hinting that the president may be preparing to fire his director of national intelligence after dan coats repeatedly contradicted his boss' policies in public testimony. after speaking with mr. trump by this weekend, chris ruddy tells cnn there's a feeling the president is disappointed in coats and wants a change. this as mr. trump is launching a new attack on former fbi acting director andrew mccabe. he's calling revelations about the russia probe in mccabe's new book deranged. in a new interview, mccabe insists deputy attorney general rod rosenstein was serious when he discussed wearing a wire to get evidence that might lead to mr. trump's being removed from office. this hour, i'll talk with congressman john garamendi, an armed services committee member. and our correspondents and analysts are also standing by. first, let's go to our white house correspondent abby phillip. abby, another member of the president's national security team may be on the way out. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. christopher ruddy is one of the president's longtime confidants and he did spend the weekend in fl

what dan coats said in public to the united states senate or what donald trump claims dan coats said to him in private? in the oval office. leading off our discussion now, democratic congressman eric swalwell from california. he's a member of the intelligence and judiciary committees. and jason johnson, politics editor at theroot.com and an msnbc contributor. congressman swalwell, first of all, the president's characterization of this meeting today in the oval office in which the only source we have on this is the president, no transcript, no video, and he's saying that the intelligence chiefs came in there and said to him we didn't say any of those things that are now on video that we've all seen them say. >> well, good evening, lawrence. so telling is that the president did not watch that hearing which i and so many others watched to learn about our worldwide threats because if he had watched he would have seen that they laid out the threats that we face. what is most concerning, though, is that the threats that the president believes face us are phantom threats and he's putting up

that's how dan coats undercut the president's position on north korea, the truth. unanimous feel of the american intelligence community that north korea will try to retain nuclear weapons, quote, because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival. kim jong-un has nuclear weapons not to defend the north korean people from attack. kim jong-un has nuclear weapons to defend himself. donald trump has twitter to defend himself. and so the chances of kim jong-un denuclearizing are exactly the same as the chances of donald trump detwitterizing. dan coats simply said that kim jong-un is unlikely to give up his nuclear weapons. unlikely. and no one on the senate intelligence committee disagreed with that. no republican disagreed with that. but donald trump was outraged, and two days later, donald trump summoned dan coats and the intelligence leaders to the oval office for a photo op in which the president could pretend that what the leaders of the intelligence agencies told the senate was somehow manipulated by news the news media, even though

i don't see any reason why it would be. >> okay, so he mentioned dan coats. this is what dan coats said this week. >> we assess that foreign actors will view the 2020 u.s. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests. we expect russia will continue to wage its information war against democracies and to use social media to attempt to divide our societies. >> a source telling cnn tonight that dni coats and gena haspel are safe in their jobs. and the president, he says, they were mischaracterized, misquoted. don't forget, this is president who said this. >> and just remember what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. >> so the question is who are you going to believe? seriously, who do you believe? do you believe the president, or do you believe your own ears? our cnn exclusive, new information showing donald trump, jr.'s phone calls ahead of the 2016 trump tower meeting were not with his father. that as the president sits down for an oval office interview with "the new york times." lots to talk about with shimon prokupecz, jac

ellen, there is, i think safe to say, dan coats we have known for a long time. there is nothing about dan coats that should surprise anyone. did the president just notice him? >> the relationship between dan coats and the president has not been that close. some say tense for awhile now. like gina haskill. there is not an easy relationship or trust there. and in particular as you noted, he is just giving his unvarnished assessment of the threats, and some of those happen to be at odds with the president's foreign policy goals on north korea, iran, and size. >> but none of this should be surprising. she a mainstream guy, public and foreign policy, we have been clear, he has not had a weird departure from who he normally is. >> no, but when the news was -- when the hearing took place last month and you had a series of intelligence asian leaders, and she seen as the leader of them, and the headlines were that these chiefs wrs rebuere rebukit odds with the president, i think that did up set him. >> the president has continued to fume in this weed he said the former s

