justice is back. i'm so tired of bob mueller messing everything up. he's got to go.o. i hope you'll tune in. sean's back on monday. "ingraham angle" is up next. have a great weekend! >> good evening. welcome to this "ingraham angle" special. trump versus the intel resistance. i'm david webb for laura tonight who is on vacation and boy do we have a show for you. security clearance is stripped. media bias exposed and a potentialor major, major setback for special counsel robert mueller. we'll have it covered throughout the hour. earlier this week, the white house made big news when it announced president trump had stripped john brennan of his security clearance. in case you're not familiar with mr. brennan's work, he's the guy that went frommr obama cia

director to a far left cable news pundit, among -- and from almost the moment president trump took office. here's what he said tonight. >> what really gets under my skin is mr. trump's lack of decency, integrity, honesty and, um, his lack of commitment to this country's well-being and national security. mr. trump time after time i think has really just disappointed millions of americans, which i'm trying to give voice to. so i know a lot of people think a former intelligence official shouldn't be doing this. i don't consider what i'm doing political at all. >> david: now 15 top former intelligence officials from both parties, you see them on the screen, came to brennan's defense released a statement that said in part, and i quote, "we all agree that the president's action regarding john brennan and the acts of similarses against other former officials have nothing to do with who should and should not

hold security clearances and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech." it goes onto say, "decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views." later today, 60 former cia officers also released a letter criticizing trump's action against brennan but president trump is sticking by his guns. >> i've gotten tremendous response fromsp having done tha, because security clearances are very important to me. very, very important. and i've had a tremendous response for having done that. there's no balance. if anything, i'm giving them a bigger voice. many people don't even know who he is and now he's got a bigger voice, and that's ok with me, because i like taking on voices like that. i've never respected him. i've never had a lot of respect.

>> david: and brennan, by n the way, might not be the only one who looses his clearance. "the washington post" reporting tonight that b white house officials have drafted documents that cancel security clearances of several current and former officials. "the post" reports that trump wants to sign most, if not all of them, due to his anger over the russia investigation. joining me now for reaction area buck sexton, former cia analyst, jim hanson, president of the security studies group and chris hahn who is a former aide to democrat senator and the senior senator to new york, chuck schumer. gentlemen, good evening, great to see you here again. let's dive right in and begin with john brennan. this is what he had to say earlier on msnbc with rachel maddow. >> i was very concerned and aware that the russians were trying to leverage u.s. citizens

to achieve their objectives in the presidential election. >> while you were in office as cia director, before you left on inauguration day, did you conclude that u.s. persons were successfully leveraged in that effort? >> no. >> david: now, i'll go to you first, buck, if the question is asked if the concern was there and the answer was no, then why is john brennan going the way he does against the president? >> that's a question i don't think anyone could answer including john brennan if you push him enough. people are talking a lot here, david, about how it's unprecedented to pull a clearance in thisut way by a president, but what is also unprecedented is not just for a former intel chief but the most recent cia director, not to just be critical of the president but to be actively undermining the president, calling him a traitor, in fact, to the country, this man is the commander-in-chief and brennan's allegations have gone far beyond what you would see in normal

political discourse to the point wheref. you could even say it's undermining institutions to borrow from one of the common democrat flies terms of trump on all things -- lines in terms of trump on all things. i see this now on a few levels, one is, david, i don't think people that don't have government business should maintain clearances.s. i think that should just be a general rule and you certainly should maintain a clearance if you're going on tv and suggesting you have secret information about the president that you can't really tell but it's what's informing your judgment that he's guilty of treason. that's a big problem. >> david: chris, especially with what buck just said, john brennan going on tv, his clearance covering the specter, giving his words more weight. i'll put the same question to you, if the answer is no, and given what buck just said, then is john brennan being honest or somewhat disingenuous what he's doings on cnn or on any of the

other channels? >> i watched a lot of that interview earlier, and he did not say that the president was out ofe line, and he did not say -- he did say, though, that he had new information that was widely publicized including the don jr. meeting in trump tower that most of us didn't know about until this last summer. so there are more information that has come out, and i think this is led him to believe there's been some sort of collusion, not necessarily with the president, and maybe a conspiracy that involved americans that needs to be dealt with and needs to be uncovered by mueller. as for the president stripping his clearance, look , i don't think any of us believe that a president should use the power of his office to retaliate against his political opponent. that's unamerican. it's a banana republic-like move. this is not something we associate with the american president. this is like nixon enemies list except for sarah sanders goes to the podium and reads the names on the enemies' list. if we had a congress who is doing its job, it would

