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

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

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

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

>> i like taking on voices like that. i have never respected them. >> wednesday mr. trump told "the wall street journal" he stripped former cia director brennan's clearance because of the investigation. quote, i call it the rigged witch hunt. it is a sham. and these people let it. so i think it's something that had to be done. >> this is an egregious act that flies in the face of traditional practice as well as common sense as well as national security. >> now with his former campaign chairman on trial for bank and tax fraud, the president is threatening to do the same to nine other critics, including a current member of his justice department. >> i think bruce ohr is a disgrace. i suspect i'll be taking it away very quickly. >> by targeting ohr, the president is attacking a mid level civil servant who needs a clearance to do his job and is prohibited from fighting back. the intelligence community is firing back. after brennan's clearance was

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

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

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

nine other people that sarah sanders said could be in danger of losing their clearance. i know you don't have a video monitor, but james clapper, james comey, who doesn't have one, michael hayden, sally yates, andrew mccabe, peter strzok, why are those the ten people they are signaling out? >> because they have been critical of him or because he wants to use them as examples of the deep state or those that are trying to hurt him. in the case of bruce ohr, a current department of justice official, i think that is one of the most outrageous steps that he could take to revoke the clearances of a current government official simply because he doesn't like either them or their spouse in terms of what they might have done. that is so antithetical to what has been the practice and the tradition and what needs to continue to be the basis for the granting of the revoking of security clearances so you trust people with those secrets. >> i'm curious. on friday night with rachel maddow you indicated that you have had lawyers contact you about possible legal action.

it's 48 hours later. what would that look like? is that something you're serious about? >> well, i have been contacted by a number of lawyers and they have already given me their thoughts about the basis for a complaint, an injunction to try to prevent him from doing this in the future. if my clearances and my reputation as i'm being pulled through the mud now, if that's the price to prevent donald trump from doing this to other people, to me it's a small price to pay. i am going to do whatever i can personally to try to prevent these abuses in the future. if it means going to court, i will do that. >> you have been more outspoken than any former official. in fact, it may be why many republican legislators feel comfortable taking the president's side. they believe your comments have been over the top. do you regret essentially accusing the president of treason? do you regret some of the things you have said? >> i called his behavior treasonous.

which is to betray one's trust and aid and abet the enemy. i stand very much by that claim. >> you are the former cia director accusing the sitting president of the united states. it's not a private citizen. a lot of people here, the former cia director accusing the sitting president of the united states of treason, that's a monumental accusation. >> well, i think these are abnormal times and i think a lot of people have spoken out against what mr. trump has done and maybe it's my warning, training as an intelligence professional. i have seen the lights blinking red in terms of what mr. trump has done and is doing and is bringing this country down on the global stage and fueling and feeding divisiveness in our country. he continually lies to the american people. the type of things he is doing, i think i need to speak out. so i have been speaking out rather forcefully because i believe it's important to do. i don't believe i'm being political at all. i am not a republican. i am not a democrat. and many members of the congress over the years who have security clearances have spoken out rather forcefully against whoever was in the oval office

if they weren't from the same political party. so now as a private citizen they're telling me i shouldn't do that, i'm sorry. i if you wantly disagree with that. >> i want to give you a chance to respond to richard burr, the chairman of the intelligence committee. here's what he said about you. he said if director brennan's statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the cia, why didn't he include in the community assessment released in 2017? if his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes a breach. if his statement is purely political and based on conjecture, the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance. it seems as if senator burr is saying have you said anything in the public sphere that's gone beyond the facts that you know? >> i like and respect senator burr. i was disappointed by his statement. i wonder whether or not he read my op-ed. i have told the committees, including his committee, everything that i know from my time as cia director and the cia

has shared with the senate and the house intelligence committee everything that we knew. what i said in my op-ed is that i have come to understand because of a free and open press here in the united states, what actually was transpiring during that presidential election campaign season. in terms of meetings at trump tower and also the fact that donald trump when he was the presidential candidate of the republican party, when he called publicly on the russians to find hillary's emails, i didn't realize when i was cia director it was that very night that russian intelligence went after her emails. i made a point in the op-ed that collusion means cooperating in some form. conspiracy is something else. i think all americans need to wait for robert mueller to be able to finalize his investigation and to determine whether or not there was any criminal activity that was taking place there. i have spoken out against mr. trump's lack of decency, civility, honesty, and character. i will continue to do that because i have always revered the office of the presidency.

