july, the white house press spokesperson talked about it from the briefing room, said explicitly that the reason this was being done was because of certain people, former officials criticizing the president with regard to russia. the white house spokesperson said that when they do that and they have security clearances it essentially gives an air of authority to those statements for which there is no evidence. that's essentially the white house admitting they have taken this action in response to people expressing themselves as a way of trying to undermine them and discredit them because they don't like the content of this former official's speech. to me, that screams first amendment challenge. i wonder, as unusual as this is, does this look like it will turn into a legal fight? will there be legal recourse for brannan or anybody else threatened in this way? >> i'm not sure they have a legal case. the president does have this