story. you can go inside the correctional center and hear more from the voices at cnnheroes.com. thanks for watching. our coverage continues. they served with distinction. some risking their lives on the frontlines of the cold war and everywhere war sends. the president of the united states is battling them and belittling them and their number is growing. jim schutto sitting in for anderson and upwards of 75 former intelligence officials are at odds with president trump. first new names on the list of former senior intelligence officials condemning the decision to revoke former cia director security clearance. that number up to 15. that is 15 former directors and deputy directors of the cia and directors of national intelligence dating back to the

reagan administration. all signing on to a statement that reads in part, president's action regarding john brennan and other former officials have nothing to do with what should and should not hold security clearances and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech. the decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views. again, these are household names. general david pe trees, leon webster, leon panetta and people who served in republican and democratic administrations or both. late today, 60 other former cia officials weighed in as well with a statement of their own. one of them is going to join us shortly. in any case, the president appears undeterred. he appears eager to go after another name on what critics are calling his own enemies list and

serving justice department official named bruce. >> say it? i think bruce ohr is a disgrace. >> ever heard of bruce ohr? he is a small player in what the president would call a large experience against him. he commune waited with the author of a russian dossier this afternoon mr. trump's victory. there is no evidence that mr. ohr did anything wrong with speaking with mr. steele. none. he was associate deputy attorney general so a dossier like the he compiled would be of interest to him, but whaufr think of thetev the doj or in years past, you ought to know what president trump is doing is without precedent. the very rare exceptions. the chief executives do not get involved in who does or doesn't

have security clearance. this president has and every time he talks about it, he underscores motivation for doing it. you will remember the white house is yet to say that john brennan mishandled classified information and hard not to notice the other former officials have connections, real or in the president's mind with the overall russia probe. he admitted this was for him about russia and punishing perceived critics and he repe repeated that himself today. >> i say it and i say it again. the whole situation is a rigged witch hunt. it's a rigged deal and they should be looking at the other side and the people that got fired by them. all of the people that got fired, they should look at bruce ohr and his wife for dealing with by the way, indirectly, russians. they should be looking at steele. they should be looking at the

fbi guys who got fire and demoted and it's a really -- it's not us. it's a rigged witch hunt. i said it for a long time. >> that are is the president of the united states for the second time in two days revealing the motivation behind taking away people's security clearances. his words, and his deeds. it is moving people and step forward in public. the retired admiral who oversaw the take down of osama bin laden and many other special operations against al qaeda and the taliban in wartime. i want to reread a portion of his statement because it probably moved a lot of others today to get involved in public. he wrote through your actions, to the president, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children. humiliated us on the world stage and worst of all, divided us as a nation. here's how the president

responded. >> i don't know mccraven. i have gotten tremendous response from having done that because security clearances are very important to me. very, very important. i had a tremendous response for having done that. >> joining us now is one of the 15 top former intelligence official who is weighed in last night and again today. he served as the deputy director of the cia from 2015 to last year and treasury secretary for financing. thank you very much for taking the time. why did you personally think it was important to sign this letter in public? >> i think it was time to stand up and be counted. to join with other former directors and deputy directors and to say clearly that what the president is doing departs from president and departs from the president in a dangerous way. the whole process of security clearance of who gets them and

how they get revoked as forever been an a political process. the president now inserts politics and his own personal fears about the russia investigation into this process. it under mines our security. i think it's important that those of us who had the privilege of serving in leadership levels call him to account. >> there is a story that broke in "the washington post." it said the white house has drafted documents revoking the security clearances of several other current and former. you remember when sarah sanders announced brennan's revocation she listed a long list of others like james comey and jim clapper and others. trump wants to sign most if not all of them. one more detail. the post reporting that the plan is to release the statements revoking the security clearances

at times when there are unfavorable news cycles to distrac distract. what's your reaction? >> we know the statement about john brennan's security clearance being revoked was dated july 26th and issued just a few days ago. clearly they had that in their back pocket. i don't know if they saved it for an opportune time to distract from other stories. >> omarosa news. >> perhaps. the decision to revoke these clearances has nothing to do with any of the people on that list that sarah sanders read out mishandling classified information or doing anything that is in the standards for why someone should or should not have security clearance. it is a blatantly political act and that departs from our nation's history. >> the president has

