russia probe. president trump revokes the security clearance of former cia chief john brennan. >> mr. brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility. >> and threatens to do the same to other former officials who have criticized him. >> security clearances for those who still mhave them may be revoked. >> i think bruce ohr is a disgrace. i suspect i will be taking it away quickly. >> brennan reacts. >> i think this is an egregious act that flies in the face of traditional practice as well as common sense as well as national security. >> says mr. trump is abusing the

power of his office. >> he is drunk on power. he really is. >> and calls the president's move an attempt to scare and silence others who might dare to challenge. my guests, the man at the center of the controversy, john brennan. plus, late word that president trump's white house counsel don mcgahn has been cooperating extensively with robert mueller's russia investigation. one prosecutor calls this like having keys to the kingdom. i'll talk to president trump's current lawyer rudy giuliani. joining me for insight and analysis are "washington post" columnist eugene robinson, nbc news political reporter carole lee, hugh hewitt, host on the salem radio network, and yamiche alcindor white house correspondent for the pbs news hour. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. no ordinary august.

we have a big show. john brennan and rudy giuliani. we are going to get to both of them in a moment. it was almost a half century ago we learned of president richard nixon's enemy list, people like daniel shore, congressman john conyers, even actor paul newman. it grew over time. then white house counsel john dean wrote in a white house memo that administration sought to use incumbency to deal with the opponents. stated, dean wrote this this white house memo before he turned, how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political opponents. dean of course eventually testified against his president. the nixon watergate era list gained renewed relevance this year. he threatened to do more to the highest profile critics. yesterday we learned that president trump's white house counsel don mcgahn has been cooperating fully with robert

mueller's investigation. that was, of course, the president's legal strategy at one time. not anymore. to complete the watergate circle, yesterdcircle john dean tweeted mcgahn is doing right. friday night "the washington post" reported the white house has already drafted documents to punish mr. trump's opponents that we listed above and that white house officials have discussed timing the release of the documents, quote, as a distraction during an favorable news cycles. that certainly seemed to be the goal this week as the white house broke the brennan news at the height of one of those, quote, unfavorable news cycles. >> they should be looking at all these fbi guys who got fired and demoted. it's a really -- it's not us. >> president trump reportedly furious about the nonstop coverage of omarosa manigault newman. >> what mr. nixon -- i mean mr. trump does will be brought to light. >> tried to change the subject, testing the waters on how far he can go to personally intervene

in the russia investigation and to punish his critics. >> i like taking envoys -- on voices like that. >> wednesday mr. trump told "the wall street journal" he stripped john brennan's clearance because of the investigation. quote, i call it the rigged wuch hunt. it is a sham. and these people let it. so i think it's something that had to be done. >> this is an egregious act that flies in the face of traditional practice as well as common sense as well as national security. >> now with his former campaign chairman on trial for bank and tax fraud, the president is threatening to do the same to nine other critics, including a current member of his justice department. >> i think bruce ohr is a disgrace. i suspect i'll be taking it away very quickly. >> by targeting o hr he is attacking a mid-level civil servant who needs a clearance to do his job and is prohibited from fighting back.

the intelligence community is firing back. after brennan's clearance was revoked, the commander of the raid that killed osama bin laden, retired admiral william mcraven, criticized the president's mccarthy-era tactics. nearly 75 former intelligence officials have showed support for brennan called mr. trump's action an attempt to stifle free speech. a handful of republicans on capitol hill have criticized the president's tactics. >> i thought it was kind of a banana republic kind of thing. >> most have defended the tactics. >> mr. brennan has gone way over the line in my view and i think restricting his clearance, pulling his clearance makes sense to me. >> it was about time that he did take away that. >> i think i sauld him a butt head and i meant it. >> mr. trump's attacks on the justice department and intelligence community are only escalating. now some officials worry that special counsel robert mueller and his team could be next. >> what the president is doing,

in part, is sending a menacing signal to the prosecutors and the investigators on the mueller team that if they continue their investigation, that their security clearance, which they need in order to do their job, is put in jeopardy. >> and joining me now is the former director of the cia, john brennan. he is also an nbc news national security and intelligence analyst. former director brennan, welcome back to meteorologist, sir. >> thank you, chuck. >> let me start with something. the president himself said about how this punishment is not about silencing you. it's about something else. take a listen and i want to get your reaction. >> there is no silence. if anything, i am giving him a bigger voice. many people don't even know who he is. now he has a bigger voice, and that's okay with me because i like taking envoys like that. >> that's the president confirming he actually wanted to elevate you and make you -- is that what you believe he was doing? that's what he said there. wanted to elevate you, make you

