or three weeks, we will all just unload on him like a ton of bricks. as we wait to see sarah sanders from behind the podium, let me begin this hour with cnn senior political commentator david axelrod, used to serve as senior adviser to president obama. a pleasure as always to have you on, sir. >> hey there, brooke. what does it look like if they unload on him? what have they been doing for all these months it seems to me that would be a hard thing to distinguish. you know? >> day-to-day. i mean, just even thinking about this time yesterday, right? and it's like she poured gas on this fire when you had to have one of the reporters ask her the question, has the president, to your knowledge, ever said the "n" word, and, you know, she said the president had addressed it but also couldn't definitively say no. i've been in every room with him. and i am wondering first and foremost, what do you think sarah sanders is going to walk into today? >> yeah, well, i'm sure she's been lectured about this. it will be interesting if she changes her nuances on this. it really seems like she was trying to protect herself in that briefing yesterday. because there have been many times in the past where she has asserted things that turned out not to be true. and it was if she wanted to cover herself and kind of take out a little insurance policy in case -- >> in case he has -- >> something surfaces she didn't know about. excuse me? >> no, in case he had such -- >> exactly. absolutely. yeah, exactly. so that was an interesting moment. i think we'll look back at that moment and remember that moment. and i've always said, the toughest job in washington is to be donald trump's spokesperson, because you never know when the branch is going to get sawed off behind you. >> you said change her nuance. how would she change it today? >> yes. well, i don't know. i mean, she had to just make a harder assertion that such a tape didn't exist and such a statement has never been made. she clearly isn't confident about that. so i think that would be a tough thing for her to do. but i'm sure the president wasn't thrilled about the coverage of her briefing yesterday. >> i want to play a moment for you. this is charles blow, "new york times" opinion columnist, cnn political commentator. he was on our morning show here at cnn, and had this great conversation, thoughtful conversation, about what a lot of people are discussing, right, race in this country, the president, and he was talking about, you know, if there is -- if there is a tape of trump saying the "n" word that this is charles blow's thinking, it would increase support among trump supporters, and he added this. let me play it. >> if you're still supporting him after charlottesville, if you're still supporting him after what he said about haiti and an african country and still supporting him after what he said about mexicans, then this is what you want from him. >> you think his support -- again, it's a 42% -- all 42% are supporting him because of this rather than in spite of it? >> does it matter? that's the question. if you can turn a blind eye, because you don't have skin in that game -- >> literally. >> literally. right? your skin doesn't look like that. then that means you're part of it. you're complicit in it. it doesn't mean you have to wake up every morning actively hating someone. animus is not required for someone to be a racist or white supremacist. it is not. and that is a baking fallacy about it. people think you have to hate in order to arrange people in a hierarchy. no, you don't. you can just simply believe that is true. you can simply believe that racism and white supremacy produce better outcomes for everyone. that black and brown people will be better off too if white people are just in charge. if you just follow this man, what he wants to do, you'll be better off for this. people think like that. that 42% has turned a blind eye to what he's doing. or are they actively cheering it if you look at some of those rallies what he's doing. they're part of it. there is no separation from me between the person who has the racist philosophy and the person who supports the person with the racist philosophy. >> david? do you agree? >> well, look. there's no doubt that there's been ample evidence. this is not a new story. i mean, i'm of the mind if the tape surfaced, it would surprise no one. and charles is quite right, that the president's supporters have stuck with him through many, many chapters of evidence that he aids and abets racism in this country. and he exploits it for his own political purposes. i think the real issue is, does this contain his support, and i think there's some evidence of that, as well. you know, the president basically has been spinning his wheels in the high 30s to low 40s throughout his administration in terms of approval rating. we've seen a departure from the typical republican vote in communities around the country, particularly suburban communities, particularly among women. so i think that there are limits to the dog whistle politics. and every time one of these things surfaces, i think that hardens. so i'm not disagreeing that i don't think that tape will either shock people or change the view of his supporters. but i think it does make it even more difficult with each chapter added for him to grow his support. >> former president barack obama. you know him better than most. what do you think he is thinking right now? >> well, i think -- i don't need to interpret what he is thinking. and i wouldn't presume to speak for him. but, you know, he's someone who, a., believes in the institutions of our democracy, so the sullying and sundering of those institutions would be of great concern to him. and he's someone who ran for office on the premise that we share values and we share interests in each other as americans. and tried not to exploit but rather to build bridges between americans. and that's clearly not the policy of this president. and, of course, what is the policy