characterized certainly john brennan and i can imagine he doll the same for others as he revokes them as partisans. biased against him. today belying the president's claim, a former director of the cia who supported the president and released his own letter. our understanding is he signed on to the other and not contacted in time. i will quote from the letter he wrote on his own. he said that objective criteria should be used in evaluating who gets to keep a security clearance. does this belie the assertion that this is all about partisanship against him as opposed to the facts? >> look. i think the president has said this is about two things. one is to try to silence critics. you can see from the list of people that they are looking at to reare voek their clearances, it includes mike hayden. mike hayden has nothing to do with the russia investigation, but the former director of the

cia and nsa under republican administrations has been critical of the president. the only possible reason he is on that list is because the president doesn't like the criticism he received from mike hayden. you have other people on the list that are in the president's mind somehow involved in the russia investigation like bruce ohr. that is i think the motivation here. both to go after critics and as a foreshadowing, i think to the folks on the mueller team that they also may have their security clearances revoked. it's a way for the president to shut down by revoking the clearances of the prosecutors and investigators. >> you advised the president in time of war. the reason that former officials keep security clearances is when there is a thread, an admiral who has been involved in many doz everieens of counter terror.

if there was another, you might want to call them. is it a risk or damaging to national security to exile these people with these expertise? >> there is a reason that the tradition grew that former directors and former deputy directors and military officials like them retain their clearance. the people who are currently holding the offices like to be able to rely on people with experience and expertise and some historical perspective and call on them for their guidance. that's a good thing for our country and our national skurtd. if that is no longer available, it would be dets ririmental for sure. >> last night's statement from the 12 and the 13 and now the 15 intelligence chiefs and deputies was followed by a statement from 60 other professionals. i want to highlight a few of

those names and their accomplishments to get a better sense of the caliber and the sacrifice and the service of these men and women. let's start with greg vogel. the deputy director for operations. he was in charge of covert opes and credited with safing the life of hamid karzai during a friendly firefight after 9/11. remember that. there is leticia long. the former director of the geospatial intelligence agency and the first woman to head an intelligence agency. jeremy bash and koupcounter terrorism analyst along with cnn commentator. phil, since you are one of those who signed your name to that list, the second letter coming from intelligence officials today, me why you and colleagues went public challenging and

protesting the president's actions. >> i don't understand why we keep talking about security clearances. this is not about security clearances. my peers on that letter used our lives looking at adversaries, the chinese and the russians. these countries, one of the common characteristics they have is people who want to speak out because they have uviews that don't correspond with the government. if you look at vladimir putin, murdered. this is not about security clearances. this is about the president trying to intimidate people to say you are a dog and i will muzzle you. we spent our career saying that we are fighting for the right of 330 million americans to speak and the president said no. that will never happen in this country. all of us will speak until we are dragged away. i don't care what i say.

i don't care what john brennan says. i have the right to say it. i don't care whether the president likes it or not. whether it's bush, obama, or trump, i have the right to say it. that's the reason we wrote the letter. >> let me ask you. long time trump supporter. who should the american people trust? who should the american people listen to on this issue? 75 men and women who have served and continue to serve and served democratic and republican presidents on this. who is right? >> i think they are both right. i think that -- >> the president is trying to silence them. they are saying the president is wrong to remove the security clearance under threat of taking away people's voice here. >> what we have seen since john brennan's security clearance has been revoked is nobody's voice has been silenced. mr. cohen said what he wanted

to. others have come on and said exactly what they want to. they continue to be contributors on cable news and continue to tweet as they wish. phil came on the program and said he won't be silenced so the idea that revoking their clearance is going to silence them is not true. they are still talking. >> why is the president doing it? to what end? >> the idea of norms and laws and privileges and rights. these are all getting confused under this administration with people thinking that because something was a norm means that it's law. that's not the case. a lot of these people that have security clearances and this is the secret in d.c., they have them and keep them because it's profitable for them after they leave government. if you have a security clearance, high level clearances, you are paid a lot more money because of the access you have. i hope the president continues