but dan coats is a highly honorable public servient. lican senator, former republican ambassador to germ an and i think he's just telling the truth. >> in term ozf coats, i railr ie president is saying behind the scenes he's not loyal. what is your sense of the job security for dan coats? is this something where the president's attention might shift? maybe this mueller report comes out and coats sticks around? does ocoats want to stick around? >> the president has gone after certain officials publicly and they hang on for lot longer than it their shelf life may be. so it's possible the president could move on to something else. the director has clearly understood the relationship with the president is not great and as long as maybe he would like to do be for some time. but now the president voicing this publicly. he sort puts them on notice and gins the process of public humeiation where he has to hang on and do his job. none of this is news from the director, i have to say but now we're entering that phase where it's kind of kicking it

i want to go straight now to a person who knows dan coats well. as been in that very chair. james clapper, the former director of national intelligence. director, i appreciate your time. look, you know coats personally. you had this job. what's your reaction to what the president is seemingly trying to do behind the scenes to get rid of him? >> well, this is the -- what has become the all-too-familiar pattern here of when people incur the displeasure, or the rath, i guess, more accurately in this case, of the president, you start to see media reporting and white house aides talking about, you know, his departure and in this case, which i thought was pretty blatant, was the confidant of the president speaking about his eminent departure. think this is really, really regrettable for a lot of reasons. dan coats is an honorable man who believes in truth and telling of the truth and that's what he's been doing, and i think if he is fired, this conveys a terrible, terrible message to the intelligence community. in other words, don't tell truth to power.

you see gina haspel there and on the far right you see dan coats. when you look at this picture in light of what the president said about they're passive and naive, they need to go back to school, he's right and they're wrong, what do you see? >> i don't see them as passive and naive. i see them as active and realistic. that's the same picture we used tonight for an article i posted on the blog writing about the president's relationship with his intelligence chiefs. look, they're doing the best they can to serve the least traditional president we have ever had, but they're also preserving their credibility by speaking the truth to congress and by serving all of the other intelligence customers that are out there. some people are asking why aren't dan coats and gina haspel resigning? i'll tell you why they're not resigning. they're not resigning because they're serving a whole range of customers that do read their analysis, that do appreciate what they're doing and they're hoping to paper this over with the president every time it happens. >> they do

basically, he should have at least placed a call to dan coats or to gina haspel. and said, tell me, what did you say today? what is that i'm hearing that identiis inconsistent with my position? instead, he put out a tweet blasting them, telling them to go back to school. so, what is dangerous to me in all of this is that the intelligence community is designed to bring information to the president of the united states so the president and his national security team can then formulate policy, whether it's against russia, china, iran, or any other country. the danger is, you don't want to have the president to continue to insult the intelligence community, saying you've got it wrong, i don't believe you, i didn't believe you in helsinki, i believed putin in helsinki and not you, if you continue to do that, you are undermining the morale and you are corrupting the process. what the danger is, you don't want the policymakers to be shaping the intelligence that's coming to them, and so, if you keep sending the signal to the intelligence community, i want a difference an

intelligence. >> dan coats came to me and others said they think it is russia.dent putin. he said it's not russia. >> i mean that's an american president sizing whether or not russia attacked the united states and seeming to give equal weight. >> and putinhas also told him he doesn't have to worry about ballistic missiles that kim jong un can't build them. so these are very troubling. the question is not whether or not you have other sources of information which may differ. he gets his information from fox and friends and, you know, all sorts of other places that have frankly no real bearing on this and have nothing to offer. so that's what is scary. >> all right. stick around. he announced his run for the presidency yesterday. sanders already leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. stay with us. (vo) we're carvana, the company who invented car vending machines and buying a car 100% online. now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a few years old or dinosaur old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license