of this president is trying to undo every policy that barack obama tried to implement as president. so whether it's the affordable care act or action to deal with climate change or any number of other things, the guiding principle of the trump administration has been to try and reverse that. and that's very popular with the president's political base. but i don't think i need to -- i don't need to address whether it's popular or not with the previous president. >> sure. sure. also thinking ahead to when we see sarah sanders. she too yesterday was sort of blaming the media for fixating on this whole omarosa story. but i would push back and others would push back, saying it's her boss. it's the president of the united states who, you know, in a time %-p. and so i am wondering, you know, this is about impulse control, right? or lack thereof? go ahead, david. >> well, first of all, i think it's deeper than just the fact that he tweeted eight times. he created omarosa as a public figure. as has been commented on and written about. she is in many ways in his image. she's playing the game the way he plays it. she is -- and so, you know, the thing that i think irritates him in part is that, you know, she was in his cast and she's turned on him. but she plays the same media game. and so he is responsible, not just because of the last eight tweets, but the fact is, you know, he was the one who raised her up and promoted her. and it does speak to -- and i think many things, the manafort trial going on. the michael cohen stuff. there's so many different chapters here. the president belittling his own attorney general, who two years ago was his closest political ally. you know, donald trump has surrounded himself -- he's created a world in his own image, and now it's coming back to haunt him. >> rudy guiliani, his personal attorney, was talking recently, and essentially admitting every time now that he's been coming on tv, the whole strategy -- we talked so much about it being pr. he says his strategy is to confuse everyone. here he was. >> he didn't know. i know he didn't know. >> and if he did? >> i know it, even beyond being his lawyer. >> if he knew, is it a problem? >> no. and -- >> no. >> no. he didn't know. i'm not going to get into the hypothetical. he did not know. >> okay. because you get into the hypothetical about mueller and the comey -- >> that confuses the hell out of people. >> if fact-counting is anything, we never had anybody with a level of mendacity he has. >> it's in the eye of the beholder. >> no, facts are not in the eye of the beholder. >> so saying, you know, he wants -- confusion is the point. that they'll unload on, you know, the special counsel if this whole thing isn't over in a couple of weeks. >> right. >> what has happened with rudy guiliani? >> well, look. i think this is his assignment, you know, collusion confusion is his assignment. >> trademark that, david axelrod. >> he's been at that from the very beginning. but, i mean, the thing that is breath taking is how often he contradicts himself. he was the one who suggested earlier that there was a conversation. now he says there wasn't a conversation. but i think the most telling thing he said was that, you know, facts are somehow fungible. that there are no -- there is no ultimate truth. there are no incontrovertible facts. that is the core philosophy of donald trump and his communications -- you know, approach, which is to try and dismiss inconvenient facts by introducing what kellyanne conway once called alternative facts. and that's -- rudy guiliani's become the master of that. he's not really there to represent the president in courts of law. he's there to represent the president on television. he speaks to the base. and he tries to throw smoke out there to somehow shroud the reality of what's going on. the one person who i don't think is clouded by all of this is probably bob mueller, whom i guess is not much interest in rudy guiliani's commentary, and is going about his business. and he'll either have a case to make or he won't. and i think he'll deliver it in due course, based on the work that he's doing and not based on some schedule that the president and his television lawyers throw out. >> david axelrod, fungible facts and collusion confusion. bumper stickers, perhaps. thank you so much. and just a quick note, as always, on david. thank you on the action files, guests include editors from the "washington post." saturday, 7:00 p.m. eastern right here on cnn. as we wait for sarah sanders, closing arguments are under way in the paul manafort trial. what the defense is telling the jury right now, and why they just mentioned the trump campaign. a live report, coming up next. we know what it's like to learn from the best. we know there's nothing quite like watching a son rise. we know that what's outside can change what's inside. we know the great outdoors. we love the great outdoors. bass pro shops and cabela's are proud to salute you, the great american hunter, with the fall hunting classic. offering you the best of the best deals, gear, and special events - to keep our tradition of conservation going strong. you wouldn't accept 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. so we know how to cover almost we've anything.st everything even "vengeful vermin." not so cute when they're angry. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ but how do i know if i'm i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar. everybody said what when the defense rested. closing arguments today but they just rested and i'm keer yus if you're sitting as a juror, how do you interpret that? >> i mean, i think you would be surprised that when you're in that role as juror, you take it very seriously. you take the instructions that the judge gives you very seriously. those instructions include the fact that you are not allowed to presume anything, good, bad or otherwise from a defendant's decision not to testify for example. as far as them not putting on a case. in some sense, too much is made of this because it's pretty common obviously from a defense standpoint to say for your defense to be my guy is innocent, sits here nnts and he's innocent unless and until the state can meet their very, very high burden and in this case they haven't done that. but also, there is a case to be put on. it might not be a direct case but it's a case through cross-examination. that's what was put on here. >> got it. rachel, thank you. david and gloria, don't go too far we're waiting for the briefing to happen at the white house. live pictures. quick break and we're back in a moment. i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. as we wait for that white house briefing to begin this afternoon, i have with me white house correspondent kaitlan collins, and abby phillip. let me start with you talking about the briefing that was yesterday and the rare mea culpa talking about african-american unemployment numbers. remind us about what happened. >> we don't often see sarah sanders correct herself in the way she did yesterday. as a justification for how the president's tweet about omarosa, the former white house aide who has written the tell-all book with stunning allegations about the president, she said that wasn't a racial tweet and she justified that by saying the president has really good numbers for african-american employment. in fact, she said the president's numbers were so good that he surpassed what barack obama did in his eight years in office saying he had only created about 200,000 or so jobs for african-americans. now, those numbers were wildly off. it's closer to 3 million jobs according to the labor department and that is something that the president's economic council advisory board later took the blame for, saying they had given sarah sanders the wrong numbers and she apologized on twitter. something she doesn't often do but she did do that last night. but it's the context of this, that the white house was using that to say the president's insult about a former staffer, one of the highest paid staffers in this white house and certainly one of the highest ranking african-american officials in this white house, that it wasn't a racial tweet. now, that wasn't the only defense they used yesterday but it comes as we've seen them really struggle to defend themselves in wake of the allegations in this book. some of the allegations that are certainly unsubstantiated but that is what they've been trying to do to defend themselves but certainly it doesn't seem to have been working in their favor so far. >> and abby, i was talking to david axelrod, talking about the briefing yesterday and he was saying, that's one of those briefings that we'll remember for a long time and part of the reason being, you have you know, a reporter actually asking the press secretary has she ever heard the president say the n word and it spiralled from there. are you surprised they are holding a briefing again today? >> it is a little bit surprising. first of all, brook, there have not been very many briefings at all this summer. the white house rarely held briefings as few as once a week or fewer than that. after what happened yesterday to see sarah sanders be willing to come out today, we don't know if she'll come out alone or bring someone else with her. it is interesting. the briefing was added about an hour ago, at the very last possible minute and it really is unusual for this white house on a number of different fronts, but, you know, this is a really important time for this white house perhaps to clean this whole mess up. they have this issue with a former staffer omarosa that they need to deal with, that the president i'm sure is urging his staffers to deal with more aggressively. and they also have to deal with the president himself and his own history around this issue of race and making sure that the narrative around that is what they want it to be. we'll see whether they take this opportunity to do that. but it's for us as reporters a really critical time to ask more questions. we also haven't seen the president for two days, so this is a key opportunity to present some of these questions to the white house. >> i can already hear people listening to you and thinking, how can they clean this one up? but we will watch and we will listen to sarah sanders momentarily. ladies, thank you so much. as we wait for the briefing to begin, the vatican has yet to weigh in after horrifying details about countless acts of alleged sex abuse by more than 300 priests in pennsylvania. we will hear from the survivors speaking out today. >> the work they put into uncovering the truth and allowing our truth to be told in this report is just breath taking. it's been so validating, so exciting and so healing. but i do have to mention that there's a hole in my soul that may never go away. tting a good ? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. . . . . good afternoon. i'd like to begin by reading a statement from the president. as the head of the executive branch and commander-in-chief, i have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation's classified information. including by controlling access to it. today in fulfilling that responsibility, i've decided to revoke the security clearance of john brennan, former director of the central intelligence agency. historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy. neither of these justifications supports mr. brennan's continued abeing sessto classified information. first, at this point in my administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with mr. brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior. second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him. mr. brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility. in 2014, for example, he denied to congress that cia officials are accessed the computer files of congressional staffers. he told the counsel foreign relations the cia would never do such a