more famous and essentially make this a one-on-one with you. is that how you read this? >> it's hard for me to read mr. trump in terms of the actions taking. but i think it was a clear signal to others who still have their security clearances, both in the government as well as outside, that if you cross him, if you speak out against him, he is going to use whatever tools he might have at his disposal to punish you. so i think this is yet another example of his egregious abuse of power and authority. just because he has the ability to revoke one's clearance doesn't mean he is doing it for the appropriate reasons. indeed, he violated the process that he himself, his administration, put out last year in terms of the basis for revoking security clearances. so i think it was just designed to distract the press from some of the other things going on last week.

>> there were nine other people that sarah sanders indicated could be in danger of losing their clearance. i know you don't have a video monitor, but james clapper, james comey, who doesn't have one, mic'd hayden, sally yates, andrew mccabe, peter strzok, why are those the ten people they are signaling out? >> because they have been critical of him or because he wants to use them as examples of the deep state or those that are trying to hurt him. in the case of bruce ohr, a current department of justice official, i think that is one of the most outrageous steps that he could take to revoke the clearances of a current government official simply because he doesn't like either them or their spouse in terms of what they might have done. that is so antithetical to what has been the practice and the tradition and what needs to continue to be the basis for the

granting of the revoking of security clearances so you trust people with those secrets. >> i'm curious. on friday night with rachel maddow you indicated that you have had lawyers contact you about possible legal action. it's 48 hours later. what would that look like? is that something you're serious about? >> well, i have been contacted by a number of lawyers and they have already given me their thoughts about the basis for a complaint, an injunction to try to prevent him from doing this in the future. if my clearances and my reputation as i'm being pulled through the mud now, it if that's the price to prevent donald trump from doing this to other people, to me it's a small price to pay. i am going to do whatever i can personnelly to try to prevent these abuses in the future. if it means going to court, i will do that. >> you have been more outspoken than any former official. it may be why many republican

legislators believe your comments have been over the top. do you regret accusing the president of treason? do you regret some of the things you have said? >> i called his behavior treasonous. i stand very much by that claim. >> you are the former cia director accusing the sitting president of the united states. it's not a private citizen. a lot of people here, the former cia director accusing the sitting president of the united states of treason, that's a monumental accusation. >> well, i think these are abnormal times and i think a lot of people have spoken out against what mr. trump has done and maybe it's my warning, training as an intelligence professional. i have seen the lights blinking red in terms of what mr. trump has done and is doing and is bringing this country down on the global stage and fueling and feeding divisiveness in our country. he continually lies to the american people. the type of things he is doing, i need to speak out.

i don't believe i'm being political at all. i am not a republican. i am not a democrat. and many members of the congress over the years who have security clearances have spoken out rather forcefully against whoever was in the oval office if they weren't from the same political party. knew they are telling me i shouldn't do that. >> i want to give you a chance to respond to richard burr. he said if director brennan's statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the cia, why didn't he include in the community assessment released? 2017? if his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes a breach. if his statement is purely political and based on conjecture, the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance. it seems as if senator burr is saying have you said in the public sphere that has gone beyond the facts that you know?

>> i like and respect senator burr. i was disappointed by his statement. i wonder whether or not he read my op-ed. i have told the committees, including his committee, everything that i know from my time as cia director and the cia has shared with the senate and the house intelligence committee everything that we knew. what i said in my op-ed is that i have some to understand, because of a free and open press here in the united states, what actually was transpiring during that presidential election campaign season. in terms of meetings at trump tower and also the fact that donald trump when he was the presidential candidate of the republican party, when he called publicly on the russians to find hillary's emails, i didn't realize when i was cia director it was that very night that russian intelligence went after her emails. i made a point in the op-ed that collusion means cooperating in some form. conspiracy is something else. i think all americans need to

wait for robert mueller to be able to finalize his investigation and to determine whether or not there was any criminal activity that was taking place there. i have spoken out against mr. trump's lack of sissdecency, civility, honesty, and character. i will continue to do that because i have always revered the office of the presidency. i think mr. trump is letting millions of americans down. >> you were a sitting cia director at one point. if you worked for a president that did this, what would you do in this situation? >> if i worked -- >> if you were currently the head of the cia and the president revoked the security clearance of a former cia head, what would you do as sitting cia director under that circumstance? and what advice would you give to gina haspel, the current head of the cia? >> i admire and respect gina haspel and i want her to stay a cia director. i think it's important that the institution of the cia and the professionals be protected from this very, very abusive white house and mr. trump.