investigate exactly why this president was doing this, and i think come january, we will have a congress that will do its job under the constitution and hold this president accountable through checks and balances. >> david: well, if they take the congress ithink we can expect that from the democrats. jim, to you on this issue of security clearances. they're kept because, if needed, they will call back these advisers. this has been common throughout administrations, however if the administration has madee a decision that they're not going to call you back because of -- as they see it -- john brennan is in and out against the administration. they may not trust his advice and they have the right, then what is it really all about to remove his security clearance if they're not going to call him back? why should he keep it if they're not going to call him back? >> there's absolutely no reason for him to keep it, because no one is going to trust his judgment now having said what he did. g you know, he basically claimed that the president has committed treason. so the idea that this is something that the president did

that is donald trump's fault, it's not. it'shi john brennan's fault and the rest of the clown car of obama national security officials whoho gemmed up an investigation into trump russia based on a few minor players in trump's orbit andor then they added in the dnc-funded steel dossier to the mix. the problem is, there was no trumpp russia. so now what we're looking at is the democrat deep state collusion blowing up from their faces like it was a wiley coyote acme smear generator. there's no their there. >> david: this is john brennan again on msnbc talking about the special counsel, robertta mueller. >> it's called the duly-appointed special counsel who is given the mandate to investigate what russia did in terms of interference in our presidential election. and who might have been working in supportrt of russian objectives? o and who might have committed the crime in that process?

that's why robert mueller is a real national treasure. he needs to be able to continue with this investigation unimpeded. >> david: so, chris hahn, does removing john brennan's security clearance in any way impede robert mueller national treasurer as brennan sees him, impede his ability toce carry out his investigation? >> i don't think so. i think if the president acts towards going after mueller anymore, he's going to lose some support, additional support in congress from even people in his own party, but, look, the bottom line is this: the president did not consult with his national security apparatus before he took the clearance away from brennan. those people might havena said, mr. president, we mightht want o work with him on things that he had worked on prior to leaving office as a continuation of government, some constitutional knowledge. he didn't do that.fi this is a decision made in the president's press shop to distract from the omarosa story and we're told today earlier this evening that the president

has several others lined up to distract, as needed, if the news cycle gets away from him as did this a week. that's despicable! he's playing games with our national security and that's not right. and i would like to hear what dan coates others that say. i would likeot to hear what the current cia director others that say. i wantt to hear what they have o say about this, because i don't think they're too keen on this. they were saying they didn't know and were not consulted. that's just wrong. there are procedures and policies that were taking -- there's a prestos take aware these -- processes to take away these and he didn't follow it. >> david: you're in the shop. the cia director isn't the only one that has the information. he's certainly the head of the agency. maybe within the agency, the highest classified authority. others have the information. isso the cia director the only e that could be called back if

they needk information? >> no, i think that's pretty overstated. also, anyone who spent any time in the intelligence community will tell you there's a lot of people working on any one issuew and there's a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge from people who aren't political appointees who stay in these agencies for decades and decades for their career. the notion you're going to have this t crisis situation where yu can't bring back a director to find something out is preposterous. you hear it described in a press report as a courtesy. that's why a lot of individuals hold their clearances. it's a different idea to have that courtesy when you're a person in private life versus someone who is clearly trading on that recent access, not just on media appearances. the whole thing about it being silenced is clean-out ridiculous. he's on tv practically every five minutes. you're seeing breennan and the anti-trump folks getting plenty of air time and additional play here. david, i understand there's a concern about political retaliation.

that's a fair point to make ford some people in some cases -- >> thank you. >> but, one, i think brennan is the exception so far, and, two, this is not big of a deal. the people that are suggesting this is the equivalent of the japanese being enturned in camps or anything like that are going wayam overboard, but that's what we tend to see from trump -- >> where does it end? >> david: certainly see the hyperbole -- hyperbolely. let me bring in rush limbaugh in this. here he talks about trying to overthrow a duly constituted elected president. let's listen. >> where's it written where john brennan, above all else, must be granted his security clearance when this guy is actively engaged in overthrowing a duly constitutionally elected president? youu know the answer to the question. just because the left doesn't care about the constitution. it doesn't care about the rule of law. it cares only about its power and, folks, this is -- none ofpo