to do this and adds omarosa to the list because of her actions. she should have it revoked. >> i don't know if i put omarosa in the same category as the people who signed the letters. i imagine you want to react. >> profitable? when i am requested to sit on an advisory board, let me ask you one question. how much do you think i'm paid to do that at the request of the u.s. government? give me one answer and you have 10 seconds. how much? >> i will ask you a question. how much are you paid. >> answer the question. >> how much do you get. >> i have no contracts with the u.s. government that pay money. zero. when i am asked for advice, i get paid zero. that's it. >> i'm not talking about your role with the federal government. >> who were you talking about. >> and a contractor and the consuling firms you get is because you get more money for having the security clearance. >> that are is incorrect. i have consulting relationship

with the u.s. government. zero. >> phil, that's a good talking point. i'm not talking about relationships with the governmentment i'm talking about the private sector. >> i have zero relationships with the private sector that involve my security clearance. zero. i get zero dollars from consulting companies that deal with the u.s. government. are we clear? >> everyone in washington, d.c. knows if you don't want to be honest, that's on you. if you have a clearance and you keep it -- >> we're done. get out. 25 years in this service. get out. >> don't be so defensive about this. your voice is still here and you can do whatever you want. the politicalization of the intelligence community with this administration with the people coming on here every day tweeting and talking about this administration, you all have made it about politics. not the president. >> phil, i appreciate your patience because it's getting

personal here. phil makes a point of fact. when a phil who serves on an advisory board goes and participates in conversations and agencies about the threats, he's not getting paid for that. >> that's not what i'm talking about. >> when he is consummited on counter terror operations because he led dozens of missions, soldiers risk their lives. he is not paid for that. what you seem to be doing here is saying that because people have jobs outside of government after they leave government that therefore you are saying that is justification to take away their clearances when government and agencies rely on them for counsel? is that what you are saying? >> what i'm arguing and i appreciate every one of the person's service. i know how important everyone is serving in the role they played for this country. what i'm talking about is the private sector. that's not like all these men

and women who sit at home and consult with the federal government and don't earn a living. everybody knows, jim, that a part of keeping your clearance means you get more money for having the clearance. when you consult and you have contracts with other companies, you set up your own firms. this is what happens. >> phil, he is making an argument there and you made your point on what you do for government. what's your response to his argument. >> we have 24 hours. i have a simple suggestion. go to the original 15 signatories of the letter yesterday and ask how much income by a percentage they make from their security clearances. mine? zero. thanks a lot. >> here's a question i want to put to you because it gets to the larger issue here. this is a question on national security. is it not? you keep security clearances when you leave the profession

because you may be called on to give advice based on your experience when the u.s. faces a national security threat as phil does when he is called in when there is a new to bringing bombs on airplanes. how can we use your experience to prevent that. as an american, would you feel safer if that couple was not available to the president? >> what i would hope is there is a mechanism so if needed, the individuals that served prior could come back and do it on a temporary basis. >> that's what this is. to be clear, there is a misunderstanding. for the sake of our viewers. to have a clearance doesn't mean that david cohen can walk in and call up classified files. it means that if he is called upon, he is already cleared to go in that building and view classified information. so the system you are talking about is exactly the system in

place which is exactly the system that the president here is removing by removing their clearances. does that change your view? >> he's not eliminating the system. >> he's doing it for a bunch of prominent people. >> what are he's doing is for those people who have been overtly political or the president believes have done things that have been political as it relates to the russia investigation and didn't do a good job or calling the president committed treason or calling him treasonous. by using that intelligence that they and saying they are qualifying their position because of the access they have. the president is saying you people on this list should not have that security clearance. why are these people the only ones who can provide the int intelligen intelligence. >> they are there from the last 25 years. they are pretty well qualify

said. >> and a lot more people are equally qualified. >> i'm going to give you, phil, the quick final word. >> i will say one final thing. michael flynn got on the campaign trail and asked that a political opponent be locked up, what a third world dictatorship does. if that's the litmus test, why did the president ask him to be security adviser instead of suggesting his security clearance be removed? >> we researched this day and michael flynn's security clearance has been suspended, but not revoked. he pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators. this is a difficult conversation, but we appreciate you joining us. >> where are congressional republicans in all of this. we are joined by a one-time trump supporter who now has a very different view.