>> if you were here in this position that she is in and you just outlined you have your own concerns about this president and you trust gina haspel, if you were in her position would you go along with saying, fine, revoke it, i'll keep my mouth shut because it's more important for me to stay on the job? is that what you would do as cia director? >> we have to do what our consciences tell us to do. dan coates, if i were in those positions now i would express my deep, deep objection privately to mr. trump and have a conversation with him about just how bad this is for the community and for the national security and intelligence professions. and as a result of that conversation, i would have to decide then whether or not i could stay in my position. >> so you are saying you would understand if somebody objected to what happened to you, but stayed in the position because maybe they made the decision it's better for me to stay here

and be a guardrail than to stand up and be a public whistleblower of sortsd? sorts? >> i think that's what a lot of these officials are trying to reconcile in their own minds how much they can stay and be governs on mr. trump's behavior and how much they cannot countenance at all. people like john kelly, chief of staff, who i know and respect and like so much. john and i worked very close together. i am sure he is trying to keep mr. trump from doing awful terrible things. but at some point these senior officials have to ask themselves are they enabling this continued abusive and reckless behavior or not. and if they feel as though they are enabling it and they are not having that type of governing influence on it, i think they have to show their displeasure and unhappiness and leave. >> have you heard from gina haspel since this happened or director coates? >> i have not heard from anybody in the government since this

happened. i have heard from a number of former colleagues and friends expressing their support, but i was not notified before this happened by anybody in the government. i have not heard from anybody since then. to me that's not surprising the way this white house, this administration works. >> realistically, what does this mean? you lost your security clearance. what does that mean? gina haspel can't call you and talk about the job? is that the extent of what your security clearance was for? that's what other cia directors have hinted out, that in some ways it's for current directors to ask former directors their opinion about certain things. >> well, for me it probably means that. that i just can't go into the agency and have conversations with people who may call me up and ask me for my thoughts and views. that has happened in the last couple of months. but for others, former officials on that list, some of them serve on boards of directors that

require security clearances because the companies involved deal with classified information. and this can have a very punitive, very financial hit against them. and so now if i were asked to be on a board that required a security clearance, i couldn't. but again giving up my security clearances in order to bring this issue to a head, to me i'm willing to do that. first time in 38 years i have not had a security clearance. i love and respect and admire my former colleagues in the cia and other places and i will fight to keep their profession pure, objective, and not being politicized. and members of congress need to step up. this is the time that your country is going to rely on you. not to do what is best for your party, but what is best for the country. >> when you speak as a former cia director, i'll be honest, my ears perk up more. i think other people's perk up more. so when you have drawn conclusions about the russia probe, you have gone farther than most on collusion, on

conspiracy. is this -- >> no, chuck, i said collusion is certainly in plain sight. >> i understand. but you have connected dots, for instance, michael hayden himself said i agree with the facts he is stating. i am not ready to connect those dots. why are you ready to connect those dots? >> again i am pointing out what is in plain sight, what all of us have read and seen over the last 18, 19 months since president trump has been in office. the things that have come out. the individuals who already have admitted to wrongdoing. these are things, with the ruins, and th-- with the russia and this speaks to collusion. it's going to be up to robert mueller. the courts decide whether any of this rise toz the level of conspiracy, whether or not donald trump had intimate knowledge of any of this. i am saying that there is collusion that took place between individuals, americans and russians. whether or not this is going to trigger some type of criminal activity indictment is something else entirely.

i have never put forth any thoughts on conspiracy. but collusion, i don't think mr. trump has made a secret of it himself. >> final question. you talked about this lawsuit. when would you make that decision? it sounds like you think if you thought a lawsuit could help prevent the revoking of other security clearances, you would do it. when do you make that decision? >> well, i think there are a lot of people looking at this issue right now. i think i am just one voice, one person. so i am going to be seriously looking at what those options are. if my voice, if my name can help in this effort, i am willing to do that. i recognize i have a bull's-eye on my chest now by all of those who are trying to defend mr. trump's abhorrent behavior. again i believe strongly and i love this country and i don't want to see it go down because of somebody like mr. trump who has failed to fulfill his responsibilities. >> john brennan, i am going to leave it there. former director of the cia. thanks for coming on, sir. >> when we come back we will

hear from president trump's ♪ i was able to turn the aircraft around, and the mission around, and was able to save two men's lives that night. my first job helped me to grow up pretty quickly. that'll happen when you're asked to respond to a coup. in 2001, i signed up for the air force. two days later, 9/11 happened. hi, kids! i'm carl and i'm a broker. do you offer $4.95 online equity trades? great question. see, for a full service brokerage like ours, that's tough to do. schwab does it. next question. do you offer a satisfaction guarantee? a what now? a satisfaction guarantee. like schwab does. man: (scoffing) what are you teaching these kids? ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs, backed by a satisfaction guarantee.