i think mr. trump is letting millions upon millions of americans down. >> you were a sitting cia director at one point. if you worked for a president that did this, what would you do in this situation? >> if i worked -- >> if you were currently the head of the cia and the president revoked the security clearance of a former cia head, what would you do as sitting cia director under that circumstance? and what advice would you give to gina haspel, the current head of the cia? >> i admire and respect gina haspel and i want her to stay a cia director. because i think it's important that this institution of cia and the professionals be protected from this very, very abusive white house and mr. trump. >> so you would sign on -- if you were here in this position that she is in and you just outlined you have your own concerns about this president and you trust gina haspel, if you were in her position would you go along with saying, fine, revoke it, i'll keep my mouth shut because it's more important for me to stay on the job? is that what you would do as cia director?

>> we have to do what our consciences tell us to do. and dan coats, the director of national intelligence, somebody who i also respect, if i were in those positions now i would express my deep, deep objection privately to mr. trump and have a conversation with him about just how bad this is for the community and for the national security and intelligence professions. and as a result of that conversation, i would have to decide then whether or not i could stay in my position. >> so you are saying you would understand if somebody objected to what happened to you, but stayed in the position because maybe they made the decision it's better for me to stay here and be a guardrail than to stand up and be a public whistleblower of sorts? >> i think that's what a lot of these very seniors are trying to reconcile in their own minds. how much they can stay and be

governors on mr. trump's behavior and how much they cannot countenance at all. people like john kelly, chief of staff, who i know and respect and like so much. john and i worked very close together. i am sure he is trying to keep mr. trump from doing awful terrible things. but at some point these senior officials have to ask themselves are they enabling this continued abusive and reckless behavior or not. and if they feel as though they are enabling it and they are not having that type of governing influence on it, i think they have to show their displeasure and their unhappiness and leave. >> have you heard from gina haspel since this happened or director coats? >> i have not heard from anybody in the government since this happened. i have heard from a number of former colleagues and friends expressing their support, but i was not notified before this happened by anybody in the government. i have not heard from anybody since then. to me that's not surprising the -- surprising at all the way this white house, this administration works. >> realistically, what does this

mean? you lost your security clearance. what does that mean? gina haspel can't call you and talk about the job? i mean, is that really the extent of what your security clearance was for? was, you know, that's what other cia directors have hinted at. in some ways it's for current directors to be able to ask former directors their opinion about certain things? >> well, for me it probably means that. that i just can't go into the agency and have conversations with people who may call me up and ask me for my thoughts and views. that has happened in the last couple of months. but for others, former officials who are on that list, some of they want serve on boards of directors that require security clearances because the companies involved deal with classified information. and this can have a very punitive, very financial hit against them. and so now if i were asked to be on a board that requires a security clearance, i couldn't. but again giving up my security clearances in order to bring this issue to a head, to me i'm willing to do that.

first time in 38 years i have not had a security clearance. i love and respect and admire my former colleagues in the cia and other places and i will fight to keep their profession pure, objective, and not being politicized. and members of congress need to step up. this is the time that your country is going to rely on you. not to do what is best for your party, but what is best for the country. >> when you speak as a former cia director, i'll be honest, my ears always perk up more. i think other people's perk up more. so when you have drawn conclusions about the russia probe, you have gone farther than most on collusion, on conspiracy. is this based on information -- >> no, chuck, i said collusion is certainly in plain sight. >> i understand. but you have connected dots, for instance, michael hayden himself said i agree with the facts he is stating. i am not ready to connect those dots. why are you ready to connect those dots? >> again, i'm just pointing out what is in plain sight. what all of us have read and