thing. the cia's inspector general, however, contradicted mr. brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency accessed congressional staffers' files. more recently, mr. brennan told congress that the intelligence community did not make use of the so-called steele dossier in an assessment regarding the 2016 election. an assertion contradicted by at least two other senior officials in the intelligence community and all of the facts. additionally, mr. brennan has recently leveraged his status with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the internet and television about this administration. mr. brennan's lying characterized by increasingly frenzying commentary is inconsistent to the closely held secrets and facilities, the very aim of our adversaries to create division and chaos. the security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our nation's most sensitive secrets, long after their time in government has ended. such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks. any access granted to our nation's secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal interest. for this reason, i have also begun to review the more general question of the access to classified information by government officials. as part of this review, i am evaluating action with respect to the following individuals. james clapper, james comey, michael haden, sally yates, susan rice, andrew mccabe, peter strzok, lisa page and bruce orr. security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked and those who have already lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated. it is for the foregoing reasons that i have exercised my constitutional authority to deny mr. brennan access to to classified information, and i will direct appropriate staff of the national security council to make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate agencies to implement this determination. with that, i'll take your questions. jonathan. >> sarah, i've got a question -- i wanted to ask -- first, just to follow up on that. is -- it seems like everybody that you mentioned has been a political critic of the president. is he going after his political opponents with this? >> no. if there were others that weren't, that we deemed necessary, we would certainly take a look and review those as well. >> okay. i wanted to ask you about something the president's attorney said. rudy guiliani said of special counsel robert mueller needs to write the damn report so we can see it and rebut it. and he said if it's not written within the next two or three weeks, quote, we will just unload on him like a ton of bricks. is the president okay with his attorney threatening the special counsel in this way? >> certainly we've made clear we would like to see this wrap-up for questions specific about comments by mr. guiliani i would refer you back to him. >> was that authorized by the president? >> once again, for questions specific about the investigation, particularly comments from rudy guiliani, i'd refer you back to him to address those. jeff. >> hey, sarah. following up on john's question, how is this announcement by the president -- how can americans not interpret that as a -- getting back against his critics? isn't it also an attempt to curtail their freedom of speech by penalizing them for being critical on television? >> not at all. the president has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information, and who has access to it. and that's what he is doing, is fulfilling that responsibility and this action. this is actually specific to mr. brennan, and the others are currently under review. >> is this the kind of president who wants to set for future presidents when his administration is out of office? and why are there no republicans on that list? >> once again, if we deemed it necessary, we would certainly look into that and be happy to review those. justin. >> i wanted to ask about turkey. but just to follow up on what jeff said. i guess the reason people would say this argument lends credibility, your former national security adviser admitted to lying to the fbi. why is this only a list of democrats who have been critical in the administration? and why should americans have confidence that you are taking this seriously if there's not a single republican on that list? >> again, certainly, we would look at those if we deemed it necessary. and we'll keep you posted if that list gets updated. >> so on turkey -- turkey announced today they're going to put tariffs on $1 billion of american goods. i'm wondering about your response to that and if there is any discussion internally about retaliation. >> the tariffs from turkey are certainly regrettable, and a step in the wrong direction. the tariffs that the united states placed on turkey were out of national security interest. theirs are out of retaliation. i'm not going to get ahead of anything on what we may or may not do in an effort to respond. but certainly we don't support turkey's decision to retaliate against us protecting our national security interest. >> an appeals court in turkey today denied pastor brunson's appeal to try to be released. does the administration view that as a new setback or maintaining the status quo? >> we feel that turkey and specifically president erdogan have treated pastor brunson who we know to be a very good person, and a strong christian, who has done nothing wrong. very unfairly. very badly. and it's something that we won't forget in the administration. jake. go ahead. >> thank you, sarah. so the administration has put off a robust defense for pastor brunson. there are tens of thousands of christians in north korea who have been imprisoned almost exclusively because of their religion. open door usa was considered the number one when it comes to christians. is this something that the administration has also been looking into? >> certainly, we would like to see any individual persecuted for their christian beliefs or imprisoned released. again