if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. if you don't like their answer, hais not always easy. severe plaque psoriasis it's a long-distance run and you have the determination to keep going. humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for over ten years. it's the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. more than 250,000 patients have chosen humira to fight their psoriasis. and they're not backing down. for most patients clearer skin is the proof. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems. serious allergic reactions and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. join over 250,000 people who have chosen humira. ask your dermatologist about humira & go.

>> welcome back. as we've mentioned earlier, we learned this week that white house counsel don mcgahn has been cooperating with robert mueller's russia investigation. he likely gave investigators information about possible efforts to object instruct justice that they could not have learned from anybody else. actions involving the firing of fbi director james comey and his attempts to potentially fire mueller. "the times" says he cooperated in part because he feared mr. trump was setting him up to take the blame for an obstruction charge. the president reiterated this morning that mr. mcgahn cooperated because he asked him to cooperate. >> joining me is rudy giuliani. welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> hi, chuck. how are you? >> i am good. the white house counsel, the personal lawyer, former lawyer, all of that. i am trying to be careful with

titles. let me start with "the new york times" story and don mcgahn. let me ask it this way. the previous legal team wasty cobb and john dowd. they wanted to fully cooperate. you and emmett flood wanted more parameters around what special counsel robert mueller would have done. would you have recommended the amount of cooperation don mcgahn has given to robert mueller had you been the attorney at the beginning? >> they represented him at a different stage in this investigation. actually, they did something very, very helpful. they allowed 32 witnesses to testify. they turned over 1.4 million documents. they didn't raise executive privilege or in this case with mr. mcgahn attorney/client privilege so that the independent counsel, special counsel could get as much evidence as possible. in fact, i think john dowd would tell you was an agreement with bob mueller that it would be conclud concluded quickly. if i had known the outcome that mueller would not conclude it

quickly, that this really wasn't an attempt in good faith to try to work out some resolution of this, i might have chosen a different strategy. i am pretty sure they would have. be that as it may, it puts us in a strong position to say we don't -- they don't need to question him. they have all the information -- >> doesn't this put you in a position of now it looks like you are afraid of being questioned? i ask it this way. the special counsel has an eyewitness on whether or not the president obstructed justice. right? we don't know whether he did or not, but he has a potential eyewitness that is either exculpatory or problematic for you. doesn't that actually underscore the reason why the special counsel has to talk to the president? >> absolutely not. first of all, we have a good sense, obviously, of what mr. mcgahn testified to. i can figure it out from -- >> how do you say that good sense? have you debriefed him? >> no, no. but mr. dowd has a good sense of it. he talked to them at the time. >> so you don't know what he

testified to, to mr. mueller? >> i think that through john dowd we have a pretty good sense of it. john dowd yesterday said, i'll use his words rather than i mean, that mcgahn was a strong witness for the president. so i don't need to know much more about that. also, they don't need to know what the president is going to say because the president has said it. and we've told them that we would stipulate what the president has said is the president's true belief that he did nothing wrong, that he wasn't involved in collusion, that he wasn't involved in obstruction. they have yet to pro pound a question to us, give us a question where there is not an answer to it already by the president of the united states. so the only reason they could possibly want the president of the united states is because they are desperate for some kind of charge they can hang their hat on. they don't have collusion or conspiracy, as brennan pointed out, and they -- >> how do you know that? you say this so definitively. how do you know they don't?

