jobs for african americans created under president trump. that story was incorrect. i'll see you back here at 8:00 p.m. eastern. thank you for watching. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. /s >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. we have we come on the air with breaking news. desperate for a distraction from the sea of negative headlines, the president taking an extraordinary step of revoking the security clearance of john brennan, former cia director who is a frequent critic of the president's pro putin foreign policy. here's director brennan last night on our network, his last public appearance before learning that his clearance had been stripped. >> i think donald trump has badly sullied the reputation of the office of the presidency with his invective, with his

constant disregard for human decency, as well as befriending ought karat i can leaders around the world and his continued pursuit of relationships to benefit himself as opposed to country. i do think america's standing in the world has also been tarnished. i think even more fundamentally what he is doing here in the united states is very polarizing and he is, i think, the most divisive president we've ever had in the oval office. he is feeding and fueling hatred and animosity and misunderstandings among americans. and so i am very concerned. when i look at some of the tweets that are out there and commentary, we are just fighting with each other as a nation. >> the tradition of granting security clearances to former directors of the cia is done to avoid brain drain, and to enhance the collective wisdom of a subsequent administration. but as a putin skeptic, it's unsurprising that brennan's expertise is not welcome by this administration.

>> the russians, i think, have had long experience with mr. trump and may have things that they could expose. donald trump says nice things about mr. putin and continues to deal with the russia investigation i think in a very questionable manner. i think mr. putin and others in the kremlin right now are unfortunately very satisfied with some of the things that have happened over the last 14 months. i think he's afraid of the president of russia. >> the practice of retaliating against a former intelligence official being critical of a president's foreign policy is unprecedented. according to two former senior intelligence officials it is also dangerous. here to discuss the state of play, some of our favorite reporters, friends and experts, frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director of counter intelligence, john cifer who ran the cia russia operations. joining us at the table jonathan lemire, white house reporter for the associated press and msnbc analyst, and eddy, princeton

university professor and msnbc contributor. let me start with you, frank figliuzzi. one former very senior intelligence official said to me, this is the closest we've come to being straight-up unamerican this this presidency. >> so, for those americans who think, hey, this is some inside the beltway politics that doesn't affect anyone without a clearance, let me tell you why you're wrong. this strikes at the heart of free speech in our society. now, there are those who are going to say john brennan is free to speak however he wants, just to do so without a clearance. but what we're experiencing here, nicolle, is the attempt to silence through punishment a man who knows something. he has the score. he was briefed on this case. he knows the russian collusion angle, and that's what trump is trying to silence. number two, this is a complete skating and skirting of all processes known on how to suspend and revoke someone's

clearance. there is a process for this. you first suspend. you then show cause. then you give a hearing. and then if called upon, you revoke. so we're skirting regulations. we're skirting the rule of law. we're trying to silence a man who knows the score. that's why every american should be concerned about this acts today. >> frank, i reached out to former intelligence officials from the bush era and asked if there were any critics of the iesh iraq war from previous administrations or people who dee sparted whose security clearances were revoked on these grounds and the answer was a resounding no. is there any precedent for removing and stripping and trying to deny access to classified information from someone because of the nature of their criticism of a president? >> so, in the 25 years that i worked national security matters in the fbi, i've not seen anything like this, nor historically going back to

vietnam and enemies list, nixon, the outright blatant attempt to silence someone, understand what we're seeing here. the president has found a way out. instead of firing somebody, instead of trying to impeach somebody, we may be headed to the time where someone in office is going to be silenced by having their clearance revoked. once you revoke the clearance of someone, like chris wray, like a sitting dni, like robert mueller, the special counsel, he can't even get in the building to do his job. the president may have found a way around how to silence somebody here. >> john cifer, let me ask you about the russia question. it seems to me this is not an accident as frank said, someone who understands the russia file, someone who understands the witting and unwitting participants and whatever it is the russians have found to have done in the 2016 election. their efforts to meddle, their possible success, i guess we're counting on robert mueller to get to the bottom of that.

but let me ask you what the reaction would be in moscow today to this news that a critic of donald trump's pro-putin policies was stripped of his clearances, will now be denied access to the kind of classified information that gives him insight and sort of the kind of access to understand what's going on in real-time? >> well, putin supported president trump because he was the chaos candidate and this is just adding to the chaos. this is more norm breaking, this is more doing things that have never been done before, reaching down into the government and showing both personal animus and partisan bent. i agree with everything frank said except this will silence people. i don't think the criticism that came from hayden or brennan comes with the knowledge they have. it comes from years and years of experience of being good patriotic americans. >> let me ask you, john cipher,

