They join 30 National Security and intelligence chiefs who publicly rebuke the President Trump overnight in a rare joint statement writing we all agree that the president s action regarding john brennan and the threats of similar actions against other former officials has nothing to do with who should hold security clearances. Decisions on security clearances should be based on National Security concerns. The president stopped to defend himself. Action against brennan was directly linked to brennans involvement in the russia probe. There is no silence. If anything, i am giving him a bigger voice. Many people dont even know who he is. And now he has a bigger voice and that is okay with me. I like taking on voices like that. I have never respected him. This just came up lately and it is a disgusting thing, frankly. Look, i say it. I say it again. That whole situation is a rigged witch hunt. The president singled out the only official still in office whose security clearance is under review. Justice Department Lawyer named bruce orr. He is a disgrace. I suspect i will be taking it away quickly. I think bruce orr is a disgrace with his wife nelly. For him to be in the Justice Department and do what he did is a disgrace. A career employee of the Justice Department is no longer involved in the probe. Names on the list include james comey, andrew mccabe, sally yates and peter strozk. As Rachel Maddow points out last night, cutting off their access to classified information could have a direct impact. What if the practical effect of taking away security clearance of a formal official who was involved in the Russian Investigation is that you interfere with that former official accessing his or her own notes or files. What does that do to the ability to prepare for testimony and testify. We have good reason after all to think that a bunch of these people might have important things to say. He is not after his critics, he is after the witnesses. He is after the witnesses says rachel. She will be sitting down for a live interview with john brennan tonight. Get the whole investigation shut down. He is taking aim at Robert Mueller himself. Mr. Mueller has a lot of conflict. He is highly conflict. In fact comey is like his best friend. I could go into conflict after conflict. But sadly mr. Mueller is conflicted. But let him write his report. We did nothing. There is no collusion. For more on who the president is targeting. In the backlash, joined by natasha bertrand. And michael isikoff. It is always good when the president says something to go right out in front and call him out. This conflict after conflict and how conflicted Robert Mueller is, there is no evidence of that whatsoever. Of course not. And of course the Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein has said there is no conflict of interest that would prevent mueller from carrying out this investigation. What we are seeing is the president is clearly panicking. And repeating fox news talking points. That is something that the right wing media has been hammering on for the better part of a year. The same thing goes for this idea that mueller has a conflict of interest. We see the lengths that he is willing to go through. And we have seen that with the revoking John Brennans security clearance. That was a deliberate attempt to distract. Three weeks after when omarosa news was hitting that this finally released. Staffers at the white house are drafting new security clearance cancellations and determining when they would be most beneficial to be released. They are planning this around negative news cycle and politicizing this process and using it to make themselves look better during damaging media reports. Michael, in the beginning this looked like something petty and vindictive. It has taken on a sinister feel to it. The president has said it was about a russia investigation. This was the new lester holt moment. Now that he said this, tell me how this unfolds. The president failing to outwit his opponents has decided to use brute force. Sure. The brennan revocation, some of this is overwrought, the idea that it is stifling free speech is absurd. Brennan is coming on this network in an hour and speaking. The views are probably shared by most of your listeners. He is a former cia director and when he says the president is a demagogue who will end up on the dust bin of history. When he says the president is engaged in collusion, when he testified before congress that he was not aware of actual collusion. A lot of questions that people have within the Intelligence Community about what he was saying. He didnt use any classified information. 13 reasons why you can remove clearance. There is no process. That is a weird argument. It is not a weird argument. It is cool not to like it. It is not a weird argument. It is. Michael, michael, hold on. 13 reasons that you can take somebodys clearance away. There are no breaches of those. I dont disagree with that at all. But john brennan is not going to suffer because his security clearance is revoked. Can i make my point please. What is much more serious is the questions about bruce orr because he is a standing Justice Department official. And when you talk about basically eliminating anybodys do you process and revoking by president ial edict, somebody who is still in office, and still serving the government, that is a much more serious. The president has done something that is breached the process that you are supposed to use if you want to take somebodys security clearance away. What do you think the further implications are. We have seen these 13 write this letter and now seen another 