>> i know they don't because, look, this whole mcgahn thing leaked from them. if they had some kind of evidence that there was collusion or there was obstruction, don't you think it would have been leaked? they leak everything else. >> i mean, let's talk about collusion. the trump tower meeting itself is at least evidence of you better investigate. it's a -- >> it's not. >> how is it not? >> because the meeting was originally for the purpose of getting information about clinton. the meeting turned into a meeting -- >> which in itself is an attempt at collusion. >> it's not. >> you just said it. the meet was intended to get dirt on hillary clinton from a kremlin lawyer. >> no, no. >> that was the intention of the meeting. you just said it. >> that was the original intense of the meeting. it turned out to be a meeting about another someboubject and s not pursued at all. any meeting with regard to getting information on your opponent is something any candidate's staff would take. if someone said i have

information about your opponent, you would take that meeting. if it happens to be -- >> from the russian government? >> she didn't represent the russian government. she is a private citizen. i don't even know if they knew she was russian at the time. >> i think they knew she was russian, okay. >> not when they set up the meeting. you asked me did they show an intention to do anything with russians. all they knew is a woman with a russian name wanted to meet with them. they didn't know she was a representative of the russian government and she is not a representative of the russian government. the president of the united states wasn't at that meeting, he didn't know about that meeting. he found out about it later. by the time he found out about it, it was nothing. if this is their case for collusion, good luck mueller. >> let me go back to the core part of the investigation which is do you believe that somebody stole emails from john podesta and the dnc and leaked them to

wikileaks? that happened, right? you believe that crime happened? >> well, i believe that somebody got them and they didn't know that those emails were gotten and i'm almost certain from the reports that i have read that it's hacking and it looks like it's pretty clear that it was russian. >> but it's important to mr. mueller to get to the bottom of that, no? >> of course. he has had months to get to the bottom of it. he has 1.4 million documents. he's got at least 32 witnesses in which we didn't raise executive privilege. and in the case of mr. mcgahn, we had a better case. we could have had attorney/client privilege. the president encouraged him to testify, is happy that he did, is quite secure that there is nothing in the testimony that will hurt the president. john dowd told you that when he said he was a strong witness for the president. so i believe this is a desperate special counsel who leaked this to the "new york times," illegally i might add, and, in fact -- >> do you have any evidence that

he leaked this to the "new york times"? >> the only other one that could have done it was mcgahn. i didn't leak it to the types times. jake sekulow didn't leak it to the times. the president sure as heck didn't. who could it be? mcgahn would have done it a long time ago. they are down to desperation time. they have to write a report and they don't have a single bit of evidence. even brennan -- >> aren't you and the president to blame for the delay in the mueller report? take a listen -- this is how you have answered the question about a mueller interview. you'll enjoy it. i promise. >> never beyond two or three hours. if they were written answers. they most probably would be under oath. the main focus we want is simply russia they would probably limit it to collusion and obstruction. he doesn't need to ask a single question on obstruction. if we do that under oath we end up in a martha stewart

situation. mueller has all the answers. we have given them. >> can't you speed up mueller's report and can't you have more credibility about getting mueller's report if you get the president to sit down with him. >> get the word credibility out of it. we have plenty of credibility. the last two letters, they took 12 days to respond to our wi letter. that sets for the a negotiating position about an interview. we didn't reject it. we didn't say out of hand we are not going to do it. and they put pressure to come back quickly. we came back in four days. it is a week and a half later and they have not responded to our letter. now, don't tell me that we're delaying this if they are spending a week and a half getting back to us. i don't know why they are doing that, but they are sure as heck not showing any desire to expedite it. i can't get them to write a letter faster than they have. you want to start counting up the time -- >> you believe this is on them?

that you guys have not delayed the interviewing, delayed the negotiations? >> yes. each time by three or four days so we could write a letter in response. they have taken two to three weeks to get back to us. what i have to tell you is, look, i am not going to be rushed into having him testify so he gets trapped into perjury. when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he is going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, that's silly because it's somebody's version of the truth. not the truth. he didn't have a conversation -- >> truth is truth. i don't mean to go -- >> no, it isn't truth. truth isn't truth. the president of the united states says i didn't -- >> truth is a truth, mr. mayor. do you realize -- >> no, no, no. >> this is going to become a bad meme. >> don't do this to me. donald trump says i didn't talk about flynn with comey. comey says you did talk about it. tell me what the truth is. >> don mcgahn might know. >> you're such a genius -- don

mcgahn doesn't know. we have two pieces of evidence. trump says i didn't tell him and the other guy says he did say it. which is the truth? >> at that point, you're right. under two people. no. you are right. i don't read minds on that front. a final question. >> no, new york o, let me finis. you have to select one or the other. who do you think mueller is going to select? one of his best friends, comey, or the president who he has been carrying on a completely wild, crazy -- >> is it possible he makes a conclusion based on who has been more truthful over the years? >> it's possible that he'll make the conclusion on which of the two statements is more logical. which of the two statements has more common sense. yeah, it's possible he can do that. but, no, you can't bring into question prior conduct. you are not allowed to do that at a trial. >> all right. one final question. you said if mueller doesn't get