those are cliches. none of those are exaggeration. >> david: well, jim hanson, you heard it from the rushner himself. what do you say to that? >> i think we saw this. it started during the election. it ran through thehe transition and continued once president trump was inaugurated. they've been trying to stop him. they've been trying to discredit his administrationey and now they're trying to get him removed. and there's nothing to remove him on. there is no collusion with russia. theree is, however, a collection of former obama officials and dnc folks who did conspire to create a controversy and who were leaking information, a lot of it potentially classified, to the media, that includes brennan who is a prime suspect in that along with clapper and other people who signed these letters in support of brennan saying he shouldn't have lost his security clearance, soth they're the ones -- i think the problem for them may be looking at them as opposed to trump and they may get some unintended consequences. >> david: so, all right,

gentlemen, i know the debate is going to continue, but we've got to cut it here. quick last word, chris. go ahead. >> he led the mission to kill osama bin laden. >> david: chris, i gave you the last word. we've known each other a long time. i was fair to you, my friend. gentlemen, thank you. jim, chris, thank you very much. stunning new revelations tonightng about doj official bre ohr's involvement in the steele dossier and president trump, he's ready to take action. don't go away. don't go away.

welcome to the xfinity store. thanks, janet. it's my happy place. you can learn how to switch to xfinity mobile,

a new wireless network that saves you cash. and you can get 5 lines of talk and text included with your internet. and over here i'm having my birthday party. dj fluffernutter, hit it! ♪ dj fluffernutter simple. easy. awesome. ask how to get $300 back when you sign up for xfinity mobile, and purchase a new samsung phone. visit your local xfinity store today. >>or david: more antitrump by the doj? more antitrump activity exposed. bruce ohr caught in contact with christopher, the expert spy and the author we nowhe know of the infamous russia dossier, by the way, financed by the democrats throughout 2016 and '1717 and ia major news story, fnc's

katherine herridge reports that ohr wrote in an e-mail that steele was "very concerned about james comey's firing. afraid they will be exposed." i wonder what he meant by that? the president went after ohr today. >> i think bruce ohr is a disgrace. i suspect he'll be taken away quickly. i think he's a disgrace with his wife nelly. for him to be in the justice department and for him to be doing what he did, that's a disgrace.is that's disqualifying for mueller.r. >> david: joining me now for reaction is journal/columnist jim, and former democratic pennsylvania congressman jason. good evening to you, all. kim, ladies first, you heard the president's reaction there. what happened? >> he's right to think something

highly improper went on here. you have a senior justice department official who is operating with the dossier author with the opposition research firm that was funded by the clinton campaign and the dnc. he's collecting this information from them even after christopher steele had been fired by the f.b.i. for breaking the rules and talking to the press and he's doing this without revealing on financial disclosure forms or presumably to his superiors his wife is working for the same research firmk and profiting from the wok he's passing onto the f.b.i. >> david: jim jordan had this to say earlier. >> no, he's the key guy. the f.b.i. was, in fact, getting parts of the dossier from bruce ohr, top justice department official. bruce ohr's wife worked for the firm that the clintons hired. he gave it to bruce ohr.

she gave it to the f.b.i. it's not supposed to work that way here in the united states of america. but it did. >> david: the questions about smoke and fire could bee put together. jason, let me go to you and get you to weigh in on this. i mean, is there nothing to see here? >> i think the issue that was mentioned with regard to him not reporting the fact that his wife worked at fusion gps, that's a relevant issue, but this is a senior justice department official who had nothing whatsoever to do with the russia investigation and was not involved in it. i don't know what the problem is with him having a conversation. he understands the investigation is going on. he passes information on relevant to that investigation. i don't know what else he did other than the reporting issue that was inappropriate. >> david: ok. process and procedure. right to you, john. i mean, here we have process, procedure, ohr and, you know, we don't know what was said and what he had between he and his wife.

