americans, black unemployment. so the falling tide is helping everybody, but he hasn't done anything for them specifically. he hasn't done anything for the workers specifically the way he promised that he would. 80 cents of every dollar of that tax cut went to the top 1%. now, you could say, well, that's okay. they pay the most, like i said earlier. but that's not what he called

it. he said it was for the middle class, okay? so blacks are not improving relative to whites. that's the challenge. all right. so the lesson is when the white house tries to get away from the latest embarrassment of pulling clearances, let's say, by pointing to the economy, remember what they are not telling you. often that's the most important thing. so the president was all too happy today to answer questions on his stripping of john brennan's security clearance. it's exactly what he wanted. everybody talking about it and distracting from everything else. what's worse, if this is just about distracting from problems, is this something worse than that? is it the kind of strongman tactic, silencing critics, that trump wants to do more of? that is the making of a great debate. we're having it next. if you have moderate to severe

plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, 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. welcome to at&t innovations where we give you more 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

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. "the washington post" is reporting the white house has drafted documents to revoke more clearances of officials who have criticized the president or were part of the russia investigation. why? to change the news cycle,

distract from omarosa's tapes. that's what they're reporting. that's what their sources tell them. so is this really just about tactics, or is there a darker desire at play for trump? let's put it up for debate with catherine rampell and rick santorum. what say you, rampell? >> look, this is about going after critics by pursuing their wallets essentially. again and again trump has used the weight of his office and of the broader federal government to inflict financial pain upon journalists, upon critics, upon whistle-blowers, peaceful protesters who express speech he does not like. he has done it clearly with brennan because if prenen doesn't have a security clearance, that limits his job opportunities, right? it means that he can't go work for booz allen or one of the other contractors out there that would require a security clearance. i'm not so much worried about him but instead about all of the other potential critics out there who do need to continue

having their security clearance. but it's not only about former government employees who have been critical about him. he's done this journalists. he's done with this nfl players. when "the washington post," my publication, publishes information that trump does not like, he threatens various kinds of government action against amazon because -- >> join the club, sister. you're not on an island. >> yeah, exactly. >> let's bring rick santorum in here. is this a strong arm tactic. is this how he wants to roll, flexing his muscles, saying you come at me, you mess with power? >> no, i don't think it is at all. i think actually there's a larger issue here, which is why does he get security clearances anyway? i was a united states senator for 12 years. i sat on very important committees that got lots of intelligence, and since i left the united states senate, i lost my security clearance. i don't know why these people keep their security clearances in the first place. >> i just want to clarify one thing, which is that to my knowledge -- and correct me if i'm wrong -- members of congress and senators do not go through

the very intensive vetting process that career intelligence officials and political appointees go through. they didn't -- you know, as soon as you got elected, once you swore an oath, you were entitled to view classified information. you didn't have the fbi calling up ex-girlfriends and former roommates and verifying former locations where you lived and asking them questions about whether you were a potential terrorist. you got access to that information because you were a senator. >> and the answer is that is correct. we do not have to go through the clearance process. but we don't get access to all -- you know, all the intelligence. we have certain classifications we're eligible for. others we're not. we have to be specifically cleared for those. but having said all that, look, the idea that a former intelligence person has a right to keep their clearance -- >> nobody says they have a right. >> they shouldn't. and the reality is -- >> about why you're taking it away and whether that's right. >> this is clearly punitive. >> the only reason that we keep

these clearances, at least in the law from what i understand and from my understanding when i was in the congress, is so these people can be a help to the government because they were there before, and so they might be a good reference in the past. well, if the administration doesn't feel they're a help to the government anymore -- >> clapper says that he's been contacted by senior members of the intelligence organization for the president right now. he didn't want to name them because he's worried about them being punished. but now you've take than resource away from them, rick. are you good with that? >> i am actually good with that because there's lots of other people. >> lots of other people? >> i think if there's specific things that someone in the administration wants to talk to jim clapper about -- >> if trump cares so much about the integrity -- >> this is really about the -- >> hold on. i've got another topic before we end here. the idea -- the president says, i care about security clearances very much, right? you guys both heard him say that. he didn't care about them so much when it was his son-in-law, right? he didn't care so much when it was rob porter, did he?

