in her reasoning or the president's reasoning for revoking his security clearance. it's august. the date on this is july 26th, 2018. they have obviously kept this around for the day that they needed to use it. >> they had it in their get out of do-do drawer. jonathan lemire brought that to us and it's remarkable even when they try to get themselves out of trouble, they step in it. >> nicolle wallace, thank you very much. great interview with john brennan. if it is wednesday, a disturbing distraction. good evening, i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd and welcome to "mtp daily." we begin tonight with a chilling action taken by the president of the united states that looks something like something you might see out of a dictatorship or authoritarian regime. this afternoon the white house announced that the president was revoking the security clearance of former cia director john brennan who's become an outspoken critic of the administration and is now a senior national security analyst here at nbc news. in doing so, the president also sent a warning shot to a number of his political critics. he's threatening to revoke the clearances of former intelligence chiefs like james clapper, james comey, michael hayden, andrew mccabe, all outspoken critics. and that's just a few of the nine individuals they are singling out right now in addition to brennan. the president's argument is that he's revoking brennan's clearance because brennan has somehow become something of a threat to national security. >> 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. mr. brennan has leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official 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. >> and here is what sarah sanders asked when asked about the sheer pettiness of this decision. >> how is this announcement by the president, how can americans not interpret that as a getting back against his critics? and 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 constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it. and that's what he's doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action. this is actually specific to mr. brennan and the others are currently under review. >> and if you believe that this decision was made because of the president's duty to protect americans, then i've got a bridge to sell you. it comes at a moment when the white house has lost control of the political narrative. one of the president's top aides, omarosa, is out there releasing secret audio tapes accusing the president of conspiring with wikileaks and confirming she spoke with bob mueller's team. the president's former campaign chief, paul manafort, is facing the possibility of life in prison for bank fraud and conspiracy. we're going to have a lot more on both of those stories ahead. but yeah, color us skeptical when amid all of that, the white house makes a list of its most outspoken political critics, retaliates against the person that is perhaps the most outspoken critic, threatens to retaliation against everyone else, and brazenly argues that there is nothing political about it. ned price is an nbc contributor and former spokesman for the national security council. he joins tonight's panel. phil bump is "washington post" political reporter, elise jordan is an msnbc political analyst and former aide to the george bush white house, and jonathan alter is an msnbc political analyst and "daily beast" columnist. john brennan was just in responding to nicolle wallace. i know some of that blendinged into this hour, but let's go back and listen to part of it one more time. >> is this an effort to try to kow individuals both inside and outside of the government to make sure that they don't say anything that either is critical of mr. trump or with which he disagrees? i've seen this type of behavior and actions on the part of foreign tyrants and decembspots autocrats many, many years during my cia and national security career. i never, ever thought i would see it here in the united states. >> and here is what he tweeted. this action is part of a broader effort by mr. trump to suppress freedom of speech and punish critics. it should gravely worry all americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. my principles are worth far more than clearances. i will not relent. he's talking about intelligence, ned, he's talking about freedom of speech. we should also note that the president has tried to threaten to revoke the tv license, the fcc license for television networks, including nbc, because he doesn't like what we report about him. >> this very much fits a pattern, katy. it's a pattern of authoritarian, creeping authoritarianism that we see on the part of president trump. we have long known that president trump admires people like the president of turkey, like the president of egypt, like the crown prince of saudi arabia, people who are able to exert absolute control or at least near absolute control over their societies. we have seen the president attempt to actually import some of those practices, most recently with this today. look, i am less concerned about those former senior government officials who are now outside government. those people know that the revocation of their security clearances doesn't revoke their first amendment rights. they, i'm sure, will continue to speak out, to say not classified information but their principles, what they know to be true. i am much more concerned as john brennan said about the chilling effect this will have on people who are still in government, people whose livelihoods depend on their access to classified information who see illegal, unethical, immoral behavior, and will now think twice, three times or perhaps not even go forward if they are compelled to make public what it is that they have seen in a responsible way. that's my real concern with this, katy. >> ned, the intelligence chiefs were not informed of this decision, according to our own andrea mitchell. john brennan says he hasn't heard from any government official since the president first threatened this and that he hasn't heard from any government official today after the white house announced it. he said he found out not through the current cia director, gina haspel, or somebody in the dni's office, he heard through sarah