mike hayden has nothing to do with the russia investigation, but the former director of the cia and nsa under republican administrations has been critical of the president. the only possible reason he is on that list is because the president doesn't like the criticism he received from mike hayden. you have other people on the list that are in the president's mind somehow involved in the russia investigation like bruce ohr. that is i think the motivation here. both to go after critics and as a foreshadowing, i think to the folks on the mueller team that they also may have their security clearances revoked. it's a way for the president to shut down by revoking the clearances of the prosecutors and investigators. >> you advised the president in time of war. the reason that former officials keep security clearances is when there is a thread, an admiral who has been involved in many doz everieens of counter terror. if there was another, you might want to call them. is it a risk or damaging to national security to exile these people with these expertise? >> there is a reason that the traditio

and i just think again, it's not about retired formers like myself or mike hayden or john. it's about what else could be done here. mueller or ask that members of the intelligence community declare who they voted for. and if you don't vote for me you don't keep your clearance. where does this stop? i'm perhaps exaggerating a little bit here but this is bigger than just -- much bigger than revoking john brennan's eligibility or possibly mine or the others. >> when you look at the list, what i'm calling the unwanted list of ten people, it's all about somebody who has some connection to the probe that the president clearly hates. even though his current intel people are saying it's an important probe, it needs to go forward, we need facts and we need to understand what the russians did and who helped them. putting that to the side, do you believe that that would be the extent of it? he only cares about the probe. or is that enough exposure to concern? >> well, that is a common denominator, that we had some connection with -- in my case, the intelligence community assessment th

that he received from mike hayden. and then you have other people on the list that are in the president's mind somehow involved in the russia investigation like bruce ohr. that is i think the motivation here, both to go after critics and as a foreshadowing, i think to the folks on the mueller team that they also may have their security clearances revoked. it's a way for the president to shut down the mueller investigation by revoking the clearances of the prosecutors and the investigators. >> you've advised a president in time of war. the reason that former officials keep their security clearances is so they can do the same thing. when there is a threat -- admiral mcraven, for instance, who has been involved in in many dozens of raids, you might want to call up bill mcraven. it is a risk to u.s. national security, damaging to u.s. national security to in effect exile these people with these expertise? >> there is a reason that the tradition grew up that former directors and former deputy directors and former military o

the whole reason mike hayden, the former cia director, the sole reason he's another person on this list-long republican, i believe, the reason for this in the first place is so that people like mike hayden could go to their predecessors and say, you know this person we picked up in yemen or afghanistan. what do you recall about this case? how should we proceed? what about is happening in pakistan? it's to create a council of advisors, former cia directors that don't need to go through clearance process and look at current intelligence. it's more for the benefit of the current intelligence. the great irony is this president is denying his own cia and other agency officials access to the wise couple of brennan now and presumably the others who are on this list. it's an extraordinary step, it is akin to the nixon enemy's list and unprecedented. without any basis, there is no claim here by sarah sanders today there was any release of classified information, there was any violation of law. mike flynn lost his clearance either before or during his arrest, that's because of a legal case. we ha

it is really remarkable and unprecedented and the irony here sadly is that the whole reason that mike hayden helped establish the president, the former cia director would keep their clearances, is to help new administrations be able quickly talk to their predecessors and find out if something is unusual or if, you know, alarming or something in pakistan or saudi arabia. that's the whole point that they are able to quickly without having to go through a long clearance process talk to someone like john brennan and what about this guy that we just picked up or what about his relatives or what should we be alert to or what you think happened in saudi? >> peter baker, there is reason to believe that the president has pulled a lester holt and here is what i mean by that. we have his famous comment as lester looked at and of course he was going to fire comey. well, tonight in an interview with the wall street journal, the president says he was going to do this last week but it was too hectic and forgetting he was on vacation and there is this. "i call it a rigged witch hunt, it is a sham. mr. trump

the fact that john brennan, jim clapper, mike hayden sounding the alarm bells in the way they are shouldou had the president in helsinki a handful of weeks ago, standing next to the russian president, questioning the intelligence community's assessment. dismiss it, really. now you have a president firing a former leader of the intelligence community and citing the russia investigation. does putin cheer this kind of thing? >> of course he does. it's just more chaos, more kind of dismantling of the u.s. system, of the transatlantic alliance. you know, at this point, sanctions doesn't matter. it's all about shaking up our system, taking it down a notch, instead of bringing russia up. i have to say, though, because the russia collusion investigation it personal, it is about trump. it is about his victory in the election. it is about his legitimacy as president. so in some ways, it's not totally surprising that he -- that president trump takes this so personally. that this isn't about national security, this is about him, donald j. trump, who criticizes him, who undermines his legitimacy. i'm

