>> thanks for joining us. frank, great to see you. thank you both for seeing me tonight. that's it for "all in" this evening. and "the rachel maddow show" starts now. i joked if i didn't end the show on time i would in cur the wrath of rachel maddow. i think you knew i was joking but everybody on twitter didn't. >> really? >> you are always gracious and unless someone is stealing, cheating or lying to the american people there is no wrath for rachel maddow to in cur. >> were people upset that i was actually -- >> no. you have a lot of friends on twitter. how can you say that about rachel? >> i was kidding. >> i know you were kidding. also, di sometimes have wrath, almost never at work. >> enjoy your show. >> thanks, my friend. much appreciate it. today is august 15th, which means that tomorrow, august 16th is the anniversary of this

amazing document. you can see at the top it is dated august 16th, 1971. then, it says, the top line on the left there underlined, all caps, confidential. a memorandum, subject, dealing with our political enemies. this is a memorandum written on this date in 1971 by a man named john dean, when john dean was working as white house counsel to president richard nixon. the job don has for president trump, he wrote this confidential memorandum. quote, this memorandum address the matter how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our administration. stated a bit more bluntly, how can we use the available federal machinery to screw our political

enemies. that is not me giving you a smirky modern paraphrase that appears more elegantly in this 47 year document. that's literally what john dean wrote in this white house memo. how can we use the available machinery to screw our political enemies. then, he has a proposal. after reviewing this matter with a number of persons possessed of expertise in this field -- really -- i have concluded we do not need an elaborate mechanism or game plan, rather, we need a good project coordinator and full support for the project and in brief the system as follows, three bullet points, key members of the staff including our old friend, pat buchanan. should be requested to inform us as to who they feel we should be giving a hard time.

wow. number two. the project coordinator should then determine what sorts of dealings these individuals have with the federal government and how we can best screw them. forgive me but that's literally what he says, how we can best screw them. for example, grant availability, if they have contracts, litigation, prosecution, et cetera. number three, the project coordinator then should have access to and the full support of the top officials of the agency or department in proceeding to deal with the individuals. this was the first term of the richard nixon administration. this also ended up being part and parcel of the re-election campaign effort in 1972. this white house operation eventually turned toward democrats running for congress in the senate and people associated with democratic presidential campaigns in addition to enemies they identify as critical of the

administration in general. this wasn't a vague concept or state of mind they had as the presidential administration, this was a concrete plan with people assigned their parts in helping to carry it out, including specific named people in the administration charged with keeping up the target list up to date, keeping it constantly updated, so the nixon administration could maximize the fact of our incumbency, maximize the fact they controlled the presidency to persons known to be opposite to our administration. john dean wrote that memo at the white house on tomorrow's date in 1971. less than two years later in the summer of 1973, john dean decided he was going to let the whole world know about that. not only the plan in general but

specifically the constantly updated lists of enemies. >> i do, of course, know and as i have submitted in documents other agencies were involved in seeking politically embarrassing information on individuals who were thought to be enemies of the white house. i might also add in my possession is a rather -- very much down the lines of what you're talking about, is a memorandum that was requested by me to prepare a means to attack the enemies of the white house. there was also maintained what was called an "enemies list" rather extensive and continually updated. >> i'm not going to ask who was on it. [ laughter ] >> i'm afraid you might answer. i wonder, are these documents in

the possession of the committee? >> no. but i'd be happy to submit them to the committee. they didn't fit within the request that i had with counsel as to the documents he wished to have produced. if the committee does wish them i'd be happy to submit them. >> mr. chairman, i think the committee would like very much to have a copy of that medium. >> all right, sir. >> all right, sir. there's john dean, nixon's white house counsel saying, hey, nobody asked me about this. if you're interested in this abuse of power stuff, do you want to know about the enemies list we've been continually updated at the white house and ways we've been scheming to and we've been using the power of the presidency to go after people who we considered to be the president's political enemies, because i have that. would you like that? you hear the gasps in the committee room and he's looking around and they don't know

whether to laugh or barf or what. john dean did end up handing those documents to the watergate committee and that whole basis became part of the scandal against president nixon, abuse of power. nixon got red-handed with that. not only to screw with his political enemies but plotting overtly to do that, at least plotting covertly to do that, plotting among themselves. writing controversial memorandums to white house staff, committing it to writing. eventually it became a perverse point of pride for people who ended up on those nixon enemies lists, means you were important enough to have attracted the president's attention if not affection. the opposite of love is not hate, indifference. sort of like, i didn't know you cared aspect to being proud