and later, what another day of deliberation means in the paul manafort trial and the unpresidential decision to weigh in as the unsequestered jurors are making their decision. how do you win at business? stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level.

bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com start winning today. when it comes to strong bones, are you on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors we chose prolia® to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger

isn't it time for a new direction? why wait? ask your doctor about prolia. oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®.

stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. (thomas) nice choices! you see, now verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plans like you mix and match your flavors. so you get what you want, without paying for things you don't. number 6. i know. where do i put it? in my belly. (vo) one family. different unlimited plans. starting at $40 per line on the network you deserve.

revoking john brennan's security clearance and eagerness to go further. other revocation letters are ready to go and there has been discussion in the white house of dolling them out as distractions during unfavorable news cycles. we will discuss that with our next guest as well as this. the lack of push back from republican lawmakers. senator bob corker weighed in against it, but he is retiring and so is house speaker paul ryan. this is what he said when asked about it last month when the president was threatening to do what he has now done. >> i think he is trolling people honestly. this is something that is in the perview of the executive branch. some people lost their clearances and some people keep them. it's not in our perview.

>> now it's a reality. he is saying it's no business of him and what message is that sending to the executive branch? my next guest as thoughts on all that. former republican congressman joe walsh. he is nothing if not a staunch conservative and once was a fan of the president. recently he tweeted the following. i wanted a distributive force and i understood the disruption would be messy, but i did not want and cannot accept a dishonest bully who purposely lies to the american people every single day and who regularly places his own interests above the count rae's interests. joe walsh joins us now. thanks very much for taking the time. appreciate it. >> good to be with you, jim. >> i want to ask you, what made you write that tweet? what led you -- you have been supporter of trump in the past, less than a year ago you tweeted quite controversially.

if trump loses, i'm grabbing my musket. you have had criticism for the president, but this is pointed. why? >> it's to the point that i don't believe a single word that comes out of this president's mouth. that combined with the fact and it has been a fascinating discussion that you had the last half hour. this is one more example where this president has placed his own personal political interests above the security interests of the country. these revoking security clearances have absolutely as you said, nothing to do with the national security. it's all about trump and trump's politics. the whole russia investigation, jim, to begin with. russia attacked us. this bizarre world we are living in. we were attacked in 2016 and this president still doesn't believe that or acknowledge it or do anything to defend us.

>> the president said this morning that he has received a tremendous response for suspending brennan's clearance as we have been talking about. you have the 75 former cia directors and senior officials who rebuked the president's action. you are in touch with many supporters of the president and many republicans. do you sense them sticking to him on this issue or like yourself, do you find folks quietly perhaps saying this is too far? >> look, i realize, jim, a while ago that i don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. when he said what he said this morning, i don't pay attention to it. i am finding that more and more republicans feel that same way. i will be really direct. most of my former republican colleagues in the house privately say exactly what i say

publicly. they are just afraid to say it publicly. they know that this president -- they have to watch him like a 10-year-old child so that the country will be secure. they are afraid to say that publicly, jim, because again, they want to get reelect and he's got most of the base. >> is that a breech of their responsibility? >> yes. yes. >> if they believe he is generally dangerous. >> yes. jim, look. it's terribly disappointing. they hated when he called omarosa a dog privately. they won't say that publicly. they don't like the way he's revoked john brennan's security clearances. they don't think it's appropriate. they know it's endangering national security, but they won't say it publicly. they can't stand the way he goes after robert mueller. look, when i was in congress, i swore to defend and uphold this

constitution. they have as well. it's a real shame that they won't speak out publicly. >> isn't the definition of courage speaking out when it's difficult? >> amen. amen. i think what's going to happen is you are going to see more folks out in the country angry with what this president is doing and then you will probably see politicians doo do what politicians do and follow that. >> congressman walsh, thank you for speaking straight to us. >> thanks, jim. >> you have a good night. president trump weighs in again on his former campaign chairman, paul manafort. this as jury deliberations are under way. and later, details on a horrible murder case in colorado where a father is suspected in killing his own two children and his own pregnant wife. 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.

chicken! that's right, chicken?! candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken! tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is your insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today.

liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ 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. ♪ ♪ ♪ olly.