but there has to be some trouble and concerns about the dossier and after it was discredited and what went on after that. >> there's absolutely a problem here with process and procedure. the f.b.i. is part of the department of justice. and i'll tell you, you can't have an agent whose spouse works for an agency who is producing information from a source and then passing it back to the f.b.i. why should doj be doing the exact same thing? you've got to haveng people who are unbiased and no connections here. this would be a problem in the f.b.i. and frankly a fireable offense. >> david: all right, so, kim, the president tweeted this earlier today, and i want to read this. "very concerned about comey's firing. afraid they will be exposed." i mean, those are pretty straight-forward words. he goes onto, you know, basically reference the connection, the phony and discredited trump dossier. we've heard that before. he finished in that tweet, a

creep thinking he would get caught in a dishonest act. rigged witch hunt. is the president -- is he going too far? is this a reach? >> well, i don't think it's too far to ask the question of what did he mean when he said "exposed?" the charitable explanation here is he was worried he would be exposed, his name would be out there, but guess what? christopher steele was already out there.t he sat for an interview with mother jones months before and blew the lid on the f.b.i. investigation whichre was why he was fired by the f.b.i. sohi he can't be worried about s name being out there. so that would suggest the exposure they fear is something different, maybe the methods this was all put together? maybe who was financing it which we now know. maybe t the unorthodoxed ways in which it was put across. look to go back to the process and procedure thing here, what on earth was the f.b.i. doing interviewing bruce ohr 12 times

for the information he got from christopher steele. the f.b.i. already dismissed steele as a source because he had broken the rules, so this goes just beyond bruce ohr. it goes to the institution's behavior. who knew about this at doj? who signed off on it at f.b.i.? >> john, inspector general's office and the reports and the ongoing investigation, the investigation initiated by the attorney general, should they -- where should they be looking? is it process and procedure alone? are there individuals that frankly have responsibilities to sign off on all of these conversations and call it interviews? >> i think we have to look at who is signing off on these things? because first of all, it's perception. even if no one intended to do anything wrong, the american public has to have confidence in the f.b.i. and the department of justice. that's why we have these procedures. who is allowing this sort of communication and transactions to take place?

who authorized it? who instructed people to go out and do it? that's what i want to know. we need to get that cleared up so director ray could take the f.b.i. forward from what is all the problems created under strzok and mccabe and others. >> david: speaking of strzok, he tweeted -- and this is what he had to say, "jesus, more v.o. leaks than the nyt." b.o. a reference to the f.b.i. here we see yet more interchanges, more interactions and more concerns in text and tweets. >> we all know peter strzok is very comfortable around his cell phone, whether it's tweeting or texting. for god's sakes, he needs to stop that. he's not helping himself. he's certainly not helping the men and women of the f.b.i. who are trying t to do their jobs. he should stay out of it at this point! >> david: all right, jason, the politics of this. as someone who has sat there in congress, the politics of this plays into what is coming with

the midterm elections. how do you see this playing out for the democrats? is there a way for them to use it? >> i think what i said earlier is true. there's little evidence anything inappropriate happened regarding ohr, but the president has found with regard to strzok and some others if he uses his bully pulpit in a way, he's able to raise the stature of this issue, you can certainly paint it in a way that's unflattering. who knows what will come out of it? >> david: how are the democrats going to use this? >> i think the democrats should be concerned that there is a point at which it does taint the mueller investigation if more were to come out and if the avenue that the president goes down does lead to some nefarious activity, then certainly, that would underminene the credibiliy of the investigation. that's not happened yet. what happened with strzok and what happened with ohr, these are unfortunate circumstances

that lend to people who were inclined to disbelieve what mueller comes up with that lends to that concern. >>es david: kimberly, we are only hours away from the late-night hours. does strzok, as he said in testimony, tweet in the middle of the night? i'll kind of throw it to you. how do the democrats plan to use this? how do you think they could use this? >> well, i think what democrats should be concerned about is that the drum they have beat for two years pretty much ever since president trump was elected of trump/russia collusion, they've not yet been able to yield any public evidence that that has happened. that's what enabled the president to talk about this as aev witch hunt in the way it got started and the up orthodoxed procedures that came about as part of it. democrats will continue to suggest there's something nefarious but they've gone a bit quiet on this. it's becoming harder for them to use it as a campaign issue, because most of what we're hearing is about problematic procedures and behavior by the

prior administration in terms of this investigation. >> david: kim, gentlemen, thank you very much. our special trump versus the intel resistance continues next. intel resistance is bob mueller's team headed for a major setback in its first trial? new developments, that's coming up. ts. that's coming

>> david: question on many minds tonight is bob mueller's team headed for a major setback? the special counsel's office first test is in an american courtroom for paul manafort. kristen fisher has been following the trial and is here with the latest. kristen? >> reporter: as jurors were settling in for their second day of deliberations, president trump was weighing in on the trial of his former campaign manager.