this is a president who does not read his pdb. this is not president who is not orally briefed about the specifics of russia. they don't do that because they don't want to make him angry. he has now stripped the clearances from a very public critic of his pro-putin policies. john brennan last night talking about donald trump's affinity for autocrats, his affinity for vladimir putin. his desire to polarize our country and his sort of penchant for dividing us as americans. those all seem like clear kremlin goals. are you growing more or less concerned about the direction of donald trump's foreign policy? >> well, i think, nicolle, just like you have, this is nothing new. he has shown this sort of behavior for a long time now, and so am i growing more concerned? yes, but i've been concerned for a long time and i think anyone who is paying attention has been concerned as well. you know, these clearances, they're not prizes, they're not given out to people for doing good work. they're used by the government

for government work. if somebody like mr. brennan, mr. hayden, any of these people want to be used on a commission or an advisory board to do government work, that's where a clearance comes in. so stripping the clearances doesn't hurt these people. it hurts the u.s. government using expertise that they would benefit from. >> and that idea of hurting the u.s. government, jonathan lemire, may very well be the president's ultimate goal, hurting and impeding the u.s. government's capacity to understand the russia threat, weakening and sort of thinning out the ranks of people who understand exactly what it is that the trump campaign did in cahoots with russia as we get closer and closer to the bottom of the mueller investigation. let me just bring you some reporting from our own andrea mitchell who reports that an official familiar with the decision to revoke john brennan's security clearance confirms that the dni coats and other intelligence officials were not informed prior to the decision or the announcement. she also reports that it's unclear whether john bolton was informed or others on his staff were not told in advance and that the announcement did not cite any violation of national

security or disclosure of classified information. so it was purely on the grounds they stripped it purely on the grounds of his being a critic of their foreign policy. >> right, it reads as a punishment. this is someone who has spoken up repeatedly about this president and this is his way to pay him back, strip him of his clearance and perhaps in his mind his influence. it is a punitive decision. also i'd like to point out the timing of the decision is really interesting. today is august 15th. the white house just put out the letter in which the president trump authorized the stripping of the security clearance. it's dated july 26th so this has been done for three weeks now. why release it now? you can't help but be cynical and looking to change the story. they have been pummelled the last few days by omarosa. let's change the conversation a little bit. so that's something that obviously is worth reporting and exploring. this came out in the last 2 or 3 minutes. this is something -- >> let's talk about that in a little bit. this is a white house today desperate for a new story, desperate for the breaking news

headline. those other stories don't go away because they are all parliament of the same fabric. omarosa came on tv and said this is the white house that sends the president out to lie. they are under investigation by robert mueller for obstruction of justice, for telling a lie about trump tower meeting with russians. this is a white house facing friendly fire from michael cohen the president's former fixer who may or may not have flipped in the southern district of new york. this is a white house sort of sitting there watching the sand pour through the hourglass and trying to decide whether the president can sit for an interview. not whether or not he will, whether he can without lying and perjuring himself. none of those go away. this is >> if this is meant as a distraction tactic it will not work. there is a cloud hovering over this west wing. the president's krebltd is one of them. the people who work for the president is another. the russia probe throughout, everything comes back to that. omarosa, many of the things she revealed goes to the president's character. let's be clear, he had advance

warning of the e-mails. she knew he knew russia was going to release hillary clinton's e-mails which would be a significant moment in this probe if true. even if not true, it points to how this is a story that is not going away. for this white house. >> and, frank, we've talked about how as someone who investigates crime, sometimes your witnesses are salty characters. so i don't want to put omarosa in the category of a salty character, but there have been a lot of questions about her credibility. she's backed up a lot of her claims with audio recordings. and i wonder if you take her story about the communications shop, people like hope hicks and others sending the president out to lie, and you stitch that together with the obstruction of justice investigation, you take the story jonathan just recounted about the president having knowledge of those hacked e-mails before they were released, you stitch that together with the questions we know robert mueller wants answered in the conspiracy to coordinate with a foreign adversary, it seems like she's at least worth getting to know a little bit, asking her some of

these questions, pulling these threads. and the panic from the white house seems to suggest that she might be onto something. >> yeah, we think alike. i think omarosa has got herself a free visit to the special counsel's office here for an interview. and i can tell you, the mueller's team is probably just shaking their heads going, is this going to be a star witness? and i think they're trying to say to themselves, do we have this case without her? but they are compelled now to sit her down and get this story about prior knowledge of the hacking. this goes not only to conspiracy, set aside obstruction. we're talking about accomplice. we're talking about coconspirator. this is prior knowledge, perhaps blessing of a crime hacking. so she's got to sit down and she's got to give her side of the story and i hope she understands that by publicly speaking this, she's making herself exhibit a. >> and eddy, director brennan is also a real critic of the president's conduct, of the