, and i know dan coats very well. he is really a responsible individual. he could have said, mr. president, we laid out in great detail what the intelligence community unanimously recommends to you. it's there for you to read. i'll be happy to come tomorrow and reply to any question you have. but instead, you get a tweet saying go back to school. you're not educated enough. that's the danger involved, i think. >> well, also, what they laid out in public testimony is also one must assume what they report to the president, what they say to the president. and so it's not -- if the president is listening, none of what the public testimony was should have been any kind of a surprise to him just from, you know, he should have known that is their position. now, he can argue with them privately or whatever, but to publicly demean them because they are testifying about something that they've already told him just seems counterproductive. >> it's counterproductive and it's undermining their morale. now dan coats has to go to th

but firing dan coats is not going to make kim jong-un give up his nuclear weapons. and that's because president trump can fire cabinet members but he cannot fire the truth. that's tonight's "the last word." "the 11th hour with brian williams" starts now. >>> tonight the president on the losing end of an explosive new book. the stories he has to tell include an account of the president choosing believe putin of russia over u.s. intelligence. > and just today a big hint that trump may make a move to hire his national director of intelligence. >>> also tonight, two things you seldom see. both are from roger stone who first publicly attacked a federal judge and then took it back when some took it as a threat. >>> and protests over the president's wall emergency as 16 states now line up to take him to court. all of it as "the 11th hour" gets under way on a monday night. and good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. day 760 of the trump administration, and on this holiday monday night, we have news over just the past few hours about when rod

he says he is hearing from sources that dan coats may be vulnerable and may be gone. i think the real question is if coats goes they have to say when i do public testimonies am i supposed to say what i think or what the president wants many we to say? i think i know what the answer is. >> yeah. when they testified at that hearing and on global threats there was no mention of the border with mexico and the threat coming up. >> right. >> and there were major disagreements. they consider and to the constitution and plot to go ahead and see how many cabinet members including the vice president. >> he takes pains to say despite everything rosenstein has said he was not joking. he mentioned it more than once. it was taken quite seriously. i have spoken to a source who was in the room for at least the wire comment that said look, rosenstein was being sarcastic. it is his humor. that's the way he described that conversation to maie. it appears to be. >> mccabe took it seriously. >> he took it seriously and went back to the fbi. it is about what was said and what the tone was.

where does this come from that dan coats may have a target on his back? >> well, it's really interesting, because if you look at that hearing, which we're a little removed from it. we're a million years from it in news cycles, it's -- all of the individuals who testified that day, dan coats is the most likely person that trump would want to lash out at and take out his frustrations on. they have a history already of having tensions. if you remember when andrea mitchell last summer in aspen interviewed him. >> broke the news to him on live television. >> the white house had invited president putin to washington for a meeting, and the way that coats reacted was almost to laugh at the president, or at least that's how he took it. and that really caused him a lot of problems. he had to issue a statement. so there is not a lot of love there to begin with. and, you know, when you see the president is very determined to make something work with north korea. it's kind of the only thing he has outside of the wall. and that's tied up in court. and so, you know, for

president, someone who knows him and socializes with him coming out and telling cnn that he thinks that dan coatsay be coming to an end. listen to this. >> i think you have a classic example here where director coats is trying to make policy and not inform policy. i'm hearing from sources around the white house of general disappointment of the president with director coats. there is a feeling that maybe there needs to be a change of leadership in that position. >> look, he has read the tea leaves correctly before. was dan coats trying to make policy when he spoke publicly before lawmakers about the worldwide threat assessment? >> no. this is an annual briefing. it happens every year. it is scheduled well before the president decides to have another summit with kim jong-un. this is dan coats and other members of the intelligence community giving an unbiassed assessment about the state of play. stacking the cabinet is not a recipe for a national security success. what it means if dan coats leaves and the president chooses to put somebody in there only says he is having great successes is that intel