another one of the enemies list, is mike hayden, and i would point out that mike's been out of the government for nine years, he has nothing to do with the russia investigation, in no way has he been able to beneficially touch that, so that just illustrates how political really this list is. and it's particularly egregious with bruce orr. >> jim clapper, thank you. >>> coming up, breaking news out of colorado. charges have been filed in the deaths of a pregnant woman, and her two young daughters. who was charged and what officials are saying. >>> the temperature that is rising, the latest next. get your groove on with one a day 50+. ♪ get ready for the wild life ♪ complete multivitamins with key nutrients that address 6 concerns of aging, including heart health, supported by b-vitamins. your one a day is showing. this is not a screensaver.game. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ and if you get lost, just hit me on the old horn. man: tom's my best friend, but ever since he b

losing in this is why other people are breaking those norms, why john brennan, why jim clapper, why mike hayden are speaking out in the way that they are. i mean, admiral william mccraven when he came out last week, asking the president to revoke his security clearance, so that he could be on record as against the administration, i mean, that was a phrase and a public action i never thought i would see from someone like him. i've covered john brennen. i've covered jim clapper, these are not men who scare easily, these are not men who cry wolf. the fact that they are out there shouting at the top of their lungs day after day at this point, that this man is a threat to our nation's rule of law, and our democratic institutions is something that we should be focused on. >> well, david, let's talk a little bit more about that, because former cia national security agency director michael hayden told cnn today that the relationship between trump and the intelligence community is dangerously close to being permanently broken. how dangerous is it -- the state of relations between the president and the i

william webster, george tannen, porter goff, mike hayden.eon panetta, david pretorius, jim clapper. what do you make of this? i wanted to ask you, when trump said on the lawn, nobody has ever heard of him, i'm giving him more publicity and making him bigger than ever, what did you think? >> that, we have a lot of respect for everything they've done to protect the country and weed out the enemies. i just happen to disagree, they are sticking together and that's what they do. i understand that, just like anyone would stick together if they came after your fellow brethren. but i agree with jedediah. this guy deserves to have this revoked because of his behavior, not just him saying that the president is a traitor or calling on administration officials to use article 22 of the constitution to remove him from office, and making veiled threats, like you're going to get something one day. he told the senate under oath that he didn't see any evidence of collusion and he never said that there was evidence of collusion when he put forth that intellige

it, the president says what he thinks and he's said this before time and again that he considers mike haydenapper, comey to be political hacks. and all of these conclusions that the intelligence community has republiced, all of these -- this information the law enforcement community has put forth, he considers it to be personal politically motivated attacks against him not intelligence gathering or national security work. >> karoun what do you think of the "times" -- brennan saying -- saying there was no question there was collusion on the part of the trump team before the mueller probe is wrapped up does that go to the white house argument that this is highly politicized? >> brennan is no longer serving in the role he was serving in the intelligence community so he can speak freely and he has been. he's been critical based on his experience as a high ranking intelligence officer and he's not backing down from that because he got slapped across the face so it's not anything different if you would have had to have taken those actions since he retired since he's been out there commentating and

so if you're that concerned about national security, one would guess that you would not let mike hayden go on tv for the next couple weeks if you're that concerned. so we know this is just a fiction that people who are proxies for the trump white house get on tv. and what they do is they create a justification after the fact because donald trump has told us why he did it. >> let me just read the official reasons the president gave for revoking the security clearance of brennen. here's what the white house says. >> wild outbursts on the internet and television, lying, making frenzies commentary. shouldn't the president had a "v" his clearance revoked as well? >> no, because he was elected by the people of the united states. there's a crucial distinction there. he was elected to be their boss, whether they're currently employed or formerly employed. he's in charge their security clearances. he hired him, the american people, to do that job. when they leave that job, and it's in agust position to be in that position, when you become a partisan cable news hack, by the way, listen i'll call