debasement of the presidency. when the meeting with the north koreans first came about, his concern was about the american president being duped by kim jong-un. his criticisms about the conduct of this president are about the stripping away of dignity, the stripping away of any sort of american tradition or adherence to norms in office. it feels like that is as much of a trigger for this president as anything. >> absolutely. it would be consistent with his own sense of insecurity as this queens raised guy who wanted to be on the inside of the chattering class, wanted to be a part of those folks. he also always like he's nuveaux riche. let's pan out a bit. what we see here very clearly is the politicalization of national security, punishment and

rebarred. that's dangerous. what we see clearly is exercise of authoritarian power, undermining of democratic norms, further undermining our faith in democracy itself. what we see here thirdly is silence, to mix my metaphors. we hear nothing. what is paul ryan saying? the third in charge, third in line. what is mitch mcconnell saying? >> great point. >> what are these folks -- this is, in fact, a fundamental act -- i mean, it fundamentally calls into question some basic things about how we operate and how we think about ourselves. and there are folks who are complicit in their silence. >> that's true. it's a good point, jonathan. during the iraq war there was a robust debate in this country. no one was stripped of their security clearance for being a critic of the iraq war. if they had, i'm guessing democrats and republicans would have marched down to the white house in protest. where are the republicans today? >> in the last couple hours, silent. that could change.

sometimes it takes drafting statements to put them out. not a profile in congress. >> 300 characters on twitter. >> up to 280. >> god help us. >> we may still see some push back, but we know the truth here. it happens very rarely. did it happen a year ago in charlottesville? yes, from some. did it happen in helsinki? yes, from some. many other occasions, norm defying, democracy challenging moments from this president, we haven't heard anything from republicans because they are still in awe of this president's approval rating in their own party. they don't want to challenge him. maybe, maybe some will still come. but as much minute goes by without prominent or even less prominent republicans speaking out, that is a distressing moment for that party, but also for our democracy. >> it's pathetic. john sipher, if you can take eddie glaude's point, those who speak out against pro putin are

punished, those who come in and snow him, those that come in and give him a bridge to vladimir putin he desperately wants as he made clear to jonathan lemire in helsinki, do you think people rising in the ranks of national security with some skepticism? >> nobody lasts forever in the trump universe. omarosa said nice things about him and moved up and got a senior job at the highest levels in the white house. until she said something bad and was kicked out. if you tie this clearance issue with the firing of mr. strzok at the fbi, for example yesterday, it does have this loyalty test smell to it that somehow this president, if you're loyal to him and you suck up to him, you're going to be in the front. you're going to get special favors. and if you criticize anyway, you're going to be kicked out and called a dog and all sorts of things. this is really an unhealthy thing for a vibrant democracy. it's using partisan politics over and above national

security. >> go ahead. >> yeah, in terms of people speaking out, there are two more people we need to hear from and that's the people sponsoring brennan's continued clearance. the cia director where he comes from and the dni. just as my continued clearance post retirement from the fbi was sponsored by the fbi and the department of justice, they should have waeighed in. they need to speak out. we need to hear about damage done to historical and continuity of knowledge. >> when they respond we'll bring it to our viewers right away. let me ask you, frank figliuzzi, about the names of people who have been fired, punished, attacked on twitter, in the case of director brennan stripped of their clearances. andy mccabe who corroborated james comey' memos. jim comey, the former ousted fbi director. pete strzok who sent those messages you and i have talked about earlier in the week to a colleague.

director brennan stripped of his clearances. the other names on the enemy's list, it's closer to the date jonathan raised in late july, included former cia director former nsa director general hayden. i believe he was at one time a republican, certainly not a partisan figure, a staunch defender of bush-era policies. the president threatened to strip him of his clearances. he's targeted other national security officials who don't have a party affiliation or have been of assistance to democratic and republican administrations. what do you make of the brain drain? what do you make of the fact that many of these people were involved in the hunt for bin lauden? many of these people were involved in planning to take bin lauden out without a loss of life to americans, special operations forces? what do you make of what happened? are lives at risk because of the way this president is conducting his punishment of foreign policy critics? >> i think national security is at risk. i'm going to hold back from saying that specific lives are

at risk right now, but what i worry about the most is it's already difficult, nicolle, in the intelligence community to get people to raise their hand, who are talented and want to be leaders and want to move up. it's all stress for little return. and i can tell you now the stress point has gotten so strong that i worry that talented people are simply going to say, i'm not going. i'm not going to washington. leave me alone and that's going to hurt us. >> frank figliuzzi and john sipher, thank you so much for joining us on an extraordinary day, another extraordinary day. after the break, donald trump's summer of discontent is in full swing and he has no one to blame but himself. plus, the jury in the manafort trial gets the case today. how a guilty verdict in that trial might trigger the president even more. someone delete his twitter app quick. the audacity of lies, the number of presidential lies passes 4,000, all the president's men and women go above and beyond just to keep up.