seen over the last 18, 19 months since president trump has been in office. the things that have come out. the individuals who already have admitted to wrongdoing. these are things, with the russians and this is what speaks to collusion. as i said in the op-ed it will be up to robert mueller and the courts to decide if this rises to the level of conspiracy. whether or not donald trump had intimate knowledge of this. i am saying that there is collusion that took place between individuals, americans and russians. whether or not this is going to trigger some type of criminal activity indictment is something else entirely. i have never put forth any thoughts on conspiracy. but collusion, i don't think mr. trump has made a secret of it himself. >> final question. you talked about this lawsuit. when would you make that decision? it sounds like you think if you thought a lawsuit could help prevent the revoking of other security clearances, you would do it. when do you make that decision? >> well, i think there are a lot

of people who are looking at this issue right now. i think i am just one voice, one person. so i am going to be seriously looking at what those options are. if my voice, if my name can help in this effort, i am willing to do that. i recognize i have a bull's-eye on my chest now by all of those who are trying to defend mr. trump's abhorrent behavior. again i believe strongly and i love this country and i don't want to see it go down because of somebody like mr. trump who has failed to fulfill his responsibilities. >> john brennan, i am going to leave it there. former director of the cia. thanks for coming on and sharing your views, sir. >> thank you, chuck. when we come back, we will hear from president trump's attorney rudy giuliani.

i've been making blades here at gillette for 20 years. there's a lot of innovation that goes into making america's #1 shave. precision machinery and high-quality materials from around the world. nobody else even comes close. now starting at $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get. with our largest variety of crab all year! like new crabfest combo. your one chance to have new jumbo snow crab

with tender dungeness crab. or try crab lover's dream. but hurry in. 'cause crabfest will be gone in a snap. but i am a simple farmer.bas! my life is here... [telephone ring] ahoy-hoy. alexander graham bell here... no, no, my number is one, you must want two! two, i say!! like my father before... [telephone ring] like my father before... ahoy-hoy! as long as people talk too loudly on the phone, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

designed to save you money. wireless network even when you've got serious binging to do. wherever your phone takes you, your wireless bill is about to cost a whole lot less. use less data with a network that has the most wifi hotspots where you need them and the best 4g lte everywhere else. saving you hundreds of dollars a year. and ask how you get xfinity mobile included with your internet. plus, get $300 back when you buy a new smartphone. xfinity mobile. it's simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today. >> welcome back. as we've mentioned earlier, we learned this week that white welcome back. as we've mentioned earlier, we learned this week that white house counsel don mcgahn has been cooperating with robert mueller's russia investigation. he likely gave investigators

information about possible efforts to object instruct justice that they could not have learned from anybody else. actions involving the firing of fbi director james comey and his attempts to potentially fire mueller. "the times" says he cooperated in part because he feared mr. trump was setting him up to take the blame for an obstruction charge. the president reiterated this morning that mr. mcgahn cooperated because he asked him to cooperate. joining me is trump's current attorney, rudy giuliani. welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> hi, chuck. how are you? >> i am good. the white house counsel, the personal lawyer, former lawyer, all of that. that's why i'm trying to be careful with the titles. let me start with "the new york times" story and don mcgahn. let me ask it this way. the previous legal team was ty cobb and john dowd. they wanted to fully cooperate. you and emmett flood wanted more parameters around what special counsel robert mueller would have done. would you have ever recommended the amount of cooperation don mcgahn has given to robert mueller had you been the attorney at the beginning? >> they represented him at a different stage in this investigation.

actually, they did something very, very helpful. they allowed 32 witnesses to testify. they turned over 1.4 million documents. they didn't raise executive privilege or in this case with mr. mcgahn attorney/client privilege so that the independent counsel, special counsel, could get as much evidence as possible. in fact, i think john dowd would tell you was an agreement with bob mueller that it would be concluded quickly. i guess if i had known the outcome that mueller would not conclude it quickly, that this really wasn't an attempt in good faith to try to work out some resolution of this i might have chosen a different strategy. i am pretty sure they would have. be that as it may, it puts us in a strong position to say we don't -- they don't need to question him. they have all the information -- >> doesn't this put you in a position of now it looks like you are afraid of being questioned? i ask it this way. the special counsel has an eyewitness on whether or not the president obstructed justice. right? we don't know whether he did or