another one of the enemies list, is mike hayden, and i would point out that mike's been out of the governmentars, he has nothing to do with the russia investigation, in no way has he been able to officially touch that, so that just illustrates how political really this list is. and it's particularly egregious with bruce ohr. >> jim clapper, thank you. avril haines, thank you very much. >>> coming up, breaking news out of colorado. charges have been filed in the deaths of a pregnant woman, and her two young daughters. who was charged and what officials are saying. >>> and the temperature that is rising, the latest on both, next. people confuse nice and kind. but they're different. nice tells you what you want to hear. but kind is honest. this bar's made with delicious cranberries and almonds. so, guess what? we call it cranberry almond. find your favorite and give kind® a try. >>> breaking news tonight in a horrific case out of colorado. the killings of a 34-year-old pregnant woman and her two little girls, tonight charges have been filed. randi kaye joins us with the latest. >> late today, ch

so when you see mike hayden or bob gates or leon panetta, so i very much disapprove of what trump has done. politically from his point of view, there's a method to his madness, i'm afraid. if the attack on the deep state continues, what it does, what it's shown you in other historical settings in other countries, it allows a leader and that leader's cabal to say whatever they want to, because they fended off criticism of the civil service, the court, fended off criticism of the media. >> it's dangerous, and that's why i think it's gratifying to see some of the most distinguished, respected military and intelligence officers who have served this country in recent decades, come out, come out quickly and forcefully in defense the director brennan. more importantly in response to what the president has done here. this group knows -- all of us who have had security clearances, it's not a perk, not a political spoil to be given to friends of the president and taken away from those he doesn't like. it's a serious tool to be used for serious national security work. >> let's follow with your l

component that is diminished if we take away security clearances from people like john brennan, mike hayden well, the president tweeting once again about john brennan this morning saying he's going to go down as the worst cia director in history. do you recall, sir, anytime before this when security clearances were used in a, really overt political way? >> it's absolutely never happened, and what i've really point to you and your listeners towards, alex. this letter just published by 14 former directors of the national -- of the national -- the directors of national intelligence, the directors of the cia, the deputy directors. 14 of them going back 30 years. all of them decrying this political action in pulling the security clearance, and by the way, this is a very bipartisan group of actors. it's got bob gates, republican, and leon panetta, democrat. it's got former congressman porter goss. former military actors who served in the central intelligence agency. this is not the deep state. these are the deep thinkers and we ought to be listening to them and should not be pulling these clearan

and i just think, again, it's not about retired forms like myself or mike hayden or john.here? mueller? or ask that members of the intelligence community declare who they voted for, if you don't vote for me, you don't keep your clearance? where's this stop? you know. i'm perhaps exaggerating a little bit, but this is bigger, much bigger than just revoking john brennan's eligibility or possibly mine or the others'. >> so phil, to clapper's point there, that trump tonight in "the wall street journal" linked the russia investigation to this decision to revoke brennan's security clearance, here's what he's saying. he says, i call it the rigged witch hunt, it is a sham, it is a sham and these people led it. so clapper was issuing a warning, and yet it's actually -- is this actually happening? >> i think that warning is appropriate. let's take the narrow question first. what has the president done by the action today? people like me, i'm a former, i wasn't listed today. but what do you think you're going to do, intimidate us? going to arrest me? send the fbi to my house? what do

and i think the world of mike hayden, we've had some differences but very few over the years. of those at the time was one on which senator mccain spoke with enormous moral force and that was the issue of enhanced interrogation technique which is he opposed and, in fact, the field manual that we produced when i was a three star in the states between the three and four star tours in iraq, same year as the counterinsurgency field manual, that manual on treatment of detainees did not include that provision and senator mccain gave that the force of law for the military and the entire u.s. government together with senator die kwlor feinstein. >> we don't you have been get you in the morning, largely because i think you don't like to be in the morning fray. >> it cuts out my workout time. i should be honest and up front. >> one has to be at the gym. you're normally on your pecs at 8:36. i want to ask you about north korea. the president canceled secretary mike pompeo's latest trip to north korea. where is this headed? do you think the united states had its hopes set too high? >> i t

>> the point, according to mike hayden who set up this practice, this procedure, is to have the clearanced it would involve some terrorists that condi rice knew about or had dealt with, or john brennan, they could then be read in very quickly on the current intel and not have to go through the whole process of getting them pre-cleared. >> on may 2nd, 2011, donald trump was busy hosting "celebrity apprentice" on nbc. john brennan was in the situation room overseeing the killing of osama bin laden which he had helped plan and organize. to lose his access to his expertise, to lose access to the wisdom and experience he has, is just the government cutting off its nose to spite donald trump's face. and that's really what's going on here. it's an effort by trump to exclude the ability of his government to talk to brennan, to punish brennan to send a signal. it's the kind of thing that really does happen in banana republics. it shouldn't happen in the united states. >> i wanted to switch to a democratic incumbent governor, andrew cuomo, running for reelection, challenged by cynthia nixon in the