my mom washes the dishes... ...before she puts them in the dishwasher. so what does the dishwasher do?

new cascade platinum does the work for you, prewashing and removing stuck-on foods, the first time. wow, that's clean! new cascade platinum. all your school get supplies today... school.. grade.. done. done. hit the snooze button and get low prices on school supplies all summer long. like these for only a 25 cents at office depot officemax.

this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's.

donald trump's summer of discontent heated up today with self-inflicted wounds causing pain for this president from multiple angles. the president lashed out at the mounting threats closing in on had his west wing. mueller probe. the manafort trial and the cage match between donald trump and his reality star alter ego. it's that fight, the one between the president and omarosa that has white house staffers, quote, terrified, according to new reporting in politico. but the president returned to his favorite release unloading on the special counsel investigating his campaign and him. the president tweeting, quote, the rigged russian witch hunt goes on and on as the

originators and founders of this scam continue to be fired and demoted for their corrupt and illegal activity. all credibility is gone from this terrible hoax and much more will be lost as it proceeds. no collusion. it was a one-two punch this morning with the president's lawyer rudy giuliani issuing this threat. quote, if he doesn't get a report done in the next two or three weeks, we will just unload on him like a ton of bricks. he has to write the report so we can see it and rebut it. it's the kind of facts be damned argument that the president's team is relying on as the facts emerge, emerging look more and more ominous for the president. joining me at the table writer for "the new york times" and veteran journalist at pbs's amanpour and company. it seems like the commitment to rebutting something before you know what's in it is an admission that what's in it ain't gonna be so good for the president. >> yeah, but, you know, i'm

still struck -- hung up on the words credibility and giuliani. credibility, thy name is not giuliani. >> that's the president's lawyer. we cover him because he's in contact with the president, he's representing the legal team. and this idea that there's no chance that the mueller probe will exonerate the president of conspiracy with the russians or obstruction of justice is a revelation, it seems to me. >> yeah, but, you know, i think -- i don't think that any of that in a way matters. all they want to do is create a giant smoke screen of confusion and it's really working. so whatever they're saying today will be -- it could be something different tomorrow and they're banking on the idea. it might be a safe bet it's going to get lost in the mall. >> i'm struck by something phil rucker who is often on this show, bill shine sees things in problems and pictures. it's clear what the problem of this week was. the problem of this week was omarosa so it made a lot of sense to pivot off of that problem and totally change the narrative and go back to what they believe works for them and

for their base. >> but we've seen poll numbers that it's not working. even among republicans, 70% of americans want to see the president testify before robert mueller. i don't know if they imagine the president sworn in and testifying, i hope they do, i wish it were on television. 60% of americans believe in the integrity of the probe. that has to include large numbers of people who voted for donald trump. >> sure. i think there is some slippage of the numbers but they're relatively good as you just said. the strategy is clearly that. giuliani is not the person who is going to be in the courtroom, if you will, making these arguments. he is the public relations face. he's a good quote, a confusing quote, but he is someone who -- >> indecipherable quote. >> sometimes. he is someone who is adept at changing the subject a little here or there, distracting here, distracting that. certainly generating headlines. we know what trump wants more than anyone, someone to do just that, be his pitbull, advocate and raise these points. despite the public bluster there

is private concern in the white house. people i talk to in the west wing, they are unnevd rved by t omarosa stuff. not knowing what recordings she has. are there more of the president? maybe. staffers? likely. people in the building fear they may be under legal exposure, might be on a sinking ship. this is yet another thing they have to deal with. and it's going to become that much harder to replace these people as more and more leave, too. >> i understand one of the most destabilizing things in the white house when fox and friends criticize him. look what happened today. >> in order to sell a book, she's come out with a series of tapes and in many ways seems to have out smarted the president who has taken the bait and gone out and tweeted directly after her. >> so when your best friends call you stupid, it's not a good way to starts the day. >> it's a tough way to have your breakfast and get slapped in the face from your friends at fox.

we know how reactionary this is. this is not just about fox, but any cable covers the president watches becomes the cycle. he creates a headline, sees how it's portrayed, he reacts. rep post helsinki, he got on air force one thinking he had done a great job. it was on fox news he start today see things had gone bad, people told him he was doing bad. it did not go well. he attempted to clean it up in a variety of bad ways the coming days. the reaction on cable news, we're seeing this here with omarosa, drives him more than just about anything else. and i think that we will see, if they're criticizing, we'll see him go back at her harder ha harder. >> the said the manafort trial is driving him bonkers. >> he sees it two ways. one, he feels don junior could be next in particular. this is going to reach closer to his family -- >> has don junior received a target letter? does he know he did something wrong? did don junior lie to somebody? >> the president has told people

around him he doesn't believe don junior wittingly did anything wrong, but -- >> he also said as far as he knows. >> and i think his statement we saw the last couple of days was note worthy that it was clearly very lawyered to the best of my knowledge that nothing else happened after that trump tower meeting. >> sounds to me like a letter you recirculate and point to when your son gets indicted. do you think there is something coming? >> absolutely. in omarosa's book, i actually read it. >> good for you. i read excerpts. >> there was a moment she talks to trump about don junior and he said, he f'd up. he's worried seriously about how he's exposed himself. what's interesting about omarosa as he tries to pivot, i think his paddle might have some goods on him. we thought omarosa -- we think avenatti is a bull dog. think of omarosa, house burned down, a 3-year-old cousin killed. father beaten to death.