where was his concern for security clearances then, rick santorum? i don't remember this scrupulous add meerns to all of these types of questions you're raising now. >> look, security clearances for former -- for former, you know, employees are there to benefit the government. security clearances for people and governors to make sure that the people who are in government should be eligible to see that sensitive information. it's two different thing zplz two different things? catherine rampell, he's so worried about these guys abusing the clearance. he wasn't worried about his son-in-law. wasn't worried about rob porter and what kind of guys were or weren't getting vetted. >> they were going through the process. >> excuse me? >> they were going through the process. >> they weren't. the process was being frustrated. it was being circumvented. they were giving him access despite not having a clearance. >> the president has the right to do that. >> he also has the right to be a hypocrite, which is what he's being. >> exactly. this is clearly punitive. this is clearly punitive. this is unprecedented. no previous president has taken this action.

the reason why this administration is taking this action is to punish these people, not because, oh, you know, we don't want these clearances floating around to people who shouldn't have them. clearly that is not something that they care about. this is punishing people who have been critical of the administration. >> the benefit is not to the individual. i mean these clearances, the benefit should not be for the individual. the benefit should be for the government. >> well, then why -- >> if there's no benefit to the government, the president has the right to clear it. you're making it sound like he's taking away some sort of -- >> but why go -- why have this big -- >> that's not what it's there for. >> why have this big, splashy press conference, and why according to my own newspaper, "the washington post," are they sitting on something like a dozen other drafted revocations of these security clearances that they're planning on doling out when it's convenient for them depending on the news cycle? why go through all of that if it's really just about, you know, we want to cull the roles and make sure there aren't

security clearances floating about that we don't plan to call upon. >> it's a good point. answer that. >> if it's being done for the purposes of sort of waiting and dropping dimes when people do things they don't like, i don't like that. >> that is what it is. >> that's exactly what happened. >> that's your reporting but we don't know what that list is going to be used for. it may be used to say, you know what? i'm tired of having all these people with security clearances and let's get rid of all of them. >> if you think it was not politically motivated, the timing of the announcement that brennan was losing his clearance, to what do you attribute the fact that they made this announcement this week just as everybody was wondering about whether there was an omarosa tape, you know, using the n-word or whatever, or all of these other unflattering news stories that were coming out? clearly they wanted a distraction. they wanted to silence their critics, and they said you know what? let's kill two birds with one stone and let's do it now. there was nothing that happened in the last few days -- >> last word to rick. >> with all due respect, there's

always a nasty story about the president coming out, and so the idea that he sort of waited for this moment, i think this was simply a matter of course of looking what brennan did. and now it's sort of raised this issue up to the president. >> yes. >> the president looked at it and said, let's get rid of them. by the way, let's look at some others. >> here's the beautiful thing about this one, which is unlike a lot of the things that we debate on this show. we'll know by what they show. if they get rid of all of them, then they're making the kind of policy gesture you're talking about, rick. but if they don't -- >> if they only go after the critics, if they're not clearing the rolls of everybody who has ever worked in the federal government and ever had a security clearance, i think you can put two and two together. >> i don't think they should clear the rolls of everybody because there are people that actually have valuable information and cooperation with the government, and they should keep those in place. but those who are not benefiting this administration and those who are running it don't need to be kept on the rolls. >> let's see who they cull and what the category seems to suggest, and we'll talk about it again. rampell, santorum, on a friday

night, thank you for including me in your plans. >> thank you. >> always nice to spend a friday with you, chris. what's really going on inside of trump's mind right now? why does this make sense for him to exercise power this way? anthony scaramucci thinks he knows. i also want to ask him about the omarosa tapes. there are reports she could have as many as 200. he was mentioned in her tell-all book. what does he have to say about that? anthony, next. ♪ ♪ let your perfect drive come together at the lincoln summer invitation sales event. get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models plus $1,000 bonus cash. the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there... when you can stay home 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 $5 per dose with copay card.

ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed?m let's get someone to say it with a really low voice. carl? lowest price guaranteed. what about the world's lowest limbo stick? how low can you go? nice one, carl. hey i've got an idea. just say, badda book. badda boom. badda book. badda boom. nice. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com

this fight between the president and the intelligence community is escalating. on the one hand, you have former intel folks. they are signing on to a letter supporting brennan. they're saying, pull my clearance as well. they're calling trump out for his move to publicly punish people that he blames for the russia investigation and/or who criticize him, saying now, i'll do it again. always double down. that's the key to being strong and wrong. so let's bring somebody in here who can talk to us about why he's doing this, why he thinks this works for him. former white house

communications director anthony scaramucci. thank you for coming on short notice. >> happy friday, chris. >> appreciate it. why does he thinks this works for him? >> you want me to tell you why? >> please. >> well, i think he thinks it works for him because he's looked at the landscape of things that happened from the dossier to the investigation to the allegations that director brennan made about him, and so i think he thinks it's helping him -- apparatus of the country, et cetera. i don't agree with t.it. and worked very hard on the campaign. the reason i don't agree with it is you have to understand the historical context of our national security apparatus post-world war ii. that was always off the table and always a bipartisan commitment from everybody that we would bring everybody together. so if you start splintering these guys, what happens is if

we go into a crisis, you're going to want to get everybody in the room at the same time, and i just think it's a mistake. the president obviously would disagree with me on that. i listened to the debate very carefully. i don't think it's related to them leaking things out related to omarosa, though, because she's got 200 tapes apparently, and she'll be talking about this probably for two years. and so that strategy wouldn't work, and there's very smart people inside the white house whether it's sarah or bill shine, the president, jared, et cetera. i don't see that on a match game theory analysis working for them. >> i don't see it as working for them either. but they do it a lot. they try to distract, and he does it by tweet a lot. so the timing here was a little suspicious, right? >> we know that every politician wants to get the gun off the bird in certain situations, and so i'm sure the president is adept at doing that. but the notion that he's going to hold back these security clearances to protect himself from omarosa, i just don't believe that.

>> no, no. i don't think that's the speculation. i think the speculation was the distracts. santorum makes an interesting but dangerous argument in support. if he's going to say i've decided that this is a vestige of a bygone era and there's no reason for what anthony is discussing, i want all of them to have no clearance, that's one thing. but if it's something punitive, it's something very different and a little dark, i'm afraid, which is this is the president's next step towards being an autocrat. first it was the pardons. he's always looking to exercise absolute power in a punitive way. this is his latest attempt. what's next? pulling it from mueller? >> okay. but let's just -- let's split the thing quickly, okay? if it's the former, let him come out and articulate why and let him present a new vision for where we want to go directionally in america that is going to make americans safe here in the united states and

safe in afghanistan as service men, safe in iraq. for me i think it's a very bad strategy. i think you're going down a slippery slope. you don't want to be against mcraven and petraeus who have dedicated their entire lives to the united states. i know general petraeus personally. i've been to iraq and afghanistan. i understand the issues. i don't like the attack on the intelligence agencies. i didn't like it in helsinki. i don't like it now. and what i would say to the president directly is that you've got the rank and file in the intelligence agencies. by and large those people are very supportive of you. but what's happening is there's three or four pin dots at the top that you think weaponized against you, and they probably did, and they probably have been doing that, chris, for 150 years. it's just easier to tag it now because of all of the fishbowl nature of everything that's going on with our social media and et cetera. what i would tell the president that if you really understand the 75-year historical context post-world war ii order, i think