this done in two or three weeks, basically referring to september 1st, we will just unload on him like a ton of bricks. what does that mean? >> interfering with the election. he could have gotten this done earlier. the person who delayed -- >> what is the ton of bricks? is the president going to fire him? >> no. we are going to point out to the public how he has acted improperly and he is violating a justice department rule about not carrying on -- >> that's not a rule. it's about issuing indictments and things like that. >> no. about carrying -- >> he can go dark. >> it's not. it's about carrying on a public investigation. if he has to issue a subpoena during that period of time, it would be a gross interference in the election when he could have issued the subpoena six months or three months before. >> i think we are both agreeing on that. >> i would like to comment about brennan. brennan made the extraordinary

charge that the president was treasonous and then just said to you, and i commend you for your questioning, that he has no information that the president is guilty of conspiracy. well, i mean, that is just conjecture that this man accuses people of a crime that could carry death as the result. totally -- >> a highly charged word. >> an unhinged character who shouldn't have a security clearance. >> thanks for coming on. always interesting to talk with you. thank you. >> thank you. >> when we come back, the panel will be here. let's just say there is a lot to discus

needles. essential for the cactus, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened.

your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell you doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program,

every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. >> welcome back. the panel is here. hugh hewitt, yamiche alcindor, white house correspondent for pbs news hour, political reporter carole lee and eugene robinson. wow. i was going to start with admiral mcraven signing on with john brennan, but i think we v some interviews to react to. eugene. >> well, start with truth isn't truth, which mayor giuliani just said an extraordinary thing.

just throws more logs on to the fire of this administration's truthfulness and candor, or lack thereof. it's an amazing thing. it's the new alternative facts. that was extraordinary. the other thing is john brennan, i'll say one thing and i know we'll get into other aspects of the brennan interview. it's not -- the president has the right to cancel these security clearances, but he doesn't necessarily have the right to do it for the wrong reasons. there are thousands of people in washington that have security clearances. it cannot be the case that the only ones who deserve to have theirs scrutinized and taken away are vocal public opponents of donald j. trump. so if you do something you have a legal right to do, but if you do it for vindictive reasons, political reasons, you know, that may not fly. >> i think john brennan conceded

the conspiracy is off the table. rudy seized on that. when he does this, he just wants to talk to chuck todd about the fact that john brennan just took conspiracy off the table. yesterday richard burr, the chairman of the intelligence committee, he has worked well are warner, said there is no factual basis for conspiracy or collusion that has yet been introduced to his committee. and the news in that interview with rudy is we are not going to fire mueller. we are just going to keep pointing out he has nothing and we are giving him nothing more because 30 hours with don mcgahn is an unprecedented level of cooperation. my former boss fred fielding still needs smelling salts. >> carroll, i was stunned that rudy giuliani isn't -- taking john dowd's word for don mcgahn's testimony. i found that stunning. >> right, and then he was very clear to you that he didn't really know what was said. and that stunning. it's also interesting to watch them try to flip the script on the don mcgahn story and say, no, no, we love this.

this was great. we wanted him to d this. the president is happy that he did this and say, well -- and he specifically said that he is in a strong position to say they don't have to question the president because he not only interviewed don mcgahn and spend 30 hours with him, but all of these other individuals. and so -- and then he said we're not the ones that are causing this delay. >> right. >> which is clearly been the case over the last few months. >> mcgahn's cooperation looks like it makes the president's interview more important. >> one of the biggest things i took out of don mcgahn talking for so long with the special counsel is he had his own lawyer and own legal statgy going in because he was worried the president was going to blame that on him. that's remarkable. not to go to the omarosa thing yet, but there is this idea that omarosa, in my reporting, used to tell people in meetings, have you guys hired your lawyers because we all should be understanding of the fact that we could have legal consequences to just working in this

building. going back to rudy giuliani's interview, you said the headline. i think the headline truth isn't truth, as soon as he said that, i thought chuck todd does these things well. the last time kellyanne conway said alternative facts. i think the idea that truth isn't truth is going to go down as this white house's legal strategy and approximate president preside -- and this president's legal strategy. >> let me go to the campaign that he has made against mueller. the question is, he is going after the intel community. admiral mcraven, he put up a tough statement. he goes i would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well so i can add my name to the list of the men and women who have spoken up against your presidency. you think your mccarthy era tactics suppress the voices of criticism, you are mistaken.