brother murdered in his home. fiance has a heart attack, michael clark duncan in bed with her, death surrounds her. it's amazing she's upright. then she gets the job after she threatens to sue national enquirer. she knows how the tabloids work from the inside. this is an enemy that trump -- can match trump at every -- >> i'm dying, i want to give you a two-part question. this is the washington post reporting ashley parker and phil rucker. some who have appeared most effective countering trump employ his tactics such as michael avenatti, attorney for stormy daniels, they are relentless, create drama, hold news cycles hostage and dribble out tantalizing tidbits. they are masters of what donald trump lives and dies by. >> she has everything. she has tape, sound, powerful, the receipts as we call them. >> right. >> in a whitneyism.

she's doling it out and tvs still can't get enough of her. this is the trump play book and the amazing this is there has never been more media, there has never been -- there can be so much content. there's a pact following, the kids following the soccer ball aspect and she's got the soccer ball right now. >> let me push back a little bit. it's not that we can't get enough of her. the president won't stop engaging her. i don't think we would have led with it if donald trump hadn't got on twitter and called her a dog. >> even though his aides disagree and people reportedly trite to rein him in, this is reality television. there is an instinctual desire to engage because it's what he knows. it's worked for him so far. what's fascinating for me is watching sarah huckabee sanders say how can you elevate her when she had a place in the white house? >> sorry. i would also add not only is

there this student outwitting the master here. you have a president who has delivered miss only niskanogyni. you have a black woman beating him at his game. it has to get under his game. >> coming up, former cia director john brennan's first reaction that the president stripped him of his security clearance. we will talk to former director brennan in a few minutes. right after the break, the prosecution and defense wrapped up closing arguments in paul manafort's trial. how soon before we see a verdict? managing blood sugar

is not a marathon. it's a series of smart choices. and when you replace one meal or snack a day with glucerna made with carbsteady to help minimize blood sugar spikes you can really feel it. glucerna. everyday progress. today, life-changing technology from abbott is helping hunt them down at their source. because the faster we can identify new viruses, the faster we can get to stopping them. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest.

it's now in the jury's hands. the prosecution and defense have wrapped up their closing statements in the first trial of the special counsel's investigation. what we know is that no matter the outcome, there is still a lot trump can be worried about. manafort faces another trial next month on similar charges, plus not registering as a foreign lobbyist and his deputy rick gates is still cooperating

with the larger mueller probe. gates' involvement in this case was only a small part of what he offers robert mueller. joining us from outside the courthouse is nbc's national security and justice reporter julia ainsley and daniel goldman, former assistant u.s. attorney now an msnbc legal analyst. julia, take us through the highlights of the closing arguments from both sides. >> so, it was interesting. there was a back and forthright after the defense had finished their closing arguments where the prosecution wanted the judge to be very clear in his instructions to the jury to say, you should not think about the justice department's motivation. i think that's to clear up for any juror who might be looking at the president's tweets or bought into the idea that the special counsel's probe is going too far, it's a witch hunt or might be politically motivated. it's pretty clear they needed to lay that out in this case. in fact, they're not even referring to the prosecution as the special counsel. they're referring to them as the justice department which in fact they are.

they're justice department lawyers. right now the judge is reading the instructions orally. they won't get that written. daniel can talk about kind of how rare that is, but this jury will have to listen to a recording to hear the instructions. they're really critical. we're talking about -- we're not talking about who did it. we're not talking about a smoking gun here. we're talking about very complex financial crimes like not filing for foreign bank accounts. those things have certain legal bars and a juror who doesn't have a legal background is going to need to know what those bars are and they might need to go back and listen to that recording several times. we expect that the jury will actually start deliberating probably tomorrow because we expect the rest of the day will be taken up with instructions, nicolle. >> daniel, you've talked about how unlikely it is in your view that at this point paul manafort will flip and cooperate with the justice department and the special counsel investigation. tell us why. >> i think that if paul manafort were to have flipped, he would