host: that was dan coats speaking with congress. the president with the following two tweets basically saying that they are now on board, on the same page and that the comments by dan coats were taken out of context and again blaming the fake news. the president often referring to fake news when there are stories he just doesn't like. guest: he is not wrong. we have seen the analysis by the pew research center that shows 99% of all media coverage is negative coverage about president trump. clearly this in administration has had many accomplishments. in the past two years they have accomplished a great amount of his promises. he is not wrong to call it out. we have never seen a president attacked like this by the media. he has the right to push back. maybe people don't like the language he uses but as someone who follows the news and tracks the news every day, i see the unfairness and they owe the president at least some fairness. when they can't even tell the truth about christmas decorations at the white house. they criticized him

what's the message dan coats pushed out?essage to the intelligence community is shade the data, cook it, slant it, don't tell the man what he wasndoesn't wan hear. >> the chairman, richard burr, said he's seen no direct evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and russia. you sit on the committee. you have seen almost the same evidence the chairman has. do you agree with his assessment? >> i think you have to parse his words carefully. the key word he used is direct. i think if you are looking for a smoking gun that's true. i think there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. also, we're not finished yet. there are important people we have to talk to, that we have to get information from who have a central role in this. i'm not ready to reach that conclusion. people heard what richard burr said and took it as a kind of blanket exoneration. if you are talking about a smoking gun, no. rarely in any legal matter is there a smoking gun. >> quickly, you announced you are not running for president of the united states

it's really beyond, i live in wonder minute sometimes of the things that i see. >> you mentioned dan coats the president was not happy that coats contradicted the president on a number of threats. i wondered -- this would not be the first time we saw an adviser to the president shown the door because of disagreement with the president. would that be an insult to the u.s. intelligence community at large? >> let's just say that a president has the right to disagree. in my opinion show respect to the intelligence community. i know dan coats. i used to serve in the house with him. he was a senator. i have known him for a long time. dan coats doesn't care if they show him the door. coats has nothing to lose. he has been successful in life. he has been successful as a businessman. he has been successful as a politician. he is going to call it the way he sees them. he doesn't look forward to any kind of a dispute or a fight with somebody particularly the president of the united states. you're not going to push him to do something that he doesn't want to do. we have a summit coming up very soon th

president's who there this weekend is hearing there's a general disappointment with the president with dan coatesnd maybe there needs to be a change of leadership there. what kind of an impact would that have if coates were to, in fact, leave? this has been simmering for a long time based on a number of things the president said about coates. >> as far as the impact on the intelligence community, i think it would be pretty devastating. dan coates is regarded as an honorable man that has right values and standards and wants to do the right thing. believes in the truth and telling it. that's precisely what he did at the hearing before the senate intelligence committee recently and he said some things which, by the way, he wasn't making that up but he was representing the coordinated views of the entire intelligence community when he says that north korea is not going to give up it's nuclear weapons and isis has not been defeated, that's right. and iran is in compliance with the the jcpoa and apparently the president didn't like that because that didn't comport with his world view. why this is reall

that's going to be special. >> what happens if the president does, in fact, get rid of dan coats?> right. remember, now, the president sending out one of his friends to talk about his displeasure d have anything to do with that, it has to do with the job that the director of national intelligence is doing. the fact that dan coats came to capitol hill and says when the president says he's defeated isis, the national intelligence director points out in fact isis has thousands of soldiers who are looking to carry out attacks. the president says that north korea has no nuclear weapons. on russia, we've already talked about that. the president is supervisupset t of what the president says on these issues is dead wrong. >> thank you for coming on the show. much appreciated. cri >>> we may be talking 2020 here, but in one state, the 2018 election is still not over. with north carolina maybe deciding today whether to scrap one race all together and start again because of what's been described of a ballot scheme. what the republican and democrat in that race are saying. we're live in ralei