60. They are concerned about greater implications not brennans free speech right. This slippery slope danger. Where you know, i agree with mike, i agree that John Brennans freedom of speech has not been stifled. The idea that the president is revoking security clearance not because of National Security violation, but because that person has been critical of the investigation. I think that is a precedent that is dangerous. And of course as mike said, this is also an important point. It is different now when you are talking about currently serving Justice Department official. That will completely hamstring his ability to do his job. That amounts him to losing his jo and be ability to carrying out his role as a Public Servant in response to him having a proper channel between chris steel and the Justice Department when this negotiations were still ongoing. This is a terrible precedent. I think the mcraven oped was not meant for example as a notice to the general public but plenty to convey two people who may be in the same position either current or former intelligence officials that this is a moment when you need to decide what they are going to do. Thanks to both of you for joining us. Admiral mcraven, the admiral overseeing the attack of osama bin laden. I am joined by former prosecutors. Lets examine this in terms of the dangers that this holds for the Mueller Investigation. Kim, the president has basically declared himself the emperor. Decided there are rules that dont apply to them. There are rules to follow if you want to take somebodys clearance away. The president feels he is not subject to that. Yeah. And i also teach constitutional law full time and i am writing a book on the constitution for regular people. And what is happening here is almost like an adolescence smashing the crystal in the house because he isnt getting what he wants. And the parents are standing by. Congress is not doing their job to make sure that the president stays within the boundaries of the constitution. Not just do you process but also First Amendment and i disagree in this idea that it matters at all whether john brennan himself his speech feels stifled. The founders of the constitution were clear that is a no. And the implications are very serious. 60 intelligence officials who are the grownups in the room. They dont have power anymore but saying this is not okay. This is career Public Servants who make decisions based on facts and law. And they are careful and judicious and the trump constituency needs to understand this cant be sustained anymore. Harry, as much as everybodys concern for john brennan, he has not been stifled one bit. I am very concerned about donald trump. Very concerned about every time he oversteps what we as a society have agreed the bounds are around the president , he seems to be able to do it again. And kim is right. The constitution lays out certain parameters of each branch. But we have a set of norms that we expect our elected officials to follow. Whether that is not engaging in business while you are president , or as the case is here, punishing people who are potential witnesses against you or public critics against you. By taking away security clearance and threatening implicitly other folks. It violates the norms that we have. And you know, attorney general sessions just said in the last couple of days that it is not the courts business to police what the president does. These days we havent seen that work. Oh, congress, no, Congress Pretty much out to pasture at this point. The framers created a republic that is a represented government. People will do crazy things and we need grownups in the room to make these decisions. The notions that the courts are not in position to judge constitutionality, flies in the face. There are two other branches that grade everybodys papers and that keeps us out of tyranny and that is what distinguishes our constitutions from the monarchy from our Founding Fathers fought so hard and died for to get away from. Senator mark warner says i will be introducing an amendment next week. He addresses the two issues. One is the arbitrarily revoking security clearance. Also the punishing and intimidating his critics. Two distinct issues going on. And one is norms and one is law. Two distinct issues going on. And one is norms and one is law. Thats right. And i think the idea of a new law would be a good idea. Particularly one that would give people a private right of action to say if you have been wrongly deprived of your security clearance that you can go into court as kim was saying, invoke the constitution, challenge the executive action, but a statute from Congress Seems like a step forward in allowing that do. Thank you both for being here tonight. Ahead, the president s move to revoke security clearance from critics receives condemnation. This isnt just any moving day. This is moving day with the best inhome wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. And this is moving day with Reliable Service appointments in a twohour window so youre up and running in no time. Show me decorating shows. This is staying connected with xfinity to make moving. Simple. Easy. Awesome. Stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and twohour appointment windows. Click, call or visit a store today. Another day in another stunning reaction from the Intelligence Community after President Trump unprecedented brazen revocation of brennans security clearance. Now been joined by 60 former cia officials who are voicing their deep concern over the president s accuracy. One of the cia official joins me now. Great to have you here. Tell us what