have done so long before this point. and what really strikes me is that it was paul manafort's decision to have two separate cases with two separate trials, which only helps the government. and if he ever considered that maybe he would want to flip at some point, he would have only had, i think, one trial. but what i really do think he's doing is trying to set up a situation where, as the president has recently tweeted, it can be said that he was treated unfairly, there were two trials against him, and he's angling for a pardon here. >> julia, take us through sort of -- you brought to life some of the dynamics in the courtroom for us. what did the jury seem to respond to in the closing arguments? any clues from people who read body language? >> i've been reading a lot of that body language today, nicolle. there are some people who are diligently taking notes. they want to know how all of this goes. i saw one juror roll up his papers when the prosecution was finishing their closing arguments. it's hard to know that means he

thinks he's got it, his decision is made or maybe he understands this law better than i do, but he wanted -- he seemed to not be as interested. also i think the body language was key during rick gates. there were a lot of jurors who especially, one i saw crossing his arms and shaking his head who thought rick gates was someone who really isn't a very credible witness. he's someone who embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from his boss, paul manafort. they may see him as a noncredible witness. but the thing about that is that there is so much documentation and evidence and testimony from other witnesses that back up a lot of what rick gates said when it comes to the crimes of paul manafort. so even if a juror doesn't think rick gates can be believed at all, it will be hard to ignore the overwhelming sense of the rest of the evidence. but we are all wondering how long this jury can take. there are 18 counts they have to go through here. so it's anyone's guess whether or not this could be wrapped up this week or whether they'll want more time. the next tea leaves we'll be reading are the notes, what the

jury is asking for when they want more information to make their decision. >> daniel, our friend jennifer ruben writes in the washington post, when you see a trial by professional prosecutors, you see the disadvantage trump may face when cases are brought against them. rick gates is really maybe only getting warmed up in terms of what he has shared, what he has told special counsel robert mueller about the campaign, about the convention, about the inauguration, and about the conduct of this white house and everything that he witnessed up to and i believe going up to the week before he was indicted. how much alarm should there be in trump campaign circles, in the white house about what rick gates knows and about how the special counsel prosecutors plan to deploy him? >> well, nicolle, i think if there is any question as to how much alarm, you have to read the

media blitz and tweet storms that have been going on the past couple weeks. i think that directly stems from the fact rick gates's cooperation is not just about paul manafort in this tax fraud and bank case. it's not just about paul manafort's money laundering case. it's about the broader investigation as well. and what we're starting to see is a little bit of the tea leaves, little data points here and there, as you would expect. rick gates was on the campaign for a while. he was then on the transition, and he remained on the inaugural committee. he was privy to a lot of what the back room dealings and what was going on during the critical elements that bob mueller is investigating. and when you start to look at the indictments in this case, which are really, really thorough and detailed, and you see the presentation that the government made in this trial with loads of documents, e-mails, bank records, fake documents, doctored documents, all sorts of investigative techniques that they've used

including search warrants, you start to realize that this is far from a witch hunt. this is a methodical and detailed and thorough investigation aided by people like rick gates and michael flynn who are cooperating with bob mueller and who know a lot more than what we know right now and a lot more that came out in this case. so i think if i'm trump and if i'm the administration and anyone worked on the campaign, i'm very nervous right now. >> jonathan lemire, i heard from a trump ally that between paul manafort and rick gates, if one of them is going to flip, the one that could do the most damage to this president and his inner white house circle was rick gates because of his proximity to this west wing staff long after inauguration and, again, up through that -- really that devastating spring where comey was fired, the obstruction of justice investigation, really in full swing by the time he was indicted. and the people that are now swept up in the mueller probe very much swirling around with

rick gates up until that day that his indictment was unsealed. >> completely right. that proximity extends beyond the inauguration and inauguration committee. reporters in the west wing would see him in the building sometimes. he would visit the white house. he was affiliated with an outside trump group. he would when in washington live at the trump hotel. in fact, more than once -- good place to meet a source. i would see him in the lobby in sweat pants. he was always around. he knows people, he knows things and -- precisely right, people in the west wing are nervous about what he knows, what he could say and there is a sense -- at least there is a fear right now with manafort, it's just the opening act. >> we are now joined by former cia director john brennan. this is his first reaction since learning today that his security clearance has been stripped by president donald trump. director brennan, thank you for joining us. your first reaction? >> well, nicolle, i just pushed out a tweet expressing my concern about what i think is a politically motivated action by mr. trump.