all of it will lead to other things as they begin to talk. >> i'm an issue of dan coats. you heard our reporting that the president is losing confidence and may get rid of them, the director of national intelligence. he told them during the global threats analysis testimony that it was unlikely north korea was going to give up nuclear weapons. he is losing confidence. what is your reaction to that? >> when i was overseas many i worked with had worked with him and he is universally trusted, loved and respected. i'm surprised hi hasn't fired him yet. he fired mcmaster and he didn't fire anybody. >> anybody that doesn't agree with him. >> yes. >> and dan coats, as director of national intelligence has disagreed for his classic response when he found out trump's statement coming back with putin. >> remember, when he testified to congress on the various global threats, that's the entire u.s. intelligence community coming up with their best assessment. >> thanks for coming in. >> thank you. >>> breaking news continues here with the mueller report now believed to be eminent. wha

congress even members of the president's own cabinet for example the director of national intelligence dan coats testifying before a senate committee said. that he doesn't believe and this is backed up by the cia director gina haskell that there's any intention on the part of the north korean leader to denuclearize so the president has been wrestling about this he tries to put a positive spin he's a marketer by trade and certainly he's tried to do this with these very complex talks and is getting some frustration you see that spilling over in front of the cameras the fact that people are pointing out the finer details not a strong point of donald trump that these talks could take a very long time something we should point out the president has acknowledged and we know the business in the military the deal is kind of like the lifeblood if you like of of the trump modus operandi i mean he's signed a couple of big deals hasn't. as a note in the direction of kim to say look what you can have if you play ball with us you can you two can have a share in prosperity like vietnam. yeah not only is there

dan coats/director of intelligence: "say that again. álaughterá did i hear? ay. álaughterá that's going to be special."white house officials say they're preparing for coats' departure.. but caution they're not sure how long coats will remain in his job. job. (vicki)(vicki) (vicki) the two senior administration officials stressed that the conversations about who could replace coats are in the early stages.(grant) they also say the president could ultimately decide not to fire him. (grant) attorneys for a kentucky high school student-- who was at the center of a controversial viral video-- are suing the washington post... lawers for nicholas sandmann say they want 250 million dollars in "compensatory and punitive damages." the lawsuit claims that the post "wrongfully targeted and bullied nicholas because he was the white, catholic student wearing a red 'make america great again' cap while on a school field trip to the march for life in washington, march for life in washington, d-c back on january 18th.... the complaint also accuses the post of engaging in a "mod

dan coats was clearly surprised last summer by the president's ad libbed foreign policy.e director of national intelligence may be on his way out. after offering congress last month a very different view of the world than donald trump's. good morning and welcome to "morning joe." it is tuesday, february 19th. with us we have msnbc contributor mike barnicle. you here? you staying? >> yes, i am. >> and columnist at "usa today" and author of "the death of expertise," zeplin aficionado. is that what we're playing? >> that was the request. >> that's what i listen to at 6 a.m., a little zep. >> i saw you listening to a little "stairway to heaven" in your car. >> i can't get away from it. >> also with us, associate editor of "the washington post" and political analyst eugene robinson. good to you have on board this morning. we've got several big stories to cover, including, did you see this, roger stone's loaded ta

he said this after dan coats testified on the hill. >> what the hell is wrong with the dni?e has no political judgment. he has no sense of proportion. what in the hell is he thinking about? howie: wasn't dan coats doing his job with an honest assessment. >> it's not for the dn toirks have a political instinct in this. let's remember this is not the first time president trump and his administration have publicly disagreed. this isn't the first and probably won't be the last. but what strikes me is because the coverage was so on the record, on tape, transcripts, president trump thinks he can say fake news, the concept of fake news has taken such hold in our debate that you can do that in juxtaposition to physically being on record is amazing to me. howie: the president made this point in the super bowl. intelligence chiefs are not always right. but what fueled this particular media fire was the president's own tweet, passive, naive about people he appointed. it's reminiscent to some degree. fighting the fbi, saying it's doing a lousy job. apparently differing views. >> he name