>> in normal times, no period would comment on an ongoing criminal trial. the president would definitely not weigh in on an ongoing trial involving his own former campaign chairman accused of 18 felonies and definitely not open the door to pardoning said former campaign chairman. these are not normal times. >> i don't talk about that. i don't talk about that. i think the whole manafort trial is very sad. when you look at what's going on there, it's a very sad day for our 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 have done to paul manafort. >> after court was recessed, one

of the defense attorney who is not surprisingly was thrilled with the president's comments. >> what was your reaction to the president today? >> i was happy to hear from the president and that he's supporting mr. manafort. >> i'll bet. the jury is not sequestered in the manafort case and can get wind of the president's remarks. sarah murray joins me now. could the president's comments put the jury -- poison the jury on this decision? >> as you pointed out, the jury is not sequestered. these are normal human beings who go home and if they turn on the television or pick up a newspaper, they will see the president's comments saying this is very sad. that said, the jury got ex-policeit instructions from the judge about what they are supposed to consider when weighing this decision. what they are supposed to take into account and on that list of factors is not how does the president feel about the way this trial should turn out. the president always felt this was a witch hunt.

we have seen him talk publicly. what happens to jurors if they go home over the weekend and could it sway their decision? >> was it the judge's decision not to sequester them? >> there has been no move to sequester them. you could have had that at the beginning. there was no effort to do that and the judge didn't have concern about sending them home over the weekend. >> i'm not going to ask you to read tea leaves. are there any indications based on the questions they have been asking the judge and the time they have taken on deliberations? >> when they go back on monday for the third day of deliberations. you would love the jury to say we will give you everything you you want and we found him guilty on all counts. manafort's defense attorney said he felt like it was to his client's benefit the jury was taking so long to deliberate. there are a number of charges he is facing. these are complicated.

it's a financial case. the jury is doing due diligence and i don't know if we can read it one way or the other if they pore over two weeks of financial information. >> i was in the courtroom and you have been as well. it's complicated stuff. thanks very much. joining us to sort out both president trump's remarks as well as the past couple of days of jury deliberations, members of our own team, jennifer rogers, if i can begin with you. a sitting president of the united states making a public comment as the jury is deliberating and the jury is not sequestered. is that prejudicing the outcome of this case? >> it could be. that's one of the reasons the president made the comment. it's an outrageous thing to do. he is putting his thumb on the scale. who knows whether the jurors will see this, but there is a danger they will and it's highly inappropriate.

it's a continuation of the president's attack on the criminal justice system and the department of justice. it should never happen. >> we are not on the defense counsel then. he is experienced. he himself was in the department of justice for 15 years. is he behaving ethically by welcoming the president's comments on this? >> no, he absolutely is not. there is a rule. 3.6 in most jurisdictions that said attorneys should not make comments that could prejudice a jury in an ongoing trial. when you have the defense attorney saying we really appreciate the fact that the president of the united states supports our client, of course that's something that will get covered. i wouldn't be surprised if the judge does not say something to him about that. the judge does not have power over the president. the president doesn't appear before him, but attorneys are held to a higher standard. that might surprise people at home, but they are held to a

higher ethical standard and he should be responsible for the comments. >> i won't hang out there, but jennifer, we know the president is not afraid to use or advertise his parton power. did you interpret today's comments where he left that open. he said i'm not thinking about it as sending a signal? >> i don't know whether he was sending a signal. i think at this point there is no way that paul manafort is going to be cooperating before a verdict comes in or anything like that. i don't think he is sending a signal, but he is keeping his options open. even the fact that a president would consider pardoning someone in fan murt's situation is outrageous. even the fact that he wouldn't answer that by saying no, i won't is bad. i think he is just keeping his options open and we may see that action from him. i don't think it will be now. it wouldn't be until after the second case is resolved and the mid-terms, i think.