>> let me read that, director. let me read it for all of our viewers and anyone in their car who can't see that we put it up on the screen. you just tweeted, this action is part of a broader effort by mr. trump to suppress freedom of speech and punish critics. it should gravely worry all americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. my principals are worth far more than clearances. i will not relent. >> and that, basically, is the essence of my reaction. i do believe that mr. trump decided to take this action, as he's done with others, to try to intimidate and suppress any criticism of him or his administration. and revoking my security clearances is his way of trying to get back at me. but i think i have tried to voice the concerns of millions of americans about mr. trump's failures in terms of fulfilling

the responsibilities of that sacred and solemn office of the presidency. and this is not going to deter me at all. i'm going to continue to speak out. but i am very worried about the message that it appears that mr. trump is trying to send to others, including those that currently hold security clearances within the government. i think he included bruce orr, current department justice official among those whose clearances he's reviewing. is this an effort to try to cow individuals inside and outside the government to make sure they don't say anything, either that is critical of mr. trump or with which he disagrees? and i've seen this type of behavior and actions on the part of foreign tyrants and despots and autocrat in my national

security career. i never thought i would see it here in the united states. and so i do believe that all americans really need to take stock of what is happening right now in our government, and how abnormal and how irresponsible and how dangerous these actions are. so, again, if mr. trump believes this is going to lead me to just go away and be quiet, he is very badly mistaken. >> let me ask you an uncomfortable question. the president today described you, your conduct as erratic. he said, this is a retaliation for erratic conduct and behavior. he is trying to diminish your credibility. what do you know that you haven't shared yet that he would want to take your credibility down a notch? you are highly regarded by democrats and republicans, but it seems like as he's done with jim comey, as he's done with robert mueller, your credibility is something he sees as

important to diminish. what do you know that he's afraid of? >> well, i think he is concerned about the criticisms that i'm voicing publicly. i think he hears those types of criticisms. i think he fears individuals who could damage him, could damage his standing among the american people. look at the way he's been referring to bob mueller. bob mueller, who is a national treasure, an icon within the law enforcement and justice communities, who is doing his level best to investigate russian interference in the election. and the denegration of bob mueller as well as his team of investigators is reprehensible, it really is. i think when i speak out about some of his -- what i think are flawed policies, we can all have

policy disagreements and differences. that's what makes this country great. but i must tell you that mr. trump's dishonesty, his lack of integrity, his nastiness, mean spiritedness, the types of things that he has just tweeted out the past 72 hours, the terms that he uses, this is not what i think of an american president nor of america. we're better than this. we have to be better than this. we have been a shining example to the world and mr. trump is letting this country down. >> do you believe he's motivated by a desire to please someone other than the american public? and by that, we've had a lot of conversations about his relationship with vladimir putin. after helsinki, even some of his closest allies, i understand some of the members of the white house staff, start today scratch their head and wonder if, huh, maybe there is something there. do you think his conduct in

office, that he is almost an item to do list, carrying out vladimir putin's wishes for the american democracy, the divisions, the polarization, the pro-russia policies and the disparagement of our longest, closest and most trusted allies, do you think there is something more going on that in confidence and debasing the office of the presidency? >> well, he may very well have a guilty conscience about the types of things that he has done in the past. i don't know. he is the one who has to account for those previous actions and whether or not those actions ran afoul of ethics and of the law. and i don't know what he may be concerned about in terms of what might be divulged as part of this investigation or others. but as i have said repeatedly, i find his attitude and behavior toward vladimir putin and the

russians very, very puzzling and very, very, um, irrational. and so i don't know what it is that is behind that, but i think that's why it's critically important that bob mueller and his investigators be allowed to continue their work unimpeded by mr. trump or anyone else in the administration. it's important that rod rosenstein stays in charge of that investigation from a department of justice oversight perspective. but clearly, i think mr. trump is getting more and more concerned, more and more desperate. i would say more and more frightened as there is closer and closer magnification of some of the things that those around him have been involved in, those who may have been concealing

illegal activities as has been admitted by a number of individuals that were associated with the trump campaign. so i do think it's important that i continue to speak out. i know some things that the russians were involved in, but i certainly don't know all the things that mr. trump has been involved in over the years. i do not pretend to have that knowledge. he is the one. but clearly his actions are those of somebody who is seeking to prevent the full light of day being shone upon his past. >> you've talked about a guilty conscience and talked about the importance of robert mueller being allowed to complete his work. you must know that robert mueller is perhaps the most frequent punching bag from this president and his twitter feed. i wonder if you could, having some familiarity with how bob mueller runs an investigation and how he thinks about prosecutions and investigations,

i wonder if you think that the president is at this point a target in the obstruction of justice investigation or the conspiracy investigation around collusion with russia, and if you think that that's a semantic game at this point, if you think it's the fact that perhaps mueller is adhering to justice department policy which says you can't indict a sitting president. do you think but for that the president is a target of the obstruction investigation or the collusion investigation? i have no knowledge about what bob mueller and his team have uncovered and what they are pursuing. but what i do know about bob mueller and those investigators is that they are exceptionally thorough, exceptionally meticulous, and will continue to look for any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, whether that was to conspire with foreign governments against this country, whether it was to defraud this country as a result