ending up on one of those enemies list meaning you were important enough to bother the president he decided to use his office to come after you. point of pride in the end. i will gets to venture that's how it happens a second time around now that we're living through a new iteration of this story in 2018. tonight, the white house announced it would strip former cia director, john brennan, of his security clearance. turns out this is not a john brennan story today. turns out there is a whole list from this white house. john brennan happens to be the first man on this list. >> good afternoon. i'd like to begin by reading a statement from the president. i've decided to revoke the security clearance of john brennan, former director of the central intelligence agency. i am evaluating action with respect to the following individuals, james clapper, james comey, michael hayden, sally yates, susan rice, andrew mccabe, peter stzok, lisa page

and bruce orr. security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked and those who have already lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated. >> to be clear, there are no specific allegations from the white house about the mishandling of classified information or leaking of classified information or anything else like that. mishandling or leaking classified information is a crime. this announcement from the white house is not a criminal accusation, just an announcement of people the president wants to go after. the white house has a new list. how does one get so lucky as to get on this list? the first time the white house floated this idea also in the white house briefing room a few weeks ago they were actually pretty explicit what you have to do to get on this list. >> not only is the president looking to take away brennan's security clearance, he's also looking into the clearances of comey, clapper, hayden, rice and

mccabe, making baseless accusations of improper contact with russia or being influenced by russia against the president is extremely inappropriate and the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges and illegitimacy to accusations without evidence. >> there is no accusation from the white house anybody is mishandling classified information or misusing their security clearance in some other way you're not allowed to do with a security clearance. the white house is now making clear, you criticize the president specifically with regard to russia intervening to help him in his election, they will use the power of the president to hurt you. they will strip your security clearance to try to discredit you as a critic of the president on russia. at least when the nixon white house did it they had the decency to write "confidential"

on top of things. we are not blessed in our era with the same sort of subtleties or shame. security clearances are a real thing. the cia and all the other agencies who grant them or oversee them. in fact, they have full-fledged well established procedures to strip security clearances from people for cause when this is cause to do so. none of those procedures were engaged here. those procedures were not followed here. those agencies were not involved. this was directed personally from the white house himself being hands on here in a way nixon was, in a way that ended up being a real problem for president nixon 40 plus years ago. you right remember from the oval office tapes what nixon talked about what he was looking for in an irs commissioner, when he wanted that irs commissioner to be willing to do things to his enemies and not do things to his friends. the president being so hands on

on these kinds of punishment actions from the white house, this is part of what got nixon the second article of impeachment. >> i want to be sure he's a ruthless son of a bitch. that he will do what he's told. that every income tax return i want to see i see. that he'll go after our enemies and not go after our friends. it's as simple as that. if he isn't, he doesn't get the job. >> he'll go after our enemies and not go after our friends, as simple as that. if he doesn't he doesn't get the job. nixon 45 years ago was hands on, directly involved, directly in control of coordinated efforts inside his white house to make sure he was using the power of the presidency in an illegal way. he was using the power of the federal government -- what did dean call it? the fact of our incumbency, using his control of the white house and of the federal government to go after our

enemies and to not go after our friends. this statement today about stripping security clearances from people specifically because they have criticized the president or the administration, this statement today remarkably, was issued very specifically in the president's name, in a way that is unusual for this white house or for any other. the president's press secretary did not go out there and announce in her own words this new policy or action by the administration. she went to the podium and announced she was reading a statement from the president. the white house then released this pdf document explicitly from the president and written in the first person by himself and only. this statement from the president obviously becomes an instant historical document. i have to admit i kind of wish they had waited until tomorrow to release it on august 16th instead of 15th so it would have

been perfect from the john dean memo back in 1971. a day or so either side of the historical parallel i will still take it. the statement today does offer one very obvious black and white clue today what just happened here and why. not only did the statement from the white house say right at the top, "statement from the president," the statement from the president today was also dated, and weirdly, since today is august 15th, the date at the top of this statement today was july 26th. that's not today. that was three weeks or so ago. what this implies is that this announcement about stripping security clearances for people who have criticized the president, it appears that, at least implied this was drawn up several weeks ago and has been sitting in a drawer ready to go ever since, just waiting for the

right time for it to be launched. why was today the right time? they have apparently had this thing cooked 3 1/2 weeks. why was today the day they decided to put it out there. one dollars to donuts bet says we will find out somewhere along the line in some sweaty committee room hearing much like the one that gasped at john dean's enemies revelation 40 odd years ago this summer. the weird means the way the white house announced this new policy today suggests nobody other than the president himself was particularly comfortable being associated with this decision or having his or her name associated wit in print. when you wrap other people in schemes like this, even if they're willing to go along with it in time, history shows oftentimes down the road people have regrets or change their mind whether they want this part of their own historical record in addition to the president's.