>> reading tea leaves based on how long a jury is deliberate can cut both ways and there are a lot of complicated charges, but you are an experienced lawyer as you look at this. are you surprised it's extending to monday. are do you think they are having trouble reaching consensus or impossible to say? >> it's not surprising that it's taking this long. i tried many cases like this. i was a federal prosecutor who tried a lot of complex white collar trials like this. the rule of thumb is for every day of trial testimony it takes an hour of deliberation. if you are a prosecutor, you want them to come back quickly. that's a prosecution verdict. this was a case with very, very strong evidence. that said, as you point out, the jury is being careful. it's a bad sign for prosecutors that they asked a question about reasonable doubt. that often means there is a one

or two hold out and the rest of the jurors are trying to convince. in my experience a lot of times that results in a compromised verdict where you have guilty on some counts and as long as he is guilty on one count, he is a felon. >> interesting. jennifer rogers, thanks very much. >> that military parade that president trump wanted in washington and asked for is off at least until next year. who the president is now blaming for the postponement and where he said he is going to go instead. on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors we chose prolia® to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing;

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

it is no secret that president trump likes pomp and circumstance. so much so that in fact according to the "washington post," when he was a guest at a bastille day parade in paris a year ago, he said he wanted the same thing at home. now cost estimates are ballooning with an administration official telling cnn that planning estimates are ranging to as high as $92 million. so today in a tweet, the

president said the 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 military parade, they wanted a number so ridiculously high i canceled it. he said he would attend a parade commemorating the end of world war i. joining me now to talk about the raining of the president's parade, author of the book gaslighting america. so, david, you now have the president saying that he was the one who decided on his own to pull the plug on the mill pear parade, but we know there were not a lot of folks excited about this in the pentagon. his own advisers, etc. does he pay a political price for reversing here? >> i don't think so. i think it's mostly sighs of relief. he pays a price for the pet lens he has shown in attacking the

mayor of the district of columbia and people around being the reason why they couldn't put the parade on. most people see through that, but the critical thing is most young veterans don't feel they need a parade. they are often received shably, the young veterans coming back from afghanistan and iraq, they are widely celebrated. they have a huge number of young veterans running for congress this fall. a cnn reported a striking number of them are winning the primaries and are getting into the finals and looking like strong candidates. >> it was a good point. the reception is different than in decades past. the parade was the president's yet, but we know that the financial figures behind this, tens of millions of dollars,

there were different estimates. there were different factors. was it ever a good idea when the president himself is talking about insufficient funds for veterans coming home and wounded vets, etc. >> no. the country is $21 trillion in debt. it was always a bad idea. we should always celebrate the veterans, but he had it wrong. he wanted a parade for himself in front of the white house. his priorities were skewed. this is evidence that the system worked. trump had a bad idea to waste money on a bad project. people presented him facts and evidence and he actually listened and backed down. he had a uniquely trumpian statement declaring victory falsely claiming he saved the taxpayers money, but whatever. the system worked in this case so i will be happy about it and encourage donald trump if he wants to see a military trade, go down to 8th and i in washington, d.c. every summer

friday they put on a great performance and they would probably love have him. >> that's a great recommendation. it appears the president got this idea from the bastille day parade in france, a tradition there. you served multiple u.s. presidents of both parties. why is it that this is not something that the u.s. does by tradition? >> i think we are quietly more confident about who we are and the tear. we have the best trained military in the world. and we don't feel the need to express ourselves in that way. frankly this for many in military leadership, the idea of this parade was less reminiscent of bastille day in france than it was in the big parades you used to see in the clem rin or north korea.

this was bringing out trump's authoritarian instincts, i'm afraid. >> that's a thought. do you find that someone who served republican lawmakers before, does that concern you? it's not the only time, as you know, that the president expressed ds mile an houration or envy of the totalitarian leader, putin, kim, and others have. >> that may be the idea that made washington, d.c. uncomfortable. he wanted the tanks to roll down pennsylvania avenue during his inauguration and he wanted to display his personal power, the might that he would wield from the white house rather than again, expressing thanks for the veterans or showing a quiet confidence that america should have. this is not what we do. someone who worked in washington, d.c. who considers this area home, the idea of tanks rolling through our city streets is a very uncomfortable thing to contemplate.