not, but he has a potential eyewitness that is either exculpatory or problematic for you. doesn't that actually underscore the reason why the special counsel has to talk to the president? >> absolutely not. first of all, we have a good sense, obviously, of what mr. mcgahn testified to. i can figure it out from -- >> how do you say that good sense? have you debriefed him? >> no, no. but mr. dowd has a good sense of it. he talked to them at the time. >> so you don't know what he -- so you don't know 100% of what mr. mcgahn testified to, to mr. mueller? >> i think that through john dowd we have a pretty good sense of it. john dowd yesterday said, i'll use his words rather than i mean, that mcgahn was a strong witness for the president. so i don't need to know much more about that. also, they don't need to know what the president is going to say because the president has said it. and we've told them that we would stipulate what the president has said is the president's true belief that he did nothing wrong, that he

wasn't involved in collusion, that he wasn't involved in obstruction. they have yet to propound a question to us, give us a question where there is not an answer to it already by the president of the united states. so the only reason they could possibly want the president of the united states is because they are desperate for some kind of charge they can hang their hat on. they don't have collusion or conspiracy, as brennan pointed out, and they -- >> how do you know that? you say this so definitively. how do you know they don't? >> i know they don't because, look, this whole mcgahn thing leaked from them. if they had some kind of evidence that there was collusion or there was obstruction, don't you think it would have been leaked? i mean, they leak everything else. >> i mean, let's talk about collusion. the trump tower meeting itself is at least evidence of you better investigate. it's a -- >> it's not. >> how is it not? >> because the meeting was originally for the purpose of getting information about clinton. the meeting turned into a

meeting -- >> which in itself is an attempt at collusion. >> no, it's not. >> you just said it. the meeting was intended to get dirt on hillary clinton from a kremlin lawyer. >> no, no. >> that was the intent of the meeting. you just said it. >> that was the original intense -- intent of the meeting and of the not pursued at all. any meeting with regard to getting information on your opponent is something any candidate's staff would take. if someone said i have information about your opponent, you would take that meeting. if it happens to be -- >> from the russian government? >> she didn't represent the russian government. she's a private citizen. i don't even know if they knew she was russian at the time. >> i think they knew she was russian, but okay. >> they knew it when they met with her. not when they set up the meeting. you asked me did they show an intention to do anything with russians. all they knew is a woman with a russian name wanted to meet with them. they didn't know she was a representative of the russian government and she is not a representative of the russian government. this is much ado about nothing.

plus, the president of the united states wasn't at that meeting. he didn't know about that meeting. he found out about it later. by the time he found out about it, it was nothing. if this is their case for collusion, good luck mueller. >> let me go back to the core part of the investigation which is do you believe that somebody stole emails from john podesta and the dnc and leaked them to wikileaks? that factually happened, right? you believed that happened? you believe that crime happened? >> well, i believe that somebody got them and they didn't know that those emails were gotten and i'm almost certain from the reports that i have read that it's hacking and it looks like it's pretty clear that it was russian. >> so it's important to you -- it's important to mr. mueller to get to the bottom of that, no? >> of course. he has had months to get to the bottom of it. he has 1.4 million documents. he's got at least 32 witnesses in which we didn't raise executive privilege. and in the case of mr. mcgahn, we had a better case. we could have had attorney/client privilege. the president encouraged him to

testify, is happy that he did, is quite secure that there is nothing in the testimony that will hurt the president. john dowd told you that when he said he was a strong witness for the president. so i believe this is a desperate special counsel who leaked this to the "new york times," illegally i might add, and, in fact -- >> do you have any evidence that he leaked this to the "new york times"? >> the only other one that could have done it was mcgahn. i mean, i didn't leak it to "the times." jake sekulow didn't leak it to "the times." the president sure as heck didn't. who could it be? mcgahn would have done it a long time ago. they are down to desperation time. they have to write a report and they don't have a single bit of evidence. even brennan -- >> let me ask you this. aren't you and the president to blame for the delay in the mueller report? take a listen -- this is how you have answered the question about a mueller interview. take a listen. you'll enjoy it. i promise.