first, he was asked by reporters if he considered pardoning manafort. he said he wouldn't talk about it but he did defend him. listen to this. >> i think the whole manafort trial is very sad when you look at what is going on. i think 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've done to paul manafort. >> reporter: while the president was making those remarks, manafort was sitting inside a small jail cell inside the courtroom with no tv, no reading material, but it didn't take long for word of the president's remarks to reach his defense team. >> any reaction to the president's comments this morning? >> great comments. mr. manafort really appreciates the support of. president trum. >> how are you feeling? >> are you currently deliberating longer? do you think that favors your client? >> i do. and he does. >> reporter: the jury now deliberated for 14 hours over

the course of two days and during that time, they've asked the judge several questions. they've asked him to redefine reasonable doubt, the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant. the judge obliged that request. he refused another one. the jury asked for an updated exhibit listt. connecting each piece of evidence to the corresponding charge in the indictment. keep in mind, there are 18 charges and nearly 400 exhibits. it's easy to see how a jury could get very confused, but the judge refused that request, so the jury now others that sift through mountains of evidence without any index or key connecting particular documents to these individual charges. this afternoon, they knew they were not close to a verdict, because they asked the judge to leave early at 5:00 p.m. so one of the jurors could attend some kind of event in the early evening, and the judge actually let them leave early, but they'll bee back first thing monday morning, david. >> david: kristin, the judge is speaking out.

i'm hearing there were threats. what's all that about? >> t reporter: he said this today in court. he said he received threats to the point where he now needs u.s. marshals protection. he brought it up because he needed to explain why he didn't feel comfortable releasing the names of jurors before the end of the trial, and he had to do that, because several news organizations had filed a motion to intervene requesting the names of the jurors should be released. the judge heard them out, but in the end, he decided to keep their names sealed at least until after the end of the trial. back to you. >> david: kristin, thank you very much for joining us.tr kendall, first to you on this. paul calin had this to say earlier on cnn about the president peaking out on manafort -- speaking out on manafort, let's play this. >> the one thing i worry about

as a prosecutor function a die-hard trump fan on the jury, you have the president of the united states yesterday making comments about this deliberating jury. jeff sessions said it rather than donald trump -- if the lawyer said it, he'd be held in contempt of court. >> david: is contempt really an issue here or is that a deflection, kendall? >> not at all, and, look, we're all talking, heads talking about the trial, breaking it down, giving predictions and things like that thehe system has to assume that the jurors are going to honor their oath, but nevertheless, if you're paul manafort, this is an intriguing development, because let's face it there's got to be statistically speaking three or four jurors in that group that probably supported trump. got to think that somebody is getting word about it, maybe, maybe not, but when jurors go home for the weekend, do they talk to family? do they talk to friends? maybe they're not supposed to, but maybe a lot of times they do. and we all know this, that a lot of people t who support presidet trump don't back down easily

with their views ofe what the president says andf what the president believes. so now you've got an indication that there's clear endorsement ofow paul manafort and by the w, a very harsh condemnation of his trial, so whatever paul manafort's been going through, this has got to be, the last couple of days, two of the best days he's hadas a long time. >> david: all right, randy, i mean, here we are, and, you know, the trial, the megaphone obviously of the president -- we talked about a lot of big cases before. you've handled a lot of big cases. when you look at this how much does that play into with the jury? what about the judge's instructions and the jury being charged to judge the merits, not what they hear from the outside? >> well, working backwards, you would love to think that jurors will honor the oath of sympathy has no place in the courtroom. your personal feelings have no place in the courtroom. don't listen, don't read anything. don't watch anything. but d there's a concept we've al

learned, the right way and also the hard way which is journalification which is what a juror will say -- which is jury nullification. which is what a juror will say, i will vote my conscious, vote with my heart and be damned what the law is what is so bizarre here, i mean, this is how everything is politicized, chocolate versus peanut butter, but, remember, the executive branch, who sits at the top of the executive branch? the president. where does the department of justice fall? under the executive branch. you've got the most important person in the executive branch basically saying that the department of justice under his watch doesn't know what it is they're doing. what? none of this makes any sense, and mr. coffey, i must respectfully disagree with, because if you as a lawyer are discussing a case you're involved in where that could

prejudice the trier of the fact, a juror, that's a potential disciplinary violation. we've got the most important person in the country, perhaps in the world, speaking out while the jury is deliberating! >> you know, kendall, as they say in the debate business, when your name's been mentioned, you get to defend your position. so what do you say to randy? >> of course, of course the president has a right to speak out about issues of public interest.. he didn't plant this. a reporter asked him about the issue and he responded spontaneously. if the suggestion is being that the president is somehow suggested to discipline, i've got a very strongly -- i've got very strongly disagree with that. i think what will be fascinating for the trial going forward is this is a very, very tough case for paul manafort to win. biggest be one of the upsets if he got acquitted on everything since, well, bombed trump won the election against -- donald trump won the election against hillary clinton.