of financial transactions that were hidden, or obstruction of justice. over the last year plus when bob mueller has been involved in this effort and for the previous year where the fbi was investigating russian interference, i am confident that they have looked at all of these different angles, and i know that bob mueller is not going to give anyone a pass in terms of any type of criminal conduct that might have been uncovered. so again, i have no knowledge about what's -- the status of that investigation, but i just know that the quality of bob mueller and his team is one that all americans should be proud of. and all americans, whether they support mr. trump or not, should want this investigation to be brought to completion so that we can once and for all resolve some of these questions that are outstanding about what happened

during this period of time, what the russians were involved with doing, and who they might have been working with. i think at the end of the day we all should accept the findings of that accept investigative team. and if they exonerate everybody, including mr. trump from any wrongdoing whatsoever, we should accept that, because that is what what the rule of law demands and what our system of justice requires. but i have been very, very disheartened that mr. trump and others have tried to throw obstacles in the path of this investigation from the very early -- its very earliest stage. that is something that should not happen. >> and i'm guessing they thought if it would have exonerated him they would have agreed to an interview, which 70% of americans think that he should do. can i ask you where you go from here. have you heard today from cia

gina pahaspel about the strippi of your clearance? >> no, i was called by a friend and associate when sarah huckabee sanders was giving that statement. so i had no knowledge of it beforehand. no one contacted me. nobody reached out to me over the past several weeks when this issue was first -- had first surfaced. so the first i heard about it was when i was able to turn on the television and listen to ms. sanders, and i have not heard anything from any government official since then or before then. so i'm just watching the news and i'm so glad that you and other members of tare carrying your responsibilities to report information to the american people. >> general hayden has said that donald trump has been engaged in

an assault on evidence-based practices, the intelligence community, the law enforcement community, the media and science. what do you think happens to the people inside the government who rely on evidence, intelligence gathered about the ongoing threat posed by russia, information that they need to bring to the president but we've already seen he has a penchant for leaking to russians. what happens to the people inside government who can't have the conversation you and i are having right now? >> well, that's a very good question. when i was in government, i served for six presidents, three republicans and three democrats, and i don't think there was ever a time that any intelligence or law enforcement professional questioned whether the president of the united states was taking their information seriously. they might have decided on certain policy courses but they never had a sense that the president was either dismissive or had this rather disdainful

attitude toward their professions. now, though, the situation is much different. i think mr. trump has shown himself to be somebody who is first and foremost concerned about himself and is concerned about how he appears and his poll numbers and other things and is not taking the u.s. national security and our domestic ability to get along as the guiding principles of his job. and that is, i think, something that is i know disspiriting to a lot of professionals who sacrifice a lot and their families who sacrifice a lot when they have to be deployed overseas and the family members have to keep the home fires burning. i get so upset when i hear mr. trump denigrate the work of national security intelligence professionals when i know that they have a very, very challenging job and juggling

their professional responsibilities along with their personal responsibilities. so this is, i think, a sad time. we will come out from it, under it. i am very confident in the resilience and strength of this nation. mr. trump is not going to bring this country down. i think in fact the opposite will happen. >> one of the reasons people like you keep your clearances is because you've been involved in every national security threat facing this country for the duration of your career, as have the other people that he listed as targets on his enemies list for the same punishment you received today. do you believe it endangers america's national security if there's this brain drain, if people who were involved in making plans to capture bin laden are stripped of their clearances and not able to be a resource for the current administration? >> well, security clearances are certainly a privilege. i don't consider it a right. i think all of us who had to go through the security clearance process had to demonstrate that we were worthy of holding this

nation's secrets and keeping and preserving them. and so i am concerned that if security clearances are now going to become a political tool in the hands of individuals such as mr. trump, that, i think, will send a very, very chilling message to individuals in the government currently, maybe former officials who still hold their clearances, as well as the future generation of intelligence and national security professionals. so this -- i am very concerned about the principle here. i'm very concerned about what this might portend in terms of the revocation of other clearances and this is something that i believe that the press needs to shine a very bright spotlight on, make sure that this abuse, and that's what i consider it, an abuse of power by mr. trump does not go without very close review and challenge. >> just real quick, is there anything you can do to appeal this decision today? is there a process for appealing

the stripping of your clearances? >> well, i don't know, nicolle. right now i'm still absorbing the announcement. it's not going to affect my speaking out, my criticisms of mr. trump. i'm going to try to do it in a professional way. but i don't know what recourse there is and so i'll just take things one day at a time. >> thank you for absorbing it live on our air. we are very grateful to have you on all days, especially today. former cia director and senior national security analyst john brennan, thank you. my thanks to jonathan lemire and eddie glaude. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck. >> if you're wondering whether this was a distraction from omarosa and all of the devastating news that's heading toward the president right now, whatever might happen with paul manafort, just take a look at the date