>> never beyond two or three hours. if they were written answers. they most probably would be under oath. the main focus we want i can tell you is simply russia. they would probably limit it to collusion and obstruction. he doesn't need to ask a single question on obstruction. if we do that under oath we end up in a martha stewart situation. mueller has all the answers. we have given them. >> can't you speed up mueller's report and can't you have more credibility about getting mueller's report if you get the president to sit down with him? >> chuck, first of all, get the word credibility out of it. we have plenty of credibility. the last two letters, they took 11 or 12 days to respond to our letter. that sets forth the negotiating position about an interview. we didn't reject it. we didn't say out of hand we are not going to do it. and they put pressure to come back quickly. we came back in four days. it is a week and a half later and they have not responded to

our letter. now, don't tell me that we're delaying this if they are spending a week and a half getting back to us. i don't know why they are doing that, but they are sure as heck not showing any desire to expedite it. i can't get them to write a letter faster than they have. you want to start counting up the time -- >> you believe this is on them? you believe this is on them? that you guys have not delayed the interviewing, delayed the negotiations? >> no -- yes. yes. each time by three or four days so we could write a letter in response. they have taken two to three weeks to get back to us. what i have to tell you is, look, i am not going to be rushed into having him testify so he gets trapped into perjury. when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he is going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, that's silly because it's somebody's version of the truth. not the truth. he didn't have a conversation -- >> truth is truth. i don't mean to go -- >> no, it isn't truth. truth isn't truth. the president of the united states says i didn't -- >> truth is a truth, mr. mayor. do you realize --

>> no, no, no. >> this is going to become a bad meme. >> don't do this to me. >> don't do truth is the truth to me. >> donald trump says i didn't talk about flynn with comey. comey says you did talk about it. tell me what the truth is. >> don mcgahn might know. >> you're such a genius -- don mcgahn doesn't know. if that's the situation, we have two pieces of evidence. trump says i didn't tell him and the other guy says he did say it. which is the truth? >> at that point, you're right. under two people. no. you are right. i don't read minds on that front. let me ask you this final question. >> no, no, let me finish. we have a credibility gap between the two of you. you have to select one or the other. who do you think mueller is going to select? one of his best friends, comey, or the president who he has been carrying on a completely wild, crazy -- unorthodox investigation. >> is it possible he makes a conclusion based on who has been more truthful over the years? >> it's possible that he'll make the conclusion on which of the

two statements is more logical. which of the two statements has more common sense. yeah, it's possible he can do that. but, no, you can't bring into question prior conduct. you are not even allowed to do that at a trial. >> all right. one final question. you said if mueller doesn't get this done in two or three weeks, basically referring to september 1st, we will just unload on him like a ton of bricks. what does that mean? >> for interferencing with the election when he had no reason to do that. because he could have gotten this done earlier. the person who delayed -- the person who delayed here is mueller, not us. >> what is the ton of bricks? is the president going to fire him? >> no. we are going to point out to the public how he has acted improperly and he is violating a justice department rule about not carrying on an investigation. >> that's not a rule. it's about issuing indictments and things like that. he can go dark -- he can go dark.

>> no, it's not. it's about carrying on a public investigation. if he has to issue a subpoena during that period of time, it would be a gross interference in the election when he could have issued the subpoena six months or three months before. >> i think we are both agreeing on that. >> i would like to comment about brennan. brennan made the extraordinary charge that the president was treasonous and then just said to you, and i commend you for your questioning, that he has no information that the president is guilty of conspiracy. well, i mean, that is just conjecture that this man accuses people of a crime that could carry death as the result. totally -- >> a highly charged word. >> a totally unhinged character who shouldn't have a security clearance. >> we'll leave it there. thanks for coming on. always interesting to talk with you. thank you. >> thank you. >> when we come back, the panel will be here. let's just say there is a lot to discuss. truth versus truth. stay with us. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job

from any one else. why accept it from an allergy pill? flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. flonase.

welcome back. the panel is here.