and mike hayden, who i love and i worked for was critical of the obama administration's policies after he left office. so the question is, what is the line? and donald trump is taking this -- >> sean: there is a difference between being critical of the policies and talking about things that he would have had direct knowledge of and still question whether he -- if you have a clearance and you are talking about an investigation, an active investigation, it clouds the idea for the viewer to know whether or not you are speaking based on experience or your access to information. so it's one thing to be critical of overall policies. if brennan was talking about our foreign policy, that would be one thing could we would be having a completely different discussion. but the fact is he is talking about an active investigation about intelligence that he has had access to. he is not making it clear, he is not saying, i have not looked at anything new paid i have no new information. he is not allowing the viewer to discern what he knows is based on active intelligence that he has access to. >> mari

and so the fact that you have jim clapper, mike hayden, admiral mcraven out there really screaming fromrooftops metaphorically that this president is a threat to democratic institutions, that he's a threat to the rule of law, that should be a very dangerous and concerning warning to us as americans because these are people who would much prefer not to be on tv and to fall into the president's trap of sort of seeing this as just yet another partisan attack more deep state, swampy, swampness it really overlooks just how extraordinary and unprecedented these statements from so broad of an intelligence and military leadership is in american history. >> i will note, adam found this in his writings it has come up in discussions i've had and i wonder if you noticed the same thing, even though people support john brennan's choice to say the things he's saying, but the style. what are you hearing of what people think of that? >> as adam said, his personal style has been controversial. he's gone further than some of these other figures, but in some ways again, i think that that's just because we

is that the security clearance is for the benefit of john brennan, or the list of others, the mike haydensthe jim clappers. they're not getting any benefit from this. the reason they have those security clearances as legacy former senior officials in the intel community is to make it easier for them to consult on major issues that come up that could benefit the current officers there. i can virtually guarantee that gina haspel, like all her predecessors, reached out to the former directors of central intelligence to talk to them as she started her job to say what are the things you wish you would have known earlier, what are the mistakes you made that i can avoid early on? those conversations can still happen. she can call in john brennan to her office anytime she pleases. but it's a little bit easier with a security clearance. this isn't about john brennan, it's actually hurting the u.s. government by creating this new -- this new world that is hard to believe in where your political speech affects whether you're able to hold a security clearance. >> and as you put it, that speech is, its

to reserve that question for john, but i would be lying to you if i didn't tell you jim clapper, mike hayden and john brennan occasionally share thoughts. for all of us, particularly skbr john, he is the one now effected, it is not so much the direct personal effect as it is to the broader principle. if i can scope this for you, wolf, john is being denied something to which he would otherwise be entitled, is being denied it because of his political speech. that should be scary. and that's a very high principle. if anything draws john to litigation, i think it is the defense of that principle. >> the president is arguing by the words he has uttered, whether on television or on the internet and social media or whatever talking about john brennan, suggesting the president has been treasonous, for example, that would raise questions about potentially his mental state and as a result he shouldn't have security clearance. >> i reviewed the regulation that governs this. there are 13 criteria you could use to challenge someone's security clearance. i went through each of them carefully. none of them

punish critics, punish those who upset him in some fashion, whether it's john brennan, whether it's mike haydens bruce ohr. you see the president withdrawing security clearances or threatening to withdraw because of sort of petty partisan and personal interests. we've never seen that before. >> brennan says his concern is for current officials, the chilling effect for mid-level analysts who would be reluctant to send up in the presidential daily brief any critical information that north korea is not complying, as the u.n. and others are now saying, that russia is not doing what it's supposed to be doing. you know, that iran actually is observing the nuclear restrictions. >> exactly. there are any number of people in the -- currently in government, whether in the intelligence community or in the law enforcement community, who need to have clearances to do their jobs. and if the president is going to go after somebody who upsets the president, whether it's an intel analyst who brings information that the president doesn't want to hear, or a prosecutor pursuing a case that the president doesn't wa

fr ciaec for, former director of national security and mike hayden all appeared this morning in their roles at network contributors. we spoke earlier with former cia director leon panetta asked him why he opposed the president's actions? >> security clearances are critical to our national security. and decisions regarding security clearances ought to be based on national security issues. our concern now is that security clearances are going to be used as a political tool to go after people that the president doesn't agree with or issues that the president may not agree with. and we think that undermines the importance of security clearances particularly when it comes to national security. >> brennan: the white house has said that there are at least nine others under review in terms of potentially having their security clearances revoked. it is the president's prerogative to be able to do this. should it remain that way? >> well, the president obviously has power with regards to security clearances. but his power is also limited by an executive order that makes very clear that when it