meanwhile, our best guess why they took this thing out of the desk drawer today and decided to deploy it today after kicking it around 3 1/2 weeks, our best guess because they wanted to use it to change the news narrative and distract from something else going on in the news. there's a lot going on in the news but hard not to notice today is the day close arguments wrapped up against the campaign chairman paul manafort. we have been waiting to get the transcript all day. we still do not have it although i am noticing people scurrying around the newsroom that makes me wonder if it came in the second i started talking. i will check it out in the commercial break and let you know. it might be tomorrow while the jury is deliberating you may be treated with me acting out the spectacle and playing all the parts. i know it is terrible but i

can't help myself. from a lot of excellent courtroom reporting today, we do know it appears that whatever happened a few days ago in the manafort trial, where there was a whole day of long mysterious recesses and closed hearings and sealed motions, a lot of people had speculated at the time it might have meant there was some sort of issue to the jury, maybe a juror had been exposed to media coverage about the case or spoken about the case or a juror had done something else that required them to be replaced by one of the alternates. that had been a lot of the informed speculation about that day of mystery a few days ago in the trial. we now know today if it was something to do with a juror, any danger there appears to have passed. there were four alternate jurors who have beep sitting in the courtroom -- been sitting ever in -- been sitting in the

courtroom every day of the trial. today, the four alternates were sent home by the judge. what that tells us is that the 12 jurors who will be deliberating paul manafort's fate, it's the original 12 jurors. that means that none of them have been replaced. part of the reason a lot of people believed that strange day of closed hearings a few days ago might have been a juror related issue, particularly maybe an issue with a juror exposed to media about the case because this outspoken perky judge in this case has been so emphatic, doubling and tripling down on his admonitions to the jury, they need to avoid all discussions about the case and particularly any media reports that might mention the case, that was part of why people thought maybe that's becoming an issue with this jury. rb apparently it wasn't a serious issue with the jury. that history where we've seen that going, we've seen the judge

overtly worry over this issue and keep going back to this issue of staying away from the media, that made it very striking today on closing arguments day, when the judge at one point, started referencing himself, what the media coverage of this trial has been like. oh, really? how do you know? discussing in court today whether or not the jury would get a specific instruction about manafort's loans from the bank in chicago where he offered the ceo of the bank a job running the u.s. army, they're discussing that today when they're setting up what the instructions to the jury will be. the judge noted in open court he'd sided with prosecutors, sided with the prosecution in terms of the way they thought the jury should be instructed to deliberate about the loans in that part of the case. the judge notes out loud he's siding with the prosecution on that one jury instruction. the judge said, "if you read the newspapers, though, it's

otherwise. he points at the defense and said, they win everything. he pointed at the prosecution, he said, and you lose everything. so the judge today in open court appeared to indicate he's been reading newspaper coverage of is her own trial and said it makes it seem like the defense is winning everything and the prosecution is losing everything. that's interesting. but the judge has repeatedly insisted in court he himself has not been paying any attention to any media coverage of the trial. i don't actually think it's improper for judges themselves to watch or read media coverage about their own trials. it's not improper in the same way it would be for somebody on the jury, but if it is the case judge ellis has been secretly monitoring media coverage of his own trial i just want to say, hi, judge. happy to have you here, judge ellis. somebody send that man a nielsen

box. there does appear to have been one point of somewhat significant drama in the closing arguments today when paul manafort's defense team strayed into a few areas of argument they were expressly prohibited from bringing up in front of the jury. one was that little bank in chicago with the loans to manafort, a question whether or not they could talk before the jury whether the bank made or lost money on those loans. they were not supposed to talk about that in front of the jury. they brought it up. another issue is whether manafort had been audited by the irs. they weren't supposed to bring it up and they brought it up. a third issue the defense hammered in their argument today even though they weren't supposed to, the idea of paul manafort being unfairly hounded, selectively prosecuted specifically because there's a special counsel. this argument for manafort's defense normal prosecutors working for the department of