what would be a big victory for manafort those opposing the investigation would be a hung jury. the questions we got yesterday, maybe the impact of president trump's statements, there could be things adding up to suggest there could be at least a couple of jurors who have some skepticism about the prosecution's case and perhaps a reasonable doubt. now, it's much too early for paul manafort to be getting optimism. we could recall cases such as arthur anderson, the accounting giant and scooter libby, former chiefs of staff vice president cheney that the jury deliberated for 10 days and came back with a guilty verdict. nevertheless, it's not a pro-prosecution stampede. given everything paul manafort is facing in this trial, that may be a small glimmer of hope. >> david: let's bring senator chris murphy, the connecticut senator into this. "i generally choose not to hang

on every twist of the mueller investigation but if trump pardons manafort after maybe having promised a pardon to get him to not cooperate and gatesway with it, then we are in a banana republic. we just are." he may not be the president, randy, but he's a sitting senator. >> once again, what is happening with our system of justice? once upon a time, yeah, transparency, you can go into the courtroom and watch what is going on, but we have everybody weighing in from a political standpoint. suddenly we're a banana republic. e the point remains we have a system of justice that at its essence is based upon the public's, us as citizens, being confident the right result is going to happen and with the politics, everything is about politics. my god! what is happening in this country?

as far aspeng mr. manafort is concerned, he's presumed innocent until such time as the jurors go in and begin their deliberations. their verdict should be based upon the evidence and nothing else, how the president feels, how senator murphy feels, how you feel, how i feel, it's simply based upon the evidence and somehow that's so gotten away from us! >> david: all right, gentlemen, thank you, both. iri mean, great legal analysis. kendall, randy, great to see you both. how the media is colluding with the intel resistance to take down president trump. details next on this "ingraham angle" special. take downwnwnwnwn

>> all right, i've got a question for you. >> david: i've got a question with you. is the media establishment colcolluding with the resistance to try to take down president trump? if you look at the past 24-hour

media coverage of trump, it doesn't seem that far off. >> if you look at john brennan's tweets, they're emotional. they're energized. this is someone who sees the sort of denigration of america's security and national security apparatus. >> people who worked for brennan were very clear that he was not a partisan. you can say it on the outside, because he feels a duty now to say something to save our country. >> i've personally known and worked with john brennan. the same with jim clapper. those people have more integrity, more intelligence and more honesty in their little fingers than this president could ever have. >> here with reaction is candice owens, communications director for turning point usa along with democrat and radio talk show host garland nixon. now you're in trouble. we have talk show hosts, i'm still going to give you the upper hand on this, and ladies first.

i'm a gentleman. just old school. so #freepressday yesterday, and the newspapers across country some 300 and here we are today. what do you say? the media and the president? >> absolutely they've been colluding with robert mueller trying to get out this false story that somehow the trump campaign colluded with the russians. it's evident every single day. if we looked back and counted how many times they said the word "russia" and took a step backwards and realized that a shred of evidence has been produced to donald trump tying him to the russian campaign, this is madness amount of some point, you have to acknowledge at what point do we acknowledge these people are conspiracy theorists? >> when you look at the media coverage of this -- we're a couple of talk show hosts. we get hours at a time to go

over this. the media gets a headline or perhaps a soundbite and the analysis comes out with coverage >> i want the democratic party to be healthy. i for some time have been uncomfortable with the incestuous relationship between the intelligence community and the certain elements of the media and the democratic party. i felt that the party should be focusing on a platform where we're almost to the midterms and the democratic party is so focused on this,th they don't he a platform. to be honest, i would have to agree with you based on what i see. i think the intelligence community has kind of taken over kind of like an octopus and taken over a lot of parts of the mainstream media and the democratic party. i don't think thehe democratic party is any better for it i don't know if they're blind or just going along with it, but it's not helping them. >> wow. >> david: let's talk about the leaks. i'll just ping-pong in between the two of you. we got you right here. the leaks coming from