hugh hewitt from the salmon radio network. yamiche alcindor. white house correspondent for pbs news hour, political reporter carol lee and eugene robinson. wow. i was going to start with admiral mcraven signing on with john brennan, but i think we have some interviews to react to. eugene. >> well, start with truth isn't truth, which mayor giuliani just said an extraordinary thing. just throws more logs on to the fire of this administration's truthfulness and candor, or lack thereof. it's an amazing thing. it's the new alternative facts. that was extraordinary. the other thing is john brennan, i'll say one thing and i know we'll get into other aspects of the brennan interview. it's not -- the president has the right to cancel these security clearances, but he doesn't necessarily have the right to do it for the wrong reasons. there are thousands of people in washington that have security clearances. it cannot be the case that the

only ones who deserve to have theirs scrutinized and taken away are vocal public opponents of donald j. trump. that cannot be the case. so if you do something you have a legal right to do, but if you do it for vindictive reasons, political reasons, you know, that may not fly. >> i think john brennan conceded that conspiracy is off the table. rudy seized on that. when he does this, he just wants to talk to chuck todd about the fact that john brennan just took conspiracy off the table. yesterday richard burr, the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, about whom there's wide spread evidence he's worked well with warner, said there is no factual basis for conspiracy or collusion that has yet been introduced to his committee. and the news in that interview with rudy is we are not going to fire mueller. we are just going to keep pointing out he has nothing and we are giving him nothing more because 30 hours with don mcgahn is an unprecedented level of cooperation. my former boss fred fielding still needs smelling salts.

>> but carol and yamiche, you've covered this closely. i was stunned that rudy giuliani isn't -- taking john dowd's word for don mcgahn's testimony. i found that stunning. >> right, and then he was very clear to you that he didn't really know what was said. and that was stunning. it's also interesting to watch them try to flip the script on the don mcgahn story and say, no, no, we love this. this was great. we wanted him to do this. the president is happy that he did this and say, well -- and he specifically said that he is in a strong position to say they don't have to question the president because he not only interviewed don mcgahn and spend 30 hours with him, but all of these other individuals. and so -- and then he said we're not the ones that are causing this delay. >> right. >> which is clearly been the case over the last few months. >> mcgahn's cooperation seems like it makes the president's interview more important. >> one of the biggest things i took out of don mcgahn talking for so long with the special

counsel is he had his own lawyer and own legal strategy going in because he was worried the president was going to blame this on him. that's pretty remarkable. not to go to the omarosa thing yet, but there is this idea that omarosa, in my reporting, used to tell people in meetings when they were trying to talk about other things said have you guys hired your lawyers because we all should be understanding of the fact that we could have legal consequences to just working in this building. going back to rudy giuliani's interview, you said the headline. i think the headline truth isn't truth, as soon as he said that, i thought chuck todd does these things really well. the last time kellyanne conway saying alternative facts. i think the idea that truth isn't truth is going to go down as this white house's legal strategy and i should say this president's legal strategy. >> let me go to the campaign and whatever you think of the president, it's a campaign that he has made against mueller. the question is, he is going after the intel community. admiral mcraven, he put up a tough statement.

he said i would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well so i can add my name to the list of the men and women who have spoken up against your presidency. you have divided us as a nation. you think your mccarthy era tactics suppress the voices of criticism, you are mistaken. if admiral mcraven is the president's opponent, that's not good. >> admiral mcraven has been on my show. gave the best commencement speech of commencement speeches. he is a hero. bill webster is another man i admire. i still question the letter because it ignores a lot of the 2014 problems with john brennan. mark udall called for his resignation for spying on democratic staffers. dianne feinstein does not hold john brennan in high regard. this is a controversial character and the letter went much further than it should have gone. i would have waited for a different hill than john brennan's security clearance in which to die. especially when brennan comes on this morning, and he is a colleague of ours at nbc news. when he walks back treason, you don't get to walk back treason.

>> no, i think that what makes brennan a rough spokes person for the intel community. >> it is. it's that one word. the reason, of course, he was a former director of the cia. you naturally hold him to a somewhat higher standard. >> no offense to a member of congress when they say it. >> exactly. >> when a member of congress says it, i assume it's political claptrap. >> exactly. he is making the difference between collusion and conspiracy. i agree with him. collusion is there in plain sight. we have seen that. does it amount to conspiracy, a legal term. so we'll see. that's for mueller to decide. the mcraven letter made me think of how this is perceived, all of this is perceived by the intelligence community, by, you know, a 30-year veteran of the cia, john brennan, who knows everybody, who has been there, been in the trenches with everybody. this is a huge deal for the thousands of intelligence