justice in the normal course of events wouldn't have brought a prosecution like this, manafort is only in jail tonight and facing these charges because a special counsel was appointed. this is robert mueller's fault and manafort otherwise wouldn't have been prosecuted. the judge explicitly advised the jury they are not allowed to consider arguments like that. the judge told the jury, you are to ignore any argument about the department of justice's motives or lack of motives in bringing this prosecution. the defense knew before they tried to slip that in, in their closing argument, they were prohibited from making that argument. they tried it before, argued in front of the judge and did it before the jury anyway. which kind of makes it seem like an act of desperation. the judge, after they made this case, manafort is only being president because of the special counsel -- being prosecuted because of the special counsel.

the judge ordered them to ignore that. you can't unhear things in real life. this is all an unfair prosecution by big bad robert mueller who shouldn't have that job in the first place. the fact the defense went there anyway knowing the jury would be instructed to ignore it tells you something about how strong they think their defense argument was. there's a lot of legal things related to the special counsel's office. the federal appeal trying to protect this guy, andrew miller from having to testify to the special counsel's grand jury about his connections to roger stone, that federal appeal is being mounted by a well-funded conservative legal outlet. that appeal -- this guy, andrew miller nobody has ever heard of, works as a house painter in st. louis. his appeal is bigger than he is, a stalking horse, a vehicle to

try to get the constitutionality of robert mueller's office of special counsel before the united states supreme court. so far they've succeeded dragging it one court away from the supreme court. they have it up to the d.c. court of appeals. the reason i bring it up you should watch that case specifically. not because of anything specific to andrew miller or robert stone, andrew miller case challenging his subpoena saying, i don't need to testify to the grand jury. that appears to be the vehicle, the way, conservative activists, much like paul manafort's legal defense team, are trying to put robert mueller on trial unlike those charged in the investigation. stick a pin in that appeal. that's potentially a very big deal. today, also, in the ongoing case against the internet research agency and russian oligarch known as putin's chef and the other russians indicted for interfering in our election,

a major brief was filed by the prosecution arguing for the legitimacy of the prosecution and indictment of the russians. the importance of this being filed today, this is one of those cases we thought had been handed off to the regular justice department. we thought robert mueller and the special counsel's office was no longer involved in this case. that brief today in that case was signed by robert mueller, and had a whole bunch of names of a whole bunch of lawyers on it all lawyers working for robert mueller at the special counsel's office. you should know george papadopoulos is due to be sentenced in three weeks. we have just had a new protective order requested by the special counsel's office and approved by the judge to have it reviewed in his case before he gets sentenced. boom boom boom, all these things are happening and full-speed

ahead by the spoiecial counsel' office more than we knew. who knew if this caused the white house to bring out his pre-cooked john brennan's enemy's nixon list. i don't know. i have my suspicions. this is not a time to get distracted by shiny objects. a lot going on right now. stuff really important and moving fast. stay focused. ♪ ♪ ♪ let your perfect drive come together at the lincoln summer invitation sales event. get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models plus $1,000 bonus cash. dates of your stay. search hotels on tripadvisor...

enter your destination and the dates of your stay. tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to find the best deal on the right hotel for you. tripadvisor. it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999... intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you lose your dad bod, train for that marathon, and wake up with the patience of a saint. and now, save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. plus, no interest until january 2021. ends wednesday.

ancestrydna can open you to a world of new cultures to explore. with two times more detail than any other dna test... you can get a new taste of your heritage. save 40% with our lowest price ever.

so this was his reaction to what happened. >> former cia director, john brennan, this was his first reaction since learning his security clearance has been stripped by donald trump. deputy directors brennan, thank you for joining us. your first reaction? >> i do believe mr. trump decide to take this action, as he has done with others to try to intimidate and suppress any criticism of him or his administration. revoking my security clearances is his way of trying to get back

at me. i think i have tried to voice the concerns of millions of americans about mr. trump's failures in terms of fulfilling the responsibility of that sacred and solemn office of the presidency. this is not going to deter me at all. i will continue to speak out. i am very worried about the message it appears mr. trump is trying to send to others including those that currently homeland security clearances within the government. i think he included bruce orr, the current department of justice official among those whose clearances he's reviewing. is this an effort to try to cow individuals both inside and outside of the government, to make sure that they don't say anything either that is critical of mr. trump or with which he disagrees. i have seen this type of behavior and actions on the part