intelligence, candice. how troubling is that as you see it? >> it's troubling beyond democrat or? republican. that stuff doesn't even matter. the implications here are much more severe. what's going to happen afterwards? if we've lost faith in our intelligence community, where are we going to be at as a country if we can't trust them? this is why this issue -- i try to tell people, this is not what side you're on this is about right and wrong. and left. it's been very troubling for quite sometime and by the way, breath of fresh air. i'm so glad to hear someone with some sanity say there is no platform here. there's nothing else going on. and they seem obsessed with this obsessed with getting trump. they're not realizing that you're losing a bunch of americans in the process. we've grown apathetic with this. we've grown apathetic with talkingg about the russian collusion and nothingpa is going on paul manafort is sitting in a cell by himself in solitary confinement over a tax charge. this is incomprehensively corrupt.

>> garland, we won't get into the legal analysis. we're two talk show hosts and one very brilliant young lady. let's get into the narrative that has are out there. you're talking to people in your audience, are they echoing your concerns about the democrats and running with this versus winning message? democrats used to have a message about helping the underserved, about jobs, about economy, but now that seems to have been taken away from them. >> yes, you know, what doesn't get reported on is, you know, we call -- we would prefer to -- you know, like the bernie people and points left who actually are believe it or not, you know, are focused on policy. if you look at what is talking about policy, it's the left wing of the party. the liberal or right whipping of the democratic party or centrist wing of the democratic party are so focused on the russia issue, so focused on the investigation that if this falls throughsu, which it's certainly starting to appear as though it will -- and let's just say my background was in laws enforcement. i was the commander of investigations division. looking at this investigation,

it's so tainted now, i don't see how you could ever charge anyone with this investigation and that it could survive the rigors of discovery. i think discovery would tear this investigation apart. and so i look at the democratic party and, you know, right now, it's not a party that looks very healthy going into the mid-terms. they could really put a hurting on the republicans in the mid-terms, but i suspect they'll inch away with a few victories and call b that a blue wave. >> what a breath of fresh air this guyuy is! i mean -- >> david: he's almost too rationale. i don't know what we're going to do with this. "new york times" -- and this is the "new york times" executive editor on president trump's remarks towards the press. >> i'm deeply concerned, and not only concerned by the way about what happens inside the united states at some of the volatileom trump rallies, i think that the president has sent a message to desperates abroad you can disrespect the press. we've had presidents attack the press.

we've never had a president go on foreign soil and attack the press. >> david: candice, first to you, quick response to this. quick response to the "new york times" editor. >> the press is completely outic of touch with the american people. they have been for quite sometime. they've almost become a cult against just tate hating trump and not listening to americans. they're referring to americans as racists, sexists, and misogynists and putting them in these boxes because they don't understand how americans are feeling. president trump blocked out their nunsense and started to listen to the concerns of the american people. they're doing themselves no favor in this regard. they are in many ways just going to help get him reelected in 2020. >> g david: garland, talk show host to talk show host, i've got to throw the last word to you. go ahead. >> bottom line, you're not going to go wrong with attacking the press to how it's going to affect you politically. the president went after the press prior to the 2016 election and won, so i think that people

that are going to defend the press, i think that'll help them with t the electorate are makina bigt' mistake. the polls arehe simply saying tt the press over all isn't very popular right now. >> david: candidates and garland, thank you very much. >> he's my favorite person. he made my night. >> david: good to have you both here. really great to see you both. intel chiefs claim their rabid anti-trump behavior is patriotism. but they may only be playing into the hands of american enemies instead. we'll explain right after this. so i can buy from enterprise car sales and you'll take any trade-in? that's right! great! here you go... well, it does need to be a vehicle. but - i need this out of my house. (vo) with fair, transparent value for every trade-in... enterprise makes it easy.

>> david: if you ask the former intel and law enforcement chief slamming president trump, they'll pretty much say they're doing it to save the country and our standing in the world, but in reality, they may be doing the exact option and playing right into our enemies' hand. joining me now is a member of the house foreign affairs committee and the director of national security of law enforcement at george mason university. playing into our enemies' hands. russia wants to undermine america's faith in its system or constitutional republic, and congressman, it's working in

some quarters. are they playing into his hands? into putin's hands? >> absolutely. you're doing russia's work for them. you're doing our adversary's work for them when internally you have people, whether they're inside our government or now recently outside of our government seeking to undermine our own country, our ownco democratically elected government. you're absolutely right. that's a real concern that i have as really one of the reasons why john brennan shouldn't have a security clearance. you should make an example of him. and if you do any type of an intel -- you analyze him and you look at just emotionally, mentally whether or not he's got it altogether, and also whether he understands rules right now when he's accusing the president of high crimes and misdemeanors after the helsinki summit, if you do an analysis on john