the white house has now begun preliminary talks on replacing the director of national intelligence dan coats this comes after president trump was angered by coats' public testimony before congress that north korea's unlikely to completely denuclearize. what's your reaction to this late breaking development? >> the director of national intelligence needs to be -- has the credibility. he needs to tell it like it is. there is a very careful process they go through before making an assessment. they tell you the guardrails that are used on that national assessment. and clearly, to no one's surprise, that north korea does not intend to give up their nuclear weapons. president trump's highly visible summit meeting with kim jong-un did not produce a pathway to denuclearize the korean peninsula. now he's talking about having a second meeting. it's critically important that we get direct information, national intelligence as to where north korea is. so the president trying to say, look, he didn't like what mr. coats said because it didn't jive with what he was saying about kim jong-un, that's just too

elections as an opportunity to advance their interests. >> so dan coats laying out three or four keyindings. he did also add that while he saw north korea giving no indication of giving up their nukes that iran was showing no indication of developing any nuclear weapons. so this directly contradicts the president and he had this to say in the oval office today. listen to the president. >> do you still have confidence in gina haspel and dan coats to give you good advice? >> i disagree with things they said. time will prove me right probably. >> so from your vantage point and having been at the state department in a pretty, pretty difficult era, the iraq war era, what do you make of here we go again, you know, nag intelligence, the president, and in this instance they are on different sides. >> well, you know, i'm no fan of the u.s. intelligence community particularly with regard to iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but at the same time i think dni coats is level-headed. he gave a presentation that didn't break really any new ground. most of my colleagues, most of the experts on the

let's listen to dan coats because he was testifying along with chris wray and the cia director. [video clip] ask the folks in the back to turn down the volume. i hear and it -- meister echo on my mike just microphone. -- microphone. i always have to say, just in case we have any reason, i will give directions down the stairs and out the back. me in case we need to depart. i want to welcome my good friend dave trachtenberg who

get rid of dan coats. it's really remarkable and i know we're becoming numb to this, this is not normal, not good for the country, this is dangerous. on rosen stein i don't think it means anything beyond rosen stein said he would leave months ago, when barr got there. i don't think it signals he's any more upset than he has been at trump for the last year and a half or that mueller has wrapped up. we expected this and it's going to happen. >> it just may happen on a faster track. ever since andrew mccabe came out on "60 minutes" and his book is coming out, rosenstein may exit sooner because of all the talk about the 25th amendment. i think we need to put a marker in the sand here. as joe said, we report on a lot of outrageous things. that wasn't dni coats suggesting policy, that was him explaining the intelligence he's seen which is his job and tasked with. the president, it sounds like, doesn't like that intelligence and may fire him because he doesn't like the facts. >> he doesn't like the intelligence a

just a few weeks ago dan coats confirmed the long standing belief climate change is a significant securitycnn has learned white house officials are discussing replacements for coats now. they are concerned that president trump may be prepared to fire him. >>> much of the eastern u.s. is cleaning up this morning after a big winter storm rolled through. thundersnow caught on a doorbell camera in cumberland, maryland yesterday. major flooding in tennessee and the front stalled over the south bringing on high water. and that flooding threat won't abate with another winter storm taking shape out west. pedram javaheri has more. >> good morning, guys. yes, the northeast here watching the snow showers around boston, a wintry mix just south of town and to the north it is all about the snow and of course it was a winter wonderland across central park as well in the past 24 or so hours, but you cross over and major disruptions as far as cancellations and delays. and a lot of the activity going to improve quickly. by 11:00 a.m., noon, much of the showers exit the picture and then back down toward the

do you see gina haspel and dan coats telling the president that the contradictions which you can see publically because thee were public, do you see them calling it fake news? >> absolutely not. this actually really worries me that the president called them into the oval office and said they agreed with them. this is a pattern of the president politicizing our intelligence community, our military. this is a constant pattern from him and under mines our national security institutions. i just can't imagine that dan coats or gina haspel would ever do that. >> that's where we land today. thank you so much. i really appreciate it. >> coming up for us, can a federal judge keep roger stone away from a camera? we may find out the answer to that today as stone heads back to court. that's next. what makes this simple salad the best simple salad ever? great tasting, heart-healthy california walnuts. so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org. new aveeno® cracked skintell you cica ointment. what to wear. with shea butter and triple oat complex. for fast relief and a protective barrier fo

