what might happen on capitol hill, mark warner, the top democrat on the senate intelligence committee did introduce an paemd would pre strength president from revoking security clearances. it s not clear that it would even come up for a vote let alone pass the senate. if he is going on start to strip more security clearances, then there may be more support for some sort of response. or at least being more clear on whether or not he has that authority. i think your point is exactly right. the president s comments about the discovery process and what could be learned, i think, go back to the time of lawsuit he is used to in new york and not the kind of legal case this would be if brennan goes forward with it. on that, our thanks to jonathan and sabrina. we really appreciate it. thank you both for coming. on coming up, as her husband positively scorches several individuals on twitter in just these past 24 hours, the first lady warns of the destructive and harmful aspects of social media
somehow limit the president s authority to revoke security clearances. because there isn t really a great deal of legal precedent for the packs the president has taken. and i think to the question of what might happen on capitol hill, mark warner, the top democrat on the senate intelligence committee did introduce an paemd would pre strength president from revoking security clearances. it s not clear that it would even come up for a vote let alone pass the senate. if he is going on start to strip more security clearances, then there may be more support for some sort of response. or at least being more clear on whether or not he has that authority. i think your point is exactly right. the president s comments about the discovery process and what could be learned, i think, go back to the time of lawsuit he is used to in new york and not the kind of legal case this would be if brennan goes forward with it.
the worst cia director in our country s history, brings a lawsuit. it will then be very easy to get all of his records, texts, e-mails and documents to show not only the poor job he did but how he was involved with the mueller-rigged witch hunt. he won t sue. president trump s lawyer rudy guilliani weighed in on twitter writing to john brennan. today president trump granted our request, jay sekulow and me, to handle your case. after threatening if you don t, it would be just like obama s red lines. come on, john, you re not a blowhard. oh, wow. so the top democrat on the senate intelligence committee is filing legislation that would prohibit president trump from revoking security clearances for political reasons. senator mark warner is offering an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that is currently under debate on the senate floor. warner said yesterday, quote, president trump is setting an extremely dangerous precedent. he s using the pours of his office in an attempt to
where this is the distraction from the president s alleged comments on race. it s a pretty dangerous distraction. and it s more than a drakz, it s trying to create a climate of fear among president trump s opponents by revoking clearances and insinuating things about the people whose clearances are being revoked. it s kind of freezing discussion. it could freeze discussion among very important experts in this country. about events, simply because they know the president might go after them. it is a distraction, but its implications are much more than that. walter, i think as the reporting is from the washington post, to hold these to use for optimum timing and distract from major stories, does that not hallow out the central argument for revoking security clearances if they
if trump loses, i m grabbing my musket. you have had criticism for the president, but this is pointed. why? it s to the point that i don t believe a single word that comes out of this president s mouth. that combined with the fact and it has been a fascinating discussion that you had the last half hour. this is one more example where this president has placed his own personal political interests above the security interests of the country. these revoking security clearances have absolutely as you said, nothing to do with the national security. it s all about trump and trump s politics. the whole russia investigation, jim, to begin with. russia attacked us. this bizarre world we are living in. we were attacked in 2016 and this president still doesn t believe that or acknowledge it or do anything to defend us.