professionals around here. >> well, there are intelligence officials who are uncomfortable with how far brennan has gone. i thought he said three really interesting things in your interview with him. first, he laid out where he might go in a legal argument. basically, the president has the power to do this. is he abusing that power? he used the word -- >> character assassination. >> he used the word injunction. he said he would be willing to go to court. then he said when you asked him about what he would do as cia director, which was a great question, he didn't really have an answer. in the sense that he said, i would have a private conversation with the president and then based on whatever he said, maybe i would go publicly. then he talks about, you know, individuals who work in the government, you know, needing to possibly resign if they reach that point where they crossed over from governing to enabling. what is that distinction, he didn't make any of that clear. >> he didn't make that clear. >> he didn't make that clear. >> when we come back many are referring to 2018 as the year of

the woman. it's a whole lot more than that. stay with us. s being there when you're needed most. he's the one. (vo love is knowing... it was meant to be. and love always keeps you safe. (vo) love is why we built a car you can trust for a long time. the all-new subaru impreza sedan and five-door. a car you can love no matter what road you're on. the subaru impreza. more than a car, it's a subaru. right now, get 0% apr financing on the 2018 subaru impreza. you might be missing something.y healthy. your eyes. that's why there's ocuvite. ocuvite helps replenish nutrients your eyes can lose as you age. it has lutein, zeaxanthin and omega-3. ocuvite. be good to your eyes. bundle and save big, but now it's time 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. it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. that's confident. but it's not kayak confident. kayak searches hundreds of travel and airline sites to find the best flight for me. so i'm more than confident. how's your family? kayak. search one and done.

welcome back. "data download" time. 2018 is shaping up to be one of the most diverse years for candidates for public office the country has ever seen. 13 women have won primaries for governor races, 19 for the senate and more than 100 for the house. there's still many vying. the remarkable diversity extends gender. let's look at lbgtq races.

thanks to data from the lgbtq victory fund, we know that more than 430 candidates have run for office and up to this point an expected 219 will be on the ballot this november. there are four nominees for governor, one for the senate and 21 who have won primaries for house seats. but guess what? it's not just there. we have also seen the highest number of muslim candidates since 9/11. there are a lot of factors driving these diversity numbers overall. but in part they certainly look like a response to the 2016 election that was driven largely by a focus by candidate donald trump on white working class men. when we come back, "end game" and the story that won't go away. coming up, "end game" brought to you by boeing. continuing our mission to protect, explore and inspire. ♪

applebee's to go. order online and get $5 off $25. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. i never count the wrinkles. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on...

is staying happy and healthy. so, i add protein, vitamins and minerals to my diet with boost®. new boost® high protein nutritional drink now has 33% more high-quality protein, along with 26 essential and minerals your body needs. all with guaranteed great taste. the upside- i'm just getting started. boost® high protein be up for life

>> announcer: "end game" brought to you by boeing, continuing our mission to connect, protect, explore and inspire. >> back now with "end game," you can't talk about american politics without talking about the role of religions in general and what's happening in the catholic church this week out of pennsylvania is something that is going to have reverberations here. pennsylvania grand jury report, released this week identified more than a thousand child victims of more than 300 abusive catholic priests across the state. that's just one state, of

pennsylvania. this is in 2018. never mind what we thought they made movies about in 2002 and things like that. i want to get everybody's reaction to this. let me start with you. this is from the grand jury report on how the church had a play book for concealing the truth. make sure to use euphemisms. never say rape, say inappropriate contact and boundary issues. also in this play book, even if a priest is raping children, keep providing him housing and living expenses, referring to the priests. when a priest does have to be removed, don't say why. and above all, hugh hugh et, don't tell the police. >> i'm an ashamed and grieving catholic. and the archbishop op of washington should have resigned last week, should be fired today because of he was part of a conspiracy to cover up a child porn ring run by priests in pit pittsburgh. a child porn ring. >> run by priests. >> you can't read this without vomiti

vomiting if you're a catholic that believes in the church. i think the attorney general shapiro set a standard. gomez in los angeles. you can't trust the church to do this. you have to have, i think, 49 more shapiro reports. >> holy cow. >> as someone else who is catholic, i think about developing countries and the fact that pennsylvania and maybe the 49 other states might get to this, but the catholic church has so many other roots in so many other places where priests are seen as not just the people that are at church, but they're the people who run the schools, they're the people who run the aid. they're who families go to when your father is not around. when i was reading about priests putting crosses around their necks to tell other priests who is vulnerable and already been violated, it's terrifying. >> shivers. >> pope francis is going to have to do something and -- >> what is the something? >> big and serious.