it's a bad move. and, you know, listen, i know john brennan personally. he's been to my conference. i want to make sure that i fully disclose that. i've sat in on intelligence briefings with him, and i have a lot of respect for him. i'm going to tell you something. these guys, chris -- >> you sat in on briefings with him when? >> we have by and large -- uh, you know, when i was at ben's. i was on the board of the business executives national security. it wasn't a deep level intelligence briefing as much as it was a civilian understanding of what was going on. >> i gotcha. i gotcha. >> but i like the guy. i don't agree with him politically. i don't like his personal attacks on the president. i am a supporter of the president. i want to see the president succeed. you were commenting on the economy. you and i could debate that. i think the economy is very, very strong. >> it just depends on for whom but let me ask you something before i lose you. omarosa -- >> wages are going up, and he

did cut the slack in the employment markets. >> yeah, he did. >> he did. >> but i think it's endemic to a trend we've been seeing. i don't think it's because of his tax cut. i don't see the economic benefit being derivative from the companies because they're buying back stock more than they're doing anything else with their savings. we'll talk about it another day. i want to get you about omarosa while i have you. >> we can debate it, but believe me, there's a lot more capital investment going into the company. one of the things -- i spent 11 days in the white house, but for the last 13 years, i've run an $11 billion fund. i look at the economic data very carefully. but let's go to omarosa. >> omarosa wrote about you in her tell-all book. she wrote that you were hurt by what happened, which is understandable. >> yeah. >> how do you feel about what she wrote about you, and what do you think she represents to the president in terms of a threat of revealing truths? >> i -- i don't -- i don't really care what she wrote about me, so i'm not really going to comment. and i wish the president would careless about what she wrote

about him and not comment. at the end of the day, omarosa did help him. okay. she did rally support in the african-american community. she's articulate on tv. i wouldn't have left her in the situation room for two hours before i fired her. if you guys wanted to get rid of her, there was probably a classier way of doing that. you're not going to silence somebody like omarosa. omarosa is going to say whatever she wants anyway. and i would just ignore the situation because at the end of the day, when somebody turns like that and someone becomes that disloyal to you after 15 years of service over a firing -- okay, look, they fired me brutally, chris. i was there for 11 days. i made a mistake. you had your buddy come on cnn, play the tape. they fired me brutally. i worked for the guy for two years on the campaign. i'm not going to lose my friendship with the president because of the way they fired me. omarosa is a different beast. she wants to take a different

tack in the situation. i think it's a mistake for her, but it's an even bigger mistake for the president of the united states. >> it always is. >> to sit there and tweet about her. >> that's true. >> and say things about her he should not be saying. >> the big man in the room does not need -- >> i'm not a yes person. >> we see it time and time again. we'll see what he figures out of how to punish omarosa. >> if i am going to have a girly cry, if i am going to have a girly cry, it's when you beat me in a debate. since that's never going to happen, chris, i'm going to be good without the girly cries. >> two points. crying is not girly. it's a show of sensitivity which is strength. you should tap into that. second of all, when you wake up from this dream of superiority, give me a call. i'll tell you what happened in the interim. >> now you're going to cut to commercial like you did last time. >> good-bye. take anthony off the screen. thank you very much. ever wonder what happened to the gipper? what happened with what president reagan would think %-p

historical retrospectives if he were alive today obviously. well, his daughter says she has a good idea what he would think. and she just shared it, next. ♪ be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications.

and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

welcome to at&t innovations where we give you more 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 ♪ ♪ our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. (buzzer sound) holiday inn express. be the readiest.