brennan, it's important we not only make an example of him, send a strong message but we also take away his security clearance because that -- while you have d a right to first amendment, you don't have the right to a security clearance especially as unhinged that has man is right now. >>o david: let's go right to it. this is video from cnn's jim asking the question about putin and brennan and the security clearance. let's play this. t >> you have a president firing a former leader of the intelligence committee siting the russian investigation. does putin cheer this kind thing? >> of course, he does. it's more chaos, more kind of dismantling of the u.s. system of the transatlantic alliance. you know, at this point, sanctions doesn't matter. it's all about shaking up our system and taking it down a notch instead of bringing russia up. >> david: your reaction to that. >> the problem here is this is a problem of the president's own creation. he didn't need to strip brennan

of his s security clearance. brennan was doing a good enough job on his own making him look partisan. the president made the narrative worse and talked about tax cuts and regulatory reform and conservative judges. john brennan was doing a good enough job on his own making himself irrelevant. >> david: there's been critique about the method on which they played out that the president could have just done it, let it happen and not given john brennan a bigger megaphone. the president said he's elevated him. what do you say?e' >> first off, i don't think john gotten ahould have security clearance in the first place. fast forward to currently, he's seeking to monetize his position as former cia director. as i mentioned earlier, he's become unhinged. for the president of the united states to make an example of him, he's sending a strong message to others there are rules, you do have a right to

your first amendment freedom of speech. you do not have a right to a security clearanceou. you also need to follow the rules of the united states government. you can't set your own rules on what is right and what is wrong, because one of the biggest threats, if not the biggest threat we've seen historically as far as access to classified information isss when you have n individual gone rogue who is setting their own rules and deciding their own moral compass is one that supersedes and overcomes any type of guidance the government puts out on john brennan or anyone like him. i think it's important to very publicly make an example that this conduct by this man right now isly what -- it's exactly wt disqualifies you and will result in losing your security clearance. i think it's great he's making a public example of this man. >> david: the public example. how does this play out in the political world? the intel chiefs, their letters, will this last? will it have any affect as you seeve it? >> look, the problem here, david, the congressman isda rigt

to make the point that maybe you want to make an example of someone, right? the problem is making an example of johnoi brennan, the president has bipartisan opposition from all of the intelligence officials, 60 former cia officers. it'sy going poorly for the president. this is not working. this is an unforced error it was a tactical mistake and could have strategic consequences. the president others that get out of his own way and stay on message and not worry about the russia investigation or bob mueller. that investigation will happen.t the president should focus on his own message and focus on that and listen to his aids. we're telling him to stop do this stuff -- doing this stuff. this is not good businesses. >> david: gentlemen, thank you very much. we appreciate it. we'll have ask putin to ask him if he's cheering this on. we'll be right back. or atopic dermatitis, you never know how your skin will look. and it can feel like no matter what you do, you're itching all the time. but even though you see and feel your eczema on the surface of your skin, an overly sensitive immune system deep within your skin might actually be causing your eczema.

so help heal your skin from within. with dupixent. dupixent is not a steroid, and it continuously treats your eczema even when you can't see it. at 16 weeks, more than 1 in 3 patients saw clear or almost clear skin, and patients saw a significant reduction in itch. do not use if you are allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, including eye pain or changes in vision. if you have asthma, and are taking asthma medicines do not change or stop your asthma medicine without talking to your doctor. help heal your skin from within. ask your eczema specialist about dupixent.

.. >> that's all the time w >> that is all-time we have got, thanks for tuning in. it is a pleasure filling in for laura ingram and tune in for my

radio show weekdays from 9 am to noon eastern on serious xm 125 and check out my regular column in the hill newspaper and follow me on twitter. shannon bream,. have a wonderful weekend in new york city. ♪ >> this is a fox news alert. as the >> fox news alert. is the president strips john brennan of his security clearance, critics say is stifling free-speech but is taking away a former official's clearance equivalent to silencing them or are they free to speak their minds? breaking tonight the white house drafting additional security clearance cancellation after donald trump specifically called out doj official bruce ohr over his ties to the infamous steel dossier. welcome to fox news at night. robert mueller's russia investigation reaching a f