of foreign tyrants and despots and autocrats during my many many years of my cia career. i never thought i would see it here in the united states. i do believe 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. >> john brennan, former head of the cia, now senior national security analyst on this news network. he appears to have made the 2018 version of the president's list of enemies. by the white house's own admission, they're stripping his security clearance and putting others on notice they might suffer the same fate specifically in response to criticism of the president and his administration. as nbc news andrea mitchell reported today this was done completely outside of channels.

none of the intelligence agencies involved in clearance issues were involved in this clearance revv vocation, nor were any intelligence officials notified at all this was going to happen. the white house appears to have dug this back dated thing out of a drawer and launched it like a paper airplane. no practice or notice or allegations of wrongdoing, just statement from the president. an estimate that works on a lot of different levels. joining us now is our very own andrea mitchell, nbc chief foreign affairs koemcorresponde. thank you for being here. >> you bet. >> you reported this decision happened outside u.s. intelligence channels and senior intelligence officials had no idea this was coming. what is the consequence and significance of that? >> i think it's precisely to warn them and other critics, warn the intelligence committee, those still serving they should not tell the president things he does not want to hear. to their credit, they have been very rigorous under pompeo, now,

under the new leadership of others and certainly dan coats in telling truth to power despite the pressure and threats. this is certainly a chilling effect on other critics, attempt to silence and enemy's list. it's actually ironic, first of all, ironies abound, one of the reasons they gave was john brennan's allegedly erratic behavior by a president of the united states who just yesterday was calling an african-american woman, a long time friend and associate of his own, a hire as improbable it was in the white house, a dog. the erratic behavior of john brennan was, i think, most memorably, the day after the helsinki news conference to say it was nothing short of

treasonous for him to stand next to vladamir putin and deny the intelligence agencies that russia had attacked for that very reason. putin acknowledged that day it was to help trump and obviously hurt hillary clinton. >> andrea, when the white house first floated this idea in late july, the white house press spokesperson talked about it from the briefing room, said explicitly that the reason this was being done was because of certain people, former officials criticizing the president with regard to russia. the white house spokesperson said that when they do that and they have security clearances it essentially gives an air of authority to those statements for which there is no evidence. that's essentially the white house admitting they have taken this action in response to people expressing themselves as a way of trying to undermine

them and discredit them because they don't like the content of this former official's speech. to me, that screams first amendment challenge. i wonder, as unusual as this is, does this look like it will turn into a legal fight for brennan or anybody else threatened this way? >> i'm not sure they have a legal case. the president does have this power. he ignored all the channels, the agencies like cia and director of national intelligence that confer these security clearances, in this case the cia because brennan was a former cia director. they're the agencies reviewing and revoking if there is an issue. there's no issue here. he said on my program and elsewhere he has never gone back and asked for a briefing or had a briefing from this administration. he has only gone back to review his own files in preparation for testimony and the like. the hasn't used this.

the whole reason mike hayden, the former cia director, the sole reason he's another person on this list, life-long republican, i believe, the reason for this in the first place is so that people like mike hayden could go to their predecessors and say, you know this person we picked up in yemen or afghanistan. what do you recall about this case? how should we proceed? what about is happening in pakistan? it's to create a council of advisors, former cia directors that don't need to go through clearance process and look at current intelligence. it's more for the benefit of the current intelligence. the great irony is this president is denying his own cia and other agency officials access to the wise couple of brennan now and presumably the others who are on this list. it's an extraordinary step, it is akin to the nixon enemy's

list and unprecedented. without any basis, there is no claim here by sarah sanders today there was any release of classified information, there was any violation of law. mike flynn lost his clearance either before or during his arrest, that's because of a legal case. we have people in this white house, and we know how abusive and how abused the security clearance process was, this comes just after we've learned omarosa was fired in the situation room, and made a recording in the situation room. we have a president who divulged some of the most secret intelligence that israel had about isis to the russians, involving syria, with repercussions still going on, in the oval office. he's allowed to do that but it was a shock to the israelis and to all our other allies. he's the person who has violated

sensible security. it's his legal right. but not john brennan and not any of the others. sally yates, who had to plead with the white house counsel to take action against mike flynn, and it still took 17 days. i can't figure this out except that it is a very very tough warning against bob mueller. i think that's what is the all about. >> andrea mitchell, nbc news chief foreign correspondent reports with ground breaking reporting on this, as soon as this story came out. thank you. i know you were staying on this story. much appreciated, my friend. thank you. >> lots more to get to tonight. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges... how mature of them. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident.

liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ jushis local miracle ear t at helped andrew hear more of the joy in her voice. just one hearing test is all it took for him to hear more of her laugh... and less of the background noise around him. for helen, just one visit to her local miracle-ear is all it took to learn how she can share more moments with her daughter. just one free hearing test could help you hear more... laughter...music...life... call now for your free hearing test from an industry leader: miracle-ear.

3 toddlers won't stop him.. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain,

from being on his feet. dr. scholl's. born to move.

microsoft's vice president of security said microsoft observed russian security people trying to target staffers on three campaigns. soon claire mccaskill became the first target when her office was attacked by the same sphere fishing techniques employed by john podesta back in 2016. today, "rolling stone" magazine reports on a successful cyberattack in california in one of the tightest congressional races in the country. this year, democrats are making a real run at the california congressional seat held by the republican dana rohrabacher everybody called putin's

favorite congressman maybe not such an advantage in this kind of a race this time of the year or anywhere. eight democrats signed up to take on dana rohrabacher including the one endorsed by the stated democratic party, a neuroscientist. >> we're scientists. >> we use science and facts everyday. >> it's time government does, too. science to tackle gun violence and ban assault weapons, facts to support women's health, planned parenthood both to stand up to trump and his administration. >> despite securing the state party's endorsement. dr. kierstead failed to advance to the general election, and he only missed it by a whisper. he came in third by only 125 votes. today, "rolling stone" reports fbi agents in california and in washington, d.c. have been

investigating a series of cyber attacks over the past year that targeted that candidate, hans kierstead. and began last december and then targeted his campaign website and hosting service and his twitter account and another cyberattack on his company. it remains unclear who the culprits were but the attacks got the fbi attention. the campaign met with two fbi agents in january. a team of fbi employees collected reams of forensic data about the attempted hacks from the campaign's digital consulting firm. the campaign says it is going public about the attacks now quote for the sake of voter awareness. yeah. really. hold on. there's more here. i am all about living joyfully.

the new united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com

not in this house. 'cause that's no so-so family. that's your family. which is why you didn't grab just any cheese. you picked up new kraft expertly paired mozzarella and parmesan for pizzahyeah! kraft. family greatly. ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. they started early voting this week in florida in the primary election. one of the big issues for florida voters right now is not

just the candidates but the elections themselves. >> can you elaborate what you told my colleague yesterday about russians being in florida election records. do you mean right now or referring to a 2016? >> right now. >> what do you mean in the election records, what do you mean by that? >> just exactly what i said. they have already penetrated certain counties in the state and they now have free reign to move about. >> the russians have already penetrated certain counties in the state and they now have free rein to move about. we are more than a week from senator nelson's original warning. although republicans in this state have been criticizing him and his senate campaign opponent, florida governor rick scott, has been criticizing him for making things up and not being able to back up this assertion, senator nelson is not backing down.

we can add a smidgen of reporting. the department of security and fbi both told us they will respond directly to the florida secretary of state who responded to those agencies wouldn't tell anything more, but they did say we'll get back to them. here's what i want to know, though. doesn't that seem kind of impotent? i mean, do the individual counties here, even after this warning from their home state senator, do they have to figure out if russian military intelligence operatives really are in their systems moving about with free rein? the idea here is that they'll fight this on their own. or if they get a call back from dhs maybe they get some help or advice? doesn't this seem like a losing debate? this is -- we're two years after 2016. this is really how we're fighting this now. joining us now is david hickton.