that's not good? >> admiral mcraven has been on my show. gave the best commencement speech in history. he is a hero. bill webster is another man i admire. i still question the letter because it ignores a lot of the 2014 problems with john brennan. mark udall called for his resignation for spying on democratic staffers. dianne feinstein does not hold him in high regard. it went fourth than it out ght have gone. i would have waited for a different hill than john brennan's security clearance in which to die. especially when brennan comes on this morning, and he is a colleague of ours at nbc news. when he walks back treason, you don't get to walk back treason. >> that makes brennan probably a rough spoke person for the intel community. >> it is. it's that one word. the reason, of course, he was a former director of the cia. you naturally hold him to a somewhat higher standard. >> no offense to a member of

congress when they say it. when a member of congress says it, i assume it's political -- >> exactly. he is making the difference between collusion and conspiracy. i agree with him. collusion is there in plain sight. does it amount to conspiracy, a legal term. so we'll see. that's for mueller to decide. the mcraven letter made me think of how this is perceived, all of this is perceived by the intelligence community, by, you know, a 30-year veteran of the cia, john brennan, who knows everybody, who has been there, been in the trenches with everybody. this is a huge deal for the thousands of intelligence professionals around here. >> well, there are intelligence officials who are uncomfortable with how far brennan has gone. i thought he said three really interesting things in your interview with him. first, he laid out where he might go in a legal argument.

basically, the president has the power to do this. is he abusing that power? >> character assassination. >> he used the word injunction 57d said he would be willing to go to court. then he said when you asked him about what he would do as cia director, which was a great question, he didn't really have an answer. he said i would have a private conversation with the president and then based on whatever he said, maybe i would go publicly. then he talks about, you know, individuals who work in the government, you know, needing to possibly resign if they reach that point where they crossed over from governing to enabling. what is that disstinks? -- distinction. >> he didn't make that clear. >> when we come back many are referring to 2018 as the year of referring to 2018 as the year of the woman. this is a tomato you can track from farm, to pot, to jar, to table. and serve with confidence that it's safe. this is a diamond you can follow from mine to finger,

and trust it never fell into the wrong hands. ♪ ♪ this is a shipment transferred two hundred times, transparently tracked from port to port. this is the ibm blockchain, built for smarter business. built to run on the ibm cloud. jardiance asked: when it comes to managing your type 2 diabetes, what matters to you? you got a1c, heart, diet, and exercise. slide 'em up or slide 'em down. so let's see. for most of you, it's lower a1c. but only a few of you are thinking about your heart. fact is, even though it helps to manage a1c, type 2 diabetes still increases your risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke. jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill

with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease, significantly reducing the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event and lowering a1c, along with diet and exercise. this really changes things. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. man: ask your doctor about jardiance and get to the heart of what matters.

>> welcome back. 2018 is shaping up to be one of the most diverse years for candidates for public office the country has ever seen. 13 women have won primaries for govern ares races, 19 for the senate and more than 100 for the

house. the remarkable diversity extends jond gender. let's look at lbgtq races. more than 430 have run in this cycle and up to this point an expected 219 will be on the ballot this november. there are 4 nominees for governor, one for the senate and 21 who have won primaries for house seats. we have also seen the highest number of muslim candidates since 9/11. there are a lot of factors driving these diversity numbers overall. they look like a response to the 2016 election that was driven largely by a focus, by candidate donald trump on white working class men. >> when we come back end game and the story that won't go away. >> announcer: coming up, end game brought to you by boeing.

it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. a couple years ago, i was in pittsburg and i got laid off. i did not know what i was going to do. i started reimagining myself and i came up with these bowties. that's how knotzland was born. i was a one-woman show.

i took a class that taught me the basics of how to get the business online. and once my website was up, i was like, "wow, i'm an entrepreneur, i can do this." it's been a crazy journey. [laughter] ♪ i was able to turn the aircraft around, and the mission around, and was able to save two men's lives that night. my first job helped me to grow up pretty quickly. that'll happen when you're asked to respond to a coup. in 2001, i signed up for the air force. two days later, 9/11 happened.