. >>> before the break, miked hayden offer stinging criticism. of threats to pull his clearance and others. listen. >> that was a threat that was put out there from the white house press room. in essence, we're under review. that's simply telling us that we're all being watched. we need to be careful. now, frankly, i don't think that's going to affect any of us. but just the fact that the threat was made is very disappointing. and finally, anderson, one final thing, and that is the big one. this is the one that really matters. the white house just messaged the entire american intelligence community if you stand up and say things that upset the president or with which he disagrees, he will punish you. >> back with maggie haberman, david gergen and carl bernstein. maggie, you just heard michael hayden say this isn't going to change anything that he says about the president. clapper has said the same thing. how likely is it, do you think, that the president will do to them what he did to john bren n brennan? >> i think it's a possibility he'll conti

that's why mike hayden set up this procedure where they keep their clearances.n prenarnpr brennan a critic of the professionals if something came up with one of the terror suspects he had been chasing about or knows about in iran or elsewhere, and they needed to know more background and they had an arrest or had someone in rendition somewhere, they could call in john brennan and say let's show you this stuff and quickly what about this plot against new york or washington? that's the whole reason for keeping these clearances. >> donald trump will not be the last president and there will be future presidents who will appeal to these people with their credentials and sprt advertise and to rob them of that. >> if there's a threat out there. that's why this is so self-defeating. >> andrea mitchell, we'll be watching, andrea mitchell reports at noon. >>> still ahead on "morning joe" president trump says new york's governor is in the middle of a meltdown. this comes after andrew cuomo criticized the white house with rhetoric that missed the mark. we'll explain when "mo

you'll find confidence inspiring names like henry kissinger former cia chief michael hayden former acting cia had mike morrell and former bush era homeland security chief michael chertoff are on tire of interim recently sat down with saeed to discuss the slippery slope of facebook friends censorship. is this kind of push for the corporate policing of free speech. and political content a kind of his manifesto itself you know recently with kind of facebook executives teaming up with a group of the atlantic council to decide you know what is fake news and bad political speech and what is good news and good political speech. how many different ways is this a really bad idea it's it's unbelievably scary and. even if you take the worst case scenario view of what happened in two thousand and sixteen with russian meddling. this is a separate. and extremely terrifying political development that has been going on for a long time even independently again of the russian story because a huge part of what's happening now with this whole situation with facebook zapping sites that you know some think tank full of x e

white house that she believed mike flynn was compromised because he lied to the vice president as well as others. the one person who is kind of an outlier, michael hayden. he's the only person who did not serve in government during the trump campaign or afterwards. he has been a very vocal trump critic and apparently that meanings his security clearance could also be at risk. >> sarah murray, thanks very much. >>> ill considered and unprecedented. that's how 13 former senior national security officials describe the president's decision to revoke john brennan's security clearance. they call the president's allegations of wrongdoing, quote, baseless. for more on this sharp rebuke, let's bring in bill harlow, co-author of the book "hard measures." thanks very much for taking the time. first of all, i understand you have more news. >> that's true. the letter went out yesterday was done in a short period of time. it was sent out to the cia directors, deputy directors and dnis. not all of them got back in a timely fashion. just this morning, we heard back from two more. admiral denny blair and vice admiral burt callen, who have asked to add their names to th

james comey, michael hayden, sally yates, susan rice, andrew mccabe, peter strzok, lisa page and bruce ohr. >> reporter: one name not on the list, former national security adviser mike flynn pleading guilty to lying to the fbi of communications with russian officials yet the president never revoked his clearance. asked why he is not on the list, the white house deflecting today. >> again, certainly, we would look at those if we deemed it necessary and we'll keep you posted if the list is updated. >> reporter: the president's statement on clearances dated july 26th, nearly three weeks ago. but it was just announced today as the white house struggles to defend itself from a crisis of its own making. the fallout of omarosa's tell-all book. the president remaining behind closed doors today as he lashed out at the special counsel on twitter. calling the investigation a rigged russian witch hunt with no credibility. that as his lawyer rudy giuliani argues the facts are up to them. >> eye of the beholder? >> no. facts are not in the eye of the beholder. >> they are. >> now, john brennan responded, jim, saying he believes this is directly tied to the criticism of president