was at the forefront of your thinking when you decided to join others of the Intelligence Community in this letter. I wanted to ensure that my signature was in the letter to say unequivocally i dont think it is okay. Tell me why that is the issue. What would happen if we applied political litmus tests to people who did the kind of work that you do. Then it would strictly be about ideology, Political Party and have nothing to do with National Security. I would say this if it was a letter that i had to sign saying the same thing about former president barack obama, president george bush. Any press in our history. I cant imagine anyone asking about loyalty. Even if he was, President Trump was opposed to John Brennans actions this is not the type of actions he should be taking. This is like retaliation against a former Government Official and that in and of itself is extremely dangerous. That is so dangerous. That is like a dictator or autocrat. Are you heartened by the response of intelligence chiefs or other officers like you who have had this response. This president has been attacking the Intelligence Community from the outset. Yeah. I mean i am very proud to be able to stand alongside my colleagues because if nothing else, the cia prides themselves in trying to be fair and objective. They try not to look at it through a lens of Political Party. That doesnt mean an individual cannot hold their own specific belief system. Nor should they. We have a mind, we should think. Absolutely, but at the same time when you are doing your job and delivering information, it shouldnt be done through that political lens. Let me ask you this. There is actually a process by which your security clearance can be revoked and there are valid reasons why that should need to be the case. There is a process. There is an ability for the person who is having their clearance revoke to appeal it or explain themselves. The president didnt even Pay Lip Service to this. Not at all. And from my impression, it seems to me that he has left us, and okay with if you left us, i can retaliate. This is literally about what he said in the public sphere. To be clear, one of those reasons that would justify somebody taking your clearance away is that if you mishandled. If you came on the show and said things that you are not entitled to say. No accusations that brennan did anything that would justify that. I am not aware of any accusations. I myself have gone through so many hoops to try to get my book cleared at this point. Making sure i go through a review process. I am doing everything i can to uphold my Security Agreement with the government. The president needs to abide by and respect the same types of rules that the rest of us have to. Nada, thanks for your time. Still ahead, the president makes comments about the trial and manafort himself. Right after this. Dont go away. I think the whole manafort trial is very sad. When you look at what is going on there, it is a very sad day for our country. He worked for me for a very short period of time. But you know what, he happens to be a very good person and i think it is very sad what they have done to Paul Manafort. Thank you very much. Today President Trump stood on the south lawn and lauded his former Campaign ChairPaul Manafort as the jury actively deliberating his fate. In his first trial. The man trump called a very good person. Lavishly paid. He faced second charges next month. Including conspiracy to defraud the United States. He was asked about pardoning. I dont talk about that. Again, the president made while the jury was still deliberating. Really appreciates the support of President Trump. The jury will return on monday. Joining me now is Daniel Goldman. Lets clear something up. Not common in a federal case for a jury to be sequestered. The fact is they can be exposed to it. In theory, they can. But they would be violating their oath as jurors. The implications of what the president said today is unlikely to reach the jury and should not reach the jury. The judge every morning asks them if they have upheld their duty and not read anything or watched anything. Certainly Paul Manafort heard it and no question there is a message being sent from the president to Paul Manafort. And interesting message, asking about a pardon, i dont discuss that. Now he says. Has not made a deal as of now. And some people speculate that could be one of those reasons. I am one of them. I think, even though his lawyers seem to have a reason why he would have two cases, it doesnt make sense to choose to have two separate cases in two trials. The defendant doesnt get benefits of having two bites of the apple because one conviction could send him to the jail. Given that we have a president who has said in the past, when people are treated unfairly that is a predicate to pardon them. He says it is a sad day for our country. Comparing manaforts situation as al capone. And given his own track regard that this president is dangling the idea of a pardon for Paul Manafort. And laying the groundwork for other pardons that he has brought in. Jury deliberating for 12 hours. Does this mean anything to you. Some jurors who are not inclined to get into the weeds and go through all the documents. And then other jurors and this one appears to be like this type of jury that is going to do their job seriously. And not only surprising about, i wouldnt say surprising that it is taking this long, but surprising to me that there are few jury notes and in particular, they have not asked for the testimony of any witnesses which is very common in trials when juries like, you know, when they are debating wi