, on the kar argument that dan coats disagreed with the president publicly. ats was expressing the view of the u.s. intelligence community. if the president were to dism s mu mishim would it be seen as personal about coats? it's their findings here. >> there is no doubt that's a larger broad side attack on the intelligence community. unfortunately it's not the first one. look, it is the case that it is not unusual for presidents to challenge the intelligence community on assessments. there have been times the president said to the intelligence community and senior intelligence officials, go back, make sure you understand, ask hard questions. what makes this different is that the president isn't just pushing back on the intelligence community. the president actually said according to mccabe he believed putin over his intelligence community. that's a completely different scenario. i think if coats goes and to be candid with you, i think that would be a mistake on the part of the president. the president needs people around him who will speak truth to power. if c

he was asked about that on thursday. >> do you still have confidence in gina haspel and dan coats? i disagree with things that they said, but time will prove me right probably. >> despite their disagreements, the president did get his intel briefing yesterday from coats and haspel. and then he changed his tune, made this startling claim. >> he has said that they were totally misquoted and it was taken out of context. so what i do is i'd suggest that you call them. they said it was fake news. >> or you can just watch the testimony yourself and read the transcripts. they were not misquoted, their entire testimony was public. judge for yourself. >> we have won against isis. we have beaten them and we have beaten them badly. >> isis is intent on resurging and still commands thousands of fighters in iraq and syria. >> and on a host of other foreign policy issues, a chasm between the public statements and what his intel chiefs said there. a source says coats and haspel were not in jeopardy of losing their jobs and aides were able to calm trump down adding that the transcript adds more co

i worked closely with dan coats when he was a member of the senate intelligence committee. he is an individual of integrity as well as of principles and ethics. and that is why mr. trump apparently does not like him, because he is not going to give mr. trump the loyalty that mr. trump expects. so i do think we see this unraveling of mr. trump in terms of what he is doing, trying to take whatever step he can to prevent the truth from coming out, whether it be about this investigation or whether it be about north korea, iran, russia, and other matters. this is something i think we all should be concerned about. this is a very abnormal situation with a very abnormal individual who is in the oval office and who has our prosperity and our security in his hands. >> former cia director john brennan, always a pleasure. thank you, sir, very much for coming on the broadcast tonight. >> thanks, brian. >> coming up for us, russia's leader warns of retaliation in a renewed arms race of sorts, at least in theory, with the u.s. while avoiding any mention of donald trump. we'll talk about

in addition to the drama involving dan coats and mccabe. the white house experienced personnel turmoil over the weekend. nauert withdrew her name for consideration for the post. after concerns raised about her background. her name was announced publicly before the white house fully completed a vet of the background. she was forced to withdraw. sources tell cnn the president has returned to the drawing board searching for a permanent nominee to be ambassador to the united nations. >> the head of the u.s. and american program. she joins me now. live from london. good to see you. >> thank you. >> so in the wake of the mccabe bomb shell revelations. president trump is fighting back attacking him and credibility. now we hear from a friend and confidant of the president. that he may fire his national intelligence director over comments he made about north korea. what would be the ramification of just such a move? considering the other seen your advisers that trump has dispensed with so far. particularly in the defense community. >> another sign o