we have been working with north korea on a number of fronts. that is something we would certainly like to see them change their behavior. [ inaudible question ] it's been discussed and something we would like to see their behavior changed. sorry, jake -- go ahead. >> although access has been reduced to over 90%, a as many as 30,000 isis members still exist in iraq and syria. what is the administration's take on this specific u.n. report and secondly, what would the administration consider an overall victory against isis? >> we would like to see every single member of isis defeated across the globe. i think that would be the ultimate victory. john, go ahead. >> thanks a lot, sarah. closing arguments are taking place across the river in alexandria, where the tax fraud trial of paul manafort. and in mid june, the president said that he felt badly for mr. plfr manafort, and he believes he's being treated unfairly. is the president still friends with mr. manafort? when was the last time he spoke with mr. manafort? >> i'm not aware of any recent conversations that they've had. >> blake. >> do you feel he's being treated unfairly? >> i think the president has made that clear in his previous comments. i don't have anything to add beyond that at this point. blake, go ahead. >> sarah, you said a couple minutes ago that the increased tariff levels with turkey were out of the national security interest. but when the president announced it on twitter last week or earlier this month, he said, quote, at the time -- our relations with turkey are not good at this time. the suggestion there being that this has to do with the pastor that is being held in turkey. simply put, if pastor brunson is allowed to leave turkey, do those tariff levels go away? is that kind of the deal that could be in place? >> no. the tariffs that are in place on steel would not be removed with the release of pastor brunson. the tariffs are specific to national security. the sanctions, however, that have been placed on turkey are specific to pastor brunson and others that we feel are being held unfairly. and we would consider that at that point. >> what -- in the interest of national security, what's changed over the last month or so with turkey that you're justifying national security? >> again, the president has been clear about the steel and aluminum industries. steel particularly in this case. that those are industries that must be protected. we must have the ability to reach certain levels of manufacturing those products here in the united states for the purposes of national security. john. >> thank you, sarah. i was going to ask about turkey, but based on your opening statement, i have to put out that the attorneys for former director comey and former deputy director mccabe say that their passes were automatically demagnetized the day they were separated from their office. two others, mr. clapper and general haden, have said they do not use the pass at all. and also, it's my understanding from an historical standpoint, this would be the first time the president himself removed the passes from anybody. that that has normally been done by agency heads or immediate superiors to people. have you considered all these things in the process you say you're going to? >> again, the other individuals -- those are being reviewed. that determination will be made at a later date. those that have already been revoked, it would be for the purpose of reviewing whether or not they should be reinstated or not. >> sarah? >> major. >> just so i understand the standard the president is applying, you outlined two areas of either contradictory or erroneous testimony from brennan. is that the only standard by which this administration is asserting he should have his security clearance revoked? >> again, i laid out the reasons in the opening statement. specific to director brennan. the others are currently under review. >> is that the standard? if you give erroneous testimony, you say something, you have to correct it at a certain date in the future. if you work for this administration, for example. otherwise you lose your security clearance. >> my understanding is this is being looked at on a ca case-by-case basis, which is why each individual is being reviewed and a determination made at this point. >> does this suggest brennan has misused classified information or monetized his access to it, which was alleged earlier by this administration? >> again, i've laid out the reasons for the decisions made on this specific instance. i will continue to review the other actions. andrew. >> but the absence of you not saying those things, you didn't find any evidence of that. >> no, i wouldn't make any assumptions. i'm telling you what the decision was based off. >> i want to follow up on a question yesterday about afghanistan. today -- there were 37 people killed in a school. a military base in the north has been overrun by the taliban. they have also seized parts of the capital. why do you think president trump's strategy in afghanistan is working? >> as always, we're going to continue to review and look at the best ways to move forward. i'll leave it to the department of defense to get into specifics about tactical situations on the ground. what i can tell you is that we're committed to finding a political solution to end the conflict in afghanistan. we're exploring all avenues for dialogue and close coordination with the afghan government. we're going to continue to do that. if we have announcements or changes in the policy, we'll certainly let you know. peter. >> to follow up on the turkey question, if i may. are you guys -- have you guys assessed whether the liquidity situation in turkey and turkey's financial sector is a risk, in light of the fall of the lira? it's fallen a quarter in the last three or four days. >> certainly we're monitoring the situation with respect to the turkish economy and the decline of the lira. but turkey's economic problems, those are a part of a long-term