as a u.s. attorney in 2014, he brought the first ever charges against foreign state actors for hacking. it was an indictment of five members of the chinese military for espionage against the u.s. thank you for being here. i told you i'd get you back before you wanted to be. i really appreciate you doing it. my frustration, i'm trying to be as overt and articulate about it as i can, but i don't know what to say. i do feel like there is a mismatch between what we're told now that several levels of government is a russian military intelligence operation ordered from the highest levels of that government. it is a state operation and how we are playing defense as a country. is there more than i'm just not seeing? >> this is not the way to do this. first of all, we need more leadership from the president as well as other state officials. i don't see how it serves us at this point to express doubt when

we have this growing cascade of evidence. in addition to what was said in florida, we had the story that you just relayed in california and just last week we had the fbi advising maryland that they had a subcontract and it was owned by a russian oligarch. i don't know at this point why anyone would be adding to doubt on something that two dhs secretaries both of the last two administrations, both fbi directors that have served, the entire intelligence community is unanimous about the fact that we have a clear and present danger of a russian campaign against our elections system. >> part of the reason i wanted you back here to talk about this is because something you brought up the last time you were here. and that is this question which i think is sort of interesting debate as to how much information you can tell the public about these things. one of the things that was controversial about the gru

indictment from robert mueller's office is when you bring public charges, when you bring a public indictment, are you disclosing too much intelligence about what is known about those attacks? are you giving away too much of what we -- what we would otherwise keep secret in terms of the way we fight these things? in this case in florida senator bill nelson is saying i'm telling you they're in there. i can't tell you more. i can't tell you why i know that. i can't elaborate. that's opening up the counties to say, well, we don't know how to defend what you're warning us about because you are not being specific enough. it is also opening him up to the political criticism from the governor who is saying i don't believe you. if it is classified information, you're spilling classified secrets. it seems like the secrecy hampers the ability to fight it and to fight about it. >> right. there is a difference between calling attention to the fact that hacking is generally happening and specifically disclosing classified information.

i don't think it's really fair to charge senator nelson with not disclosing his evidence because he probably can't. and to your point, i think it's also fair to say that some people believe that since one of the intentions of the russians is to disrupt us and to distroy the trust in our election system, merely the conversation about it can add to that goal. so that's a fair point that some people make. but at this point, we had clear evidence, unanimous consensus in 2016 of hacking. after that we had noticed the 21 states that there was some trolling by the russians and their systems. for example, you could look at this sort of like burglarly in a neighborhood. that might mean they're in neighborhood but they haven't yet taken goods out of the house. seven of the states they were on the property, including florida. and we don't know what they were doing. that's the point. i mean, what we don't want to do in this discussion is hijack our responsibility to the public to

find out exactly what happened. >> do you think -- so when you spell that out against the chinese hackers and when mueller spelled it out against the gru it was incredibly detailed. this computer at this time doing this for this purpose and it is a crime. do you think that intelligence agencies and law enforcement could do that now about the currently ongoing cyber attacks that they're witnessing right now for the midterm elections? >> i do. and i believe -- my experience shows me the fbi will get to the bottom of what happened in california. >> after the fact? >> well, that's the problem. how far are we going to go? there is things we can do. there is in digital solution that can completely protect us. but there are things we can do right now. we need more central leadership. we need dhs and the federal authorities to respond to this nation state thread. that's number one. number two, before we get to

pioneering a digital solution where we can protect all of our votes on a digital medium, we can use federal resources to train state election officials and basic cyber security techniques. >> all that other easy stuff. >> absolutely. david, thank you very much for being here. i am going to keep talking to you about all this stuff. as a former u.s. attorney, you're an authority on this and a lot of other matters i recognize. i appreciate you staying in the public debate on this. thanks so much. stay with us. to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop. a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that.

i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say ahh. introducing the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. this bed hugs my body. i'm now a morning person. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize air flow to keep you cool. hello bed of my dreams. order online we'll build it, box it and ship

it to your door for you to enjoy. sleep on it for up to one hundred nights and love it! or you'll get a full refund. returns are free and easy. i love my leesa. today is gonna be great. read our reviews then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order now and get $150 off, and free shipping, too. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed. 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.

whether or not you usually buy your local paper, the print version of your local paper, buy your local paper tomorrow. there is a good chance when you turn to the opinion page, you will see an editorial about press freedom, freedom of speech and what it means for us as americans to stand up for those things right now in this political climate in this year of our lives when we have a president ritually and aggressively attacking the news. there will be a coordinated effort by hundreds of local newspapers tomorrow to speak out on that theme. not in one voice, but in a million different free voices from papers and editorial boards all over the country. buy the paper tomorrow. subscribe to your local paper while you are at it. that does it for us tonight. we will see you again tomorrow. >> good evening, rachel. i am so sorry. i am so sorry that you did not get the transcript of today's court