. >> telling christiane am man pour that the president is likely to fire dan coats.is the in fraction? publicly talking about intelligence, publicly saying he did not think north korea would get rid of its weapons when he testified before congress under oath. is that reason? telling the truth he will be dismissed? >> there are questions whether the cia was too supportive of the president going into the iraq war. there ain't no learning in the second kick of the mule here. we'd prefer that the intel guys support the president regardless whether they agree with his position. i think the intel guys should talk about the facts and the president had an opportunity here. he could have said the intel guys think this hill is insurmountable. north korea will never give up nukes. the intel guys should have spoken and the president missed and opportunity. do we want to relive iraq all again. speak the truth and dan coats will get fired for it. >> isn't that what donald trump does? he fires people that disagree with him period? we're not at the beginning of this administration a

take a listen. >> are you considering replaces dan coats? >> i haven't even thought about about it. >> democrat adam schiff was among the lawmakers supporting coats. >>> and "the new york times" is responding to the president's latest attack. that raised new questions about obstruction of justice. the president tweeted this. "the new york times" reporting is false. they are a true enemy of the people. "times" publisher responded saying this in part. the phrase enemy of the people is not just false, it's dangerous. it has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. and it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation's enemies. as i have repeatedly told president trump face-to-face, there are mounting signs that this incendiary rhetoric is encouraging threats and violence against journalists at home and abroad. joining me to talk about this story and other stories, associate news editor and reporting from axios ailina trai

we just said what keeps dan coats up at night. what on this front keeps you up at night and what aren't we doing potentially. >> yeah, well, mr. coats is absolutely right and i have briefed plenty of his predecessors in the office he sits in about threats like this. when we talk about attacks that you alluded to earlier or turning off the electrical grid opening up dams, that is something, thank goodness, that our government and the united states intelligence services, all of them, have been engaged in for a very long time. doesn't mean that you can't do more. but i think it's good for people to understand that the threats like that are looked at very carefully by the united states intelligence community. >> i also have to ask you given your background about the central story that we cover on this broadcast every night, that is the russian investigation and today's news, especially, that mr. manafort lied to the feds, lied to the mueller investigation, he lied to the grand jury. he lied to your beloved fbi. what do you make of toda

at a senate intelligence committee hearing tuesday, director of national intelligence dan coats and cia multiple claims from the president on everything from iran to isis to north korea. this happened with cameras in the room. not much left to interpretation. but tonight, the president says his own intelligence officials did not say

dan coats, former republican senator. gina haspel,s h s hahis choice director. chris wray is his choice for fbi director. they're reflecting their agencies' and their communities' consensus view of threats in the world even if that differs from the president's perspective. >> to all of you, there's fallout also from the senate republicans, mitch mcconnell and the leadership still burned about the president walking away from them on the border wall and all the other issues that led to the shutdown. they voted, a voetoveto-proof vn the senate, on an issue sponsored by mitch mcconnell, against the president's decision to withdraw troops from syria and afghanistan, the republicans voting against the president's foreign policy on something that important. >> and i am happy to see that. we would be very foolish to walk away from syria. two things going on here, andrea. one is, the actual tactical danger, walking away would be like turning around in front of a california firefighter that was still smoldering and walking away. it's going to reflash. we're going to have

just a little bit of context, dav david, we remember dan coats was on stage and that's when he foundting an invite to the white house and we heard from trump on coats' reaction there, but what do you make of this potential change in leadership and what happens with regard to north korea if dni coats goes? >> at the worldwide threat hearing there was no effort to try to sugar coat their conclusions. you mentioned the one on north korea. director coats also said that he believed that iran had been complying with the nuclear accord before and after the president withdrew from it and he also said that he believed that isis still had about 12 battalions after the president of course had said that he completely defeated and that was the reason that we could leave syria. so those are the three touchstone issues, but director coats has been a very quiet, sort of stabilizing force, but i think he's been unwilling to politicize the intelligence. he is not giving the president necessarily what the president wants to hear. not the first director to have run up against a president. this happened