trend, something of its own making, and not the result of any actions the united states has taken. >> sarah? >> thank you, sarah. one of the individuals that you listed on that list, a clearance under review, is bruce ord. he's a current employee of the department of justice. so does the president believe he should be fired? >> i don't have any personnel announcements on that front. >> why did you put a security clearance under review, which would render him unable to do his job and not just fire him? >> once again, i don't have any personnel announcements. we're looking into that specific matter. peter. >> thank you, sarah. if people who criticize the president publicly on tv -- are they at greater risk of losing their security clearances than people who stay silent? >> once again, this is looked at on a case-by-case basis and we'll do an individual review and make that determination. kevin. >> a question about the lawmakers on capitol hill and then i'll follow up very quickly. now that they're back, can you sort of lay out the white house strategy for moving forward with this agenda? we've talked about wall funding. obviously a lot of people are curious about the kavanaugh nomination moving forward. daca and other issues. is there a strategy in place to begin to work with lawmakers now that they're back? >> certainly. we have continued ongoing conversations on a number of fronts with lawmakers, even while they were not here in washington. we are happy that hearing dates have been set for justice kavanaugh, and we look forward to seeing him get confirmed. >> my very quick followup was, first of all, you didn't mention anything about a possible shutdown. is that still something the president is continuing? and my follow was going to be on the farm bill. a great of people in a great number of states are curious about this work requirement, the usda is trying to implement. in some places they already have it. they say you have to work. in other areas, you don't have that requirement. is that something the white house still supports? >> something we still support in terms of a shutdown. i don't have any announcements on that front. we certainly still want to see a lot of things happen. we would love for congress to actually do its job, particularly when it comes to immigration. we have a completely broken system, and we would like to see them work with us to fix it. kathryn. >> thank you, sarah. >> i don't have any updates on that front right now. >> omarosa manigault newman was the highest ranking african-american staffer in the west wing. >> she actually didn't work in the west wing. but go ahead. >> no staffer has been appointed at that level since her absence. can you tell us exactly how many african-americans there are in this building? and is it a priority for the administration to reflect the diversity of the country? >> certainly. as i addressed yesterday, we value diversity, not just at the white house, but throughout the entire administration. and we're going to continue trying to diversify this staff. we have a large number of diverse staffers from various backgrounds, both race, religion, gender. >> how many black staffers are there in this building? >> i'm not going to do a count. the same way i'm not going to do a sitdown and count on the staffers that are in your news organizations. >> 13% of the country is african-american. >> and we would love to diversify our staff and continue to do so. we do think it's important. we're going to continue to work to make that happen. raquel? >> sarah, thank you very much. about the election last night. we are seeing the democrats embracing more diversity, choosing muslims, also candidates -- transgender candidates, rejecting the president's agenda. my question is, what do you think the impact will be of his agenda, and also this recent controversy about race and minorities on the election in november? >> again, i think people are looking at the policies that the individuals are implementing. and how those are going to affect the communities, and whether or not it's actually going to help individuals, people across this country. what that's what we're looking at and continue to do. eamon? >> i would like to ask a couple questions about the president's recent commends. one on harley-davidson. many owners plan to boycott the company if manufacturing moves overseas. is the president of the united states endorsing a boycott of an iconic american company? >> look, the president has made his feelings on that very clear. the president's focus is on making sure that we get good trade deals, and that we keep business and industry here in the united states. >> does he want to see a boycott of harley, though? >> i think he would rather see them put all their companies back here in the united states and build all of their great machines here in this country. thanks so much, guys. have a great day. >> all right. so the headline. you just heard from sarah sanders that this president has revoked the security clearance of the former cia chief, john brennan. and they have a mighty long list of others whose clearances they would like to revoke. the likes of james comey, jim clapper, lisa page, peter strzok. jim sciutto has some additional reporting to layer into this news we were all just hit with. jim, what do you have? >> reporter: brooke, i'm told by an official with knowledge that the director of national intelligence, dan coats, the nation's most senior intelligence official, and i should remind people, an official appointed by president trump, dan coats was not consulted by the white house or the president on this decision to revoke the former cia director, john brennan's clearance. remarkable. considering this is presumably an intelligence decision. and let's just be clear. that the decision to revoke clearances is normally reserved for situations in which someone abuses that clearance by, for instance, revealing classified material. this one. because when you go through that list of