president trump loves ronald reagan but what would reagan think of trump, specifically his rhetoric, his attacks on the press? don let mon is here. what do you have coming up? >> it's his daughter. i was going to ask you who is the gold standard when it comes to republican presidents. that would be none other than ronald reagan. patty davis said her father would never stand for what's going on. would not want to label the press as enemy of the people. he realized the press had a certain role and there was a compromise they had to reach when it came to his personal life and personal space. as far as what happened, policy wise at the white house, and beyond and the briefing room, that wasn't personal. that was the press's business. that's what the press did. not the enemy of the people. i can't wait to talk to her. she wrote a really fascinating article, as you know, for the washington post. >> give me one little more taste because i don't want to ruin it for people. >> one little more taste of this

or what else we have coming up? >> you have something better than that? >> i want to talk to you about anthony scare -- scaramucci. if you want to really get under trump's skin then cut off his oxygen giving him so much attention. i disagree where he said omarosa helped this president with garnering voting from the african-american community. that's not true. she has no credibility when it comes to the african-american community. she has no credibility. >> the military parade is off. trump says he is saving you from paying too much. what is the truth behind the parap

parade? the final closing argument of the week, next.

for just $59... ancestrydna can open you to a world of new cultures to explore. with two times more detail than any other dna test... you can get a new taste of your heritage. only $59- our site's lowest price ever.

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. ♪

♪ for i'll love a parade >> no one loved a parade like joey when she sang except maybe president trump. can you see him singing that song in the hair wasn't that bad a match for joey and the president. this isn't about celebration. it's about deception and a plot for power. today president trump cancelled his big planned military parade. why? he says he was being cost conscious. first, this is not trump catching the government wasting money on something we don't need. this was his idea. you remember, after him coming home from france. listen. >> one of the greatest parades i've ever seen. to a large extent because of what i witnessed, we may do something like that on july 4th in washington down pennsylvania avenue.

i don't know. we'll have to try and top it. >> the price tag wound up being $92 million. the original pentagon estimate was $12 million. 21 million of that 92 were low cool costs. city of d.c. had to provide police, transportation, all these other transportation services. 21 out of 92 is what triggered him? no. covering up for a bad idea by blaming someone else. that was his play. the local politicians who run washington, d.c. horribly know a wind fall when they see it. when asked to give us a price for holding a military parade, they wanted a number so ridiculously high that i cancelled it. maybe we'll do something next year in d.c when the cost comes down. now we can buy more fighter jets. a fighter jet costs around 90 million you can only buy one. was he really suggesting he might deny the military what it needs to blow millions on vanity fair for himself. guess so.

this was never about the we. always about the me. proof. a poll from the time found that only 18% of people thought this was a good use of government dollars. that's back when it was just a fraction of the cost. here's the real motivation. trump likes the big military parades in places like russia, china, north korea. tactics used by strong men showing mite makes right. remember, they are otocrats. not role models. two arguments, if you have to celebrate veterans, don't have a parade. stop having your country club pals run the v.a. take reform there seriously. don't privatize what needs to be managed closely for veterans. stop letting essential protections slip like g.i. bill transf transferability and giving them cover from predatory payday lenders. give them the tax relief you

promised. that's what they want in the hospital a parade. second, if you have to rally the country, two ideas. both are free. stop dividing it. stop blowing on the fires of political division. stop attacking our fundamental institutions for nonexistent or wrongful reasons. stop trash talk, period, especially as a mode of disagreement. instead, parade our best qualities. not just on pennsylvania avenue but around the world. show our empathy, our openness. celebrate our differences as a projection of freedom and sweet strength, not harsharshness. be that kind of president and the people may just throw you a parade instead of just paying for one that you throw for yourself. here's a great hashtag. make the presidency great again. thank you for joining me. cnn tonight with don lemon starts right now. >> maybe the parade has bone

spurs. >> ooh. did you burn a lot of calories coming up with that one? remember you were asking me about my background? >> yeah. >> kwhawhat's in that? let's get after it. wait a minute. >> see you later. >> let's get after it. >> i'm not anything like that. you don't need need glasses. >> these are prescription. tell my eye doctor that. thank you. have great weekend. we have breaking nu ining news russian investigation. robert mueller is recommending a sentence of up to six months in jail for george papadopoulos who pleaded guilty. the white house has drafted multiple documents revoking