>> what is it? >> i don't know. >> how does that begin -- >> he's the pope. he can send a much clesarer message, i think, than has been sent so far. there will be, i think, if not 49, there certainly will be more shapiro reports. >> here's what i think makes this so damning. the first time an abuse scandal went public was 1985 in louisiana. we've got, look, the editor in chief that everybody loves here in washington, d.c., marty barron of the washington post, essentially made his name by uncovering the abuse taking place up in new england. it's as if the catholic church each time dealt with the problem and tried to move on. >> it's a culture of secrecy. it is an institution that sees itself as its own moral and governing and legal authority, and so -- and it's massive. it's such -- it's across the world. and what we've seen is that this

kind of abuse is so widespread that were the church to try to tackle the issue, how would you even know -- you don't know who is trying to solve the problem, is actually part of the problem because it goes from those who committed abuses to covering it up to those complicit in it. it's very widespread. i think pope francis, you know, he doesn't have a great track record of dealing with this issue, particularly when it came up in chile. he was silent. it took them 48 hours to issue a statement. he still hasn't said anything. he didn't say anything this morning. >> i'm curious of the larger societal impact. an evangelical movement that has turned the other way on this president what he's done morally. a catholic church you can't trust with your kids even if you believe in your own believes. what does that do to organized religion in this country? >> i think it makes people more and more wary of going into churches and looking at pastors for some sort of moral

direction. for a long time -- >> if not them, who? >> i don't think there is -- i think what the lesson here is you really can't trust anyone. i should say, i'll say i grew up with a grandmother who was very devoutly catholic who also said priests are men, and be very careful who you put your child with regardless of who it is. if it's coaches, teachers, i think you need to understand be, we all understand now we need to be more vigilant -- >> if i had more time, though, i could run down a list of good, great leaders in the church. i can also tell you that this pope has failed. if he sends someone like mcilroy out of san diego or one of these other old white guys that have been part of the complicity and cover up for 40 years he will have failed in his most important challenge because those institutions are necessary. >> i'm sorry to be talking about this on a sunday morning of all mornings. anyway, thank you all. and thank you for watching. as we say good-bye, we're going to leave you with an up lifting moment. a moment from the great aretha franklin, from the kennedy center honors in 2015 when she

honored carol king with her rendition of you make me feel like a natural woman. enjoy and remember. we'll be back next week because it it if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." ♪ you make me feel, you make me feel like a natural woman ♪ ♪ i feel like a natural woman ♪ you make me feel, you make me feel like a natural woman ♪ ♪ a woman ♪ a woman ♪ a woman ♪ hi! how was your day? it was good. it was long. let's fix it. play "connection" by onerepublic. (beep) ♪these days, my waves get lost in the ocean♪ ♪seven billion swimmers man ♪i'm going through the motions ♪sent up a flare need love and devotion♪ ♪trade it for some faces that i'll never know notion♪

♪can i get a connection? ♪can i get can i get a connection?♪ ♪can i get a connection? ♪can i get can i get a connection?♪ the full value oft wyour new car? you'd be better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with liberty mutual new car replacement we'll replace the full value of your car. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ stop fearing your alarm clock... with new*! zzzquil pure zzzs. a drug-free blend of botanicals with melatonin ...that supports your natural sleep cycle... ...so you can seize the morning. new! zzzquil pure zzzs.

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. stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com this is a story about mail start winning today. and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries

to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ ♪ ♪ welcome to "kasie d.c." i'm kasie hunt. we are live every sunday from washington from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, national insecurity as war breaks out over security clearances. plus, breaking this evening, the white house doesn't actually know how much their own general counsel has been telling the mueller investigation. inside the scramble to find out. and later, federal official claims none of the migrant children handled by the u.s. government have been lost. joined by republican senator rob portman who dispels