officials, brooke, you mentioned, john brennan, who has had it revoked already, but james clapper, james comey, sally yates. the one thing they have in common, of course, is public criticism of this president. this appears to be a political decision, not an intelligence decision. and perhaps backing that up is our reporting that the nation's senior most intelligence official, dan coats, was not consulted on this decision by the president. the other thing i would note, brooke, when you look at the officials in that list, together they have decades -- i'm talking about if you add it up, more than 100 years experience in intelligence. clapper himself, 50 years. this goes back to the vietnam war. james brennan -- john brennan, rather, was in the cia for 25 years. he was for a time the senior counterterrorism adviser to this president. the reason those officials keep their security clearances after they leave office is so that they can be consulted when there are issues of national security before an administration. for instance, a terror attack or trying to judge a nuclear agreement with north korea, et cetera. and there are reasons why officials at that level keep those security clearances so they can be consulted and be up to date on the latest intelligence. so this is truly a remarkable decision by this president. and, again, to do so without consulting his senior-most intelligence advisers. >> so -- >> the same dni we should add, consulted about the invitation of putin -- >> helsinki. >> the white house. so i'm not sure -- dan coats seems to be out of the loop. but i think jim is totally right. clearly, it points to the fact about what a political decision this is. listen, brooke, donald trump is a master at programming the cable television screens that he watches all day. >> our conversation just changed. >> that's what he's doing right now. this is to change the subject away from paul manafort and omarosa. and this is purely donald trump manipulating the conversation, knowing that he has the ability to do that. and that is what this is geared towards. >> david, but just to that point. you know, we often talk about how the president manages the message and the media circus, et cetera. this is a decision with consequence, right? because, again, there's a reason why the intelligence community draws on former intelligence officials and their experience, and in this case, remember, these are officials who served both democratic and republican administrations. several of them -- multiple democratic and republican administrations. and there's a reason they keep those security clearances, so that that experience can be drawn on when the country faces national security risks. and danger. so this may change the conversation, but when the country faces a national security threat, which it does today, it will have lost the input from some of the most experienced intelligence officials in the country. >> jim, totally. i don't want to lessen why this tradition exists. but i would love to know how much this administration has consulted this list of people. in its advisement throughout the entirety of this trump administration. >> well, you don't know. if there was a 9/11 attack, they might feel the need to. this is not the first time trump has ignored his senior-most and most experienced officials. as with the putin meeting. i'm just making the point, it's more than a messaging thing. this is a decision that has consequences in the intelligence community. >> all right, gentlemen. hang tight. abby, i want to hear from you. hit me. >> i think it's worth pointing out a couple of things that sarah sanders did and did not say in this briefing. she couldn't defend the criteria that she laid out for why the president revoked brennan's clearance. for example, she referenced erratic behavior on his part. she suggested that because he testified one thing before congress and changed his testimony or corrected his testimony, that that was among the reasons. she also used a very vague -- a very vague criteria, being that he used his status in order to -- his status -- taken from his former government service, in order to make money. now, these are such broad criteria that when she was asked individually about whether or not they were going to use that in other cases, she wouldn't say. that's really important, because they -- it is -- she went out there with a long list of things to say about brennan. but they cannot defend this criteria for all of the other people that they have put on this list. and, you know, we can talk about whether or not they used their clearances or not. some of them have not consulted with current officials. but that being said, this is a practice that goes back democratic administrations, republican administrations. no one has had a problem with this until president trump. john brennan was on television last night. he tweeted about the president's comments on twitter last night. he criticized the president. we know that that is something that bothers him. and this white house is not even trying to defend it. >> you know who is not on the list? mike flynn. mike flynn is not on the list. and he is not of that same ilk, shall we say, of these other names that we threw up on the screen. i have with me now one of the men on that target list, james clapper on the phone, former director of national intelligence. so director clapper, thank you so much for calling in. just first to you out of the gate. the news. last time you and i chatted on the phone, there was this threat from the white house to revoke the clearance, yours and brennan's and others. this has happened to john brennan. do you think this is a total stunt? >> well, yeah, i do. i mean, it seems they're kind of making up the criterion as they go here on a very individual basis. and as jim discussed, to the extent we have anything to offer, it has more to do with the -- our past experience, not insight and access to the current intelligence. at least for my part, i haven't had any acc