>> i agree. >> it's a fantasy project. this is being done and people are going along with it. when the price tag rose and rose, what killed this was the fact that the estimated cost had gone up to $90 million. >> too much to bear. >> thanks very much. a quick programming note. the ax files with david axlerod, the president and the press, here's a preview. >> we have a lot of fake news back there, these fakers. the enemy of the people, i call them. >> deeply concerned. not only concerned about the way -- about what happens inside the united states at some of the

volatile trump rallies. i think the president has sent a message to despots abroad that you can attack the press. we've never had a president attack the press on foreign soil. both of us manage newsrooms with people who cover governments that don't like the press. it's -- i can't tell you how concerning it is that this president has essentially told those governments you can beat up the press. you can call them enemies of the people. how can my correspondent in cairo who covers a government that's often an tig nisk to the press, how can he make the case for the first e-mailed and the power of -- amendment and the power of the press when we have a president of the united states who says the things he says about the press. >> don't miss this conversation. it's 7:00 tomorrow eastern time rights leer on cnn.

next, big breaking news in the russia investigation. m prison time the prosecutors now say they want for the russian. p number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's 'biggest sale of the year'. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, all beds are on sale. save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 24-month financing on all beds. only for a limited time. sleep number. proven, quality sleep. where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com.

. fridays are busy around here. the government's sentencing memorandum in the case of george pop top last, the trump campaign aide who pled guilty to lying to the fbi about his contact with russians. he was expected to cooperate with authorities. tonight's sentencing memo sfeeks that and more. sarah murray has the document. what is robert mueller recommending? >> he's recommending that george pop top louse go to jail.

they take a dim view of his cooperation. this is someone who pled guilty to lying to investigators. they're saying he didn't provide a lot of substantial assistance. most of what he fessed up to do, he only did it after we cop fronted him with things investigators had obtained from search warrants. this seems like a much more hostile cooperation situation we've seen from other witnesses, like rick gates. >> they recommended gates for probati probation. they want to send him to jail. did they make any case for it? >> george papadopoulos, the trump world has downplayed his role in the campaign. as you pointed out, he had kavrgs with this london-based professor where it seems he knew the russians had all this dirt

on hillary clinton. when investigators were asking about this in 2017, he agreed to participate in this voluntary skbrooufr and he pretty much just lied throughout the entire interview. a couple of weeks after that interview, this professor is in washington, d.c., and if you read the latest sentencing memo it says the defendant's lies undermined investigators' ability to challenge the professor or detain or erect him while he was still in the united states. the goth understands he left the united states in february 2017 and has not been back since. so he's someone they wanted to talk to about it. we were not able to do that. we messed the opportunity. >> so remind people, the president has often said, the whole investigation started with this dodgy dogs yay, etc., whether the facts are, in fact,

that it was papadopoulos ra bragging about the russians having dirt on hillary clinton, the first start of the investigation before the dossier showed up on their doorstep. >> he kind of kicked off this investigation. that's the irony of him being downplayed as a low-level staffer as the president put it on twitter. in many way, he set off this investigation. and the fact that he went on and lied to investigators about his contact with pot russian officials who were trying to set up meetings, that's what got this guy in hot water. if you read this document it's clear from the government's view they do not deal like he was particularly cooperative until they confront him with efltd. seems like they do want to send a signal, this is what happens if you try to impede an investigation and lie to investigators. he was telling these lies as he was seeking a position in the trump administration. so a pretty ballsy move from

that guy. >> no question. sara murray, thanks very much. 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" see it week nights at neighbor.com/andersoncooperfull circumstance m. that's it gor me. i'm turning over to chris cuomo. >> thank you. welcome to "prime-time." he got a tremendous response. that's how trump now justifies yank john brennan's security clearance achltd he signalled who is likely next. is this strong man behavior really a good move? anthony scaramucci is well tlugd in to trump's advisors in thinking. let's put identity the test. should we let someone else fight our battle? a private military force sound good to you. th