♪ ♪ can world-renowned artist red hong yi use the chase mobile app® to pay practically anyone, at any bank? all while creating a masterpiece made of tea leaves? ♪ ♪ yes. but this isn't for just anyone. ♪ ♪ hong yi! it's for the strongest man in her life. ♪ ♪ life. lived red's way. chase. make more of what's yours. >> end game brought to you by boeing. continuing our mission to connect, protect, explore, and inspire. back now with end game. you can't talk about american politics without the role of

religions in general and what's happening in the catholic church this week out of pennsylvania is something that is going to have reverberations here. a pennsylvania grand jury report released more than 1,000 child victims of more than 300 abusive catholic priests across one state of pennsylvania. this is in 2018. never mind what they thought they made movies about in 2002 and things like that. i want to get everybody's reaction. this is from the grand jury report on how the church had a playbook for concealing the truth. make sure use you'-- never say . in this playbook, if a rapes children, provide him housing and living conditions, referring to the priests. when a priest has to be removed, don't say why, and above all, hugh hewitt, don't tell the police. >> i am an ashamed and grieving catholic.

the archbishop should be fired today because he was part of a conspiracy to cover up a child porn ring run by priests in pittsburgh. >> think about what you said there. >> i a child porn ring. >> run by priests. and child pedaling and child trafficking. you can't read this without vomiting if you are a catholic who believes in the church. i think attorney general shapiro, democrat of pennsylvania, has set a starred for 49 other attorneys general. we cannot trust the catholic church -- we can trust some people. you can't trust the church to do this. you have to have, i think, 49 more shapiro reports. >> holy cow. >> i imagine as someone who also catholic, i think of developing countries. pennsylvania and maybe the 49 other states might get to this. the catholic church has roots in so many other places where priests are seen not just the people at church but the people who run the schools, they are the people who run aid, where families go to if your need your child to have a role model if

your father is not around. when i was reading about the priests putting crosses on children's next to tell other priests this is a child who is vulnerable and has already been violated, i almost vomited. it's terrifying. >> pope francis is going to have to do something. >> what is the something? >> something serious. >> what is it? >> i don't know. >> how does ta begihat begin? >> he is the pope. he can send a clearer message, i think, than has been sent thus far. to say that the catholic church in this country -- i mean, because there will be, i think, if not 49, more shapiro reports. >> here's what i think makes this so damning. the first time a public abuse scandal was 1985. he made his name by uncovering the abuse taking place up in new england, and it's as if the

catholic church each time dealt with the problem and tried to move on. >> it's a culture of secrecy. it's an institution that does not -- that sees itself as its own kind of moral an governing and legal authority. so and so -- and it's massive. it's across the world. and what we've seen is that this kind of abuse is so widespread that were the church try to tackle the issue, how would you even know -- you don't know who is trying to solve the problem is actually part of the problem because it goes from the individuals who have committed abuses to those who covered it up to people who are complicit into it. and it's very widespread. i think pope francis, you know, he has -- he doesn't have a great track record of dealing with these issues, particularly when it came up in chile. he still hasn't said anything. >> i am curious of the larger

societal impact of an evangelical movement that has turned the other way on this president and what he has done morally. a catholic church that you can't trust morally with your kids even if you believe in your own beliefs. what does that do to organized religion in this country? >> i think it makes people more and more weary of going into churches or going -- and looking at pastors for some sort of moral direction. >> if not them, who? >> i don't think there is -- i think what the lesson here is that you really can't trust anyone. i should say it. i'll say it. i grew up with a grandmother who was devoutly catholic and who said be careful of who you put your child with. if it's coaches, teachers, we all understand now that we need to be very, very more vigilant and -- >> if i had more time, i could run down a list of good, great leaders in the church. shapoo, gomez. this pope has failed. if he fends mcelroy out of san

diego or a old white guy who have been part of the complicity and conspiracy for 40 years he will have failed because those institutions are necessary. >> sorry to be talking about this on a sunday morning. thank you for watching. as we say good-bye, we will leave you with an uplifting moment from the great aretha franklin at the kennedy center honors in 2015 where she honored carole king with her rendition of "you make me feel like a natural woman." enjoy. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." ♪ you make me feel ♪ you make me feel like a natural woman ♪ ♪ natural ♪ you make me feel ♪ you make me feel ♪ like a natural woman ♪ a woman a woman

this week on "press: here," long-time silicon valley executive and venture capitalist talking about artificial intelligence, helping women in the workplace and this very strange eating habit. and, the hardest working salesman in san francisco, trying to sell suits to the hoodie crowd. our reporters from the financial times and m.i.t. technology reviews, martin jyles, this week on "press: here." good morning, everyone. i'm scott mcgrew. technology moves in trends, big data was trendy for a while, th