sanders who announced it on television. >> of course they weren't informed. that's precisely because this was not a national security decision. this was a political decision. and we know that precisely because of the statement that sarah sanders read from the podium. there were two words that you played that signalled that very clearly. she said john brennan's statements were outrageous and unfounded. a statement cannot both be classified and unfounded. and it used to be that jeopardizing classified information or sensitive sources and methods used to be the only metric for the consideration of the revocation of a security clearance. what she said today is that john brennan has been a critic of the president and she implicitly at least confirmed that he has not divulged classified information. so this is clearly a political move, a political stunt on the part of the president who of course didn't consult his national security team because this is not a national security decision. >> elise, what's more brazen, the president doing this or the president doing it in the name of national security? >> well, i think this is clearly a political move, but i really differ from everyone on this. i think that this is very low in the priority list of what our concerns should be. john brennan had no business still holding a security clearance if he is. proceeding in public as a commentator. all of his utility with the administration to go back and offer his counsel was blown because his relationship with the administration is so frayed so it had no real utility anymore. >> do you think that applies for everybody else that they're threatening? >> no, and i think that this shouldn't be a political decision. but i do think that clearances after the fact, why necessarily do people get to keep them? it just doesn't make any sense and the entire process is broken. >> but there is a point to people holding clearances still when a matter comes up in an agency that was dealt with in the past. those people go back and they give them their experience. >> yes, and they do -- >> and need a national security clearance to inform them. >> if they had a relationship with the previous administration but john brennan, it holds no utility anymore because his relationship is so frayed. >> i strongly disagree with that. you've got to have institutional memory. ned talked about the livelihoods of people in the intelligence community. we need to focus on the lives of americans and people overseas who are trying to protect from terrorists. the way we do that is with a first class intelligence service. how do you get a first class intelligence service? wise people who consult with otherwise people who have institutional memory who have been in the government in the past. if you say -- forget the president for a second. if you say the senior people at the cia, you're on your own. whatever happened, you know, with bin laden and all this in the past, you're not going to hear about the people who were on the bridge in those days. that really hurts them. and when it hurts their ability to analyze intelligence -- >> are you confident that john brennan would not be called bye-bye somebody who's not going to broadcast it to the administration. not going to call up the white house and say, hey, we're going to call john brennan in to get some information. maybe it's someone slightly lower level than gina haspel or maybe it's gina haspel herself. calling and saying i want to get your take on what's happening here. >> this is why intelligence officials stay fairly apolitical and fact based when they leave and john brennan has crossed that line by saying the president is treasonous even if that's opinion. in order for our intelligence services to be trusted and be seen as apolitical, there's a line and there are plenty of intelligence officials -- >> so the president is attacking our intelligence services. >> so it's more important than ever -- >> i'm not argue -- i take your point seriously and i don't think it's wrong one, but when you're talking about the intelligence services, you're not going to get very many people inside the intelligence services speaking up for themselves from their positions right now because the president is the president and part of your oath of office is you are -- i mean you are taking an oath of office to the country but you're also going to be in line with the administration. and if the intelligence services are being attacked, wouldn't you expect those who were formally a part of them and are now free to speak about them to come out and blow the whistle when they feel the whistle needs to be blown? >> i do. i think there's a line, though. you look at someone like michael hayden and he's done a pretty good job of not crossing that line. >> the white house is threatening him. >> he is. he said it doesn't influence my commentary. >> they have already taken away from john brennan. doesn't that say to ervlverybod else, shut your mouth, don't say anything about this administration and keep your clearance? >> we're getting so upset over elites. this is really about elites. everyone is fine with executive power when john brennan is the one calling drone strikes from the west wing. >> elise, it's about abuse of power. >> i think when you say everyone is fine with executive power when he's calling drone strikes is way overstated. there were a lot of folks out there who hate him for that and hate him for that decision and disagree vehemently for the way that that was done, so i think that's overstated. but i do think that regardless of how you feel about the way john brennan carried out his job while he was in office, i think this sort of thing is crossing a different line. it is a different rubicon. >> i absolutely think it's political. >> absolutely. and i think we see that when we look further down that list. we're talking about john brennan, who is obviously the most high profile person. but the other people are not only people who are not as high profile, some of them still work for the government and are only in the public's attention because they have been the subject of president trump's ire. bruce ohr. >> he was in devin nunes' memo, he had this relationship with fusion gps. that's why he is targeted and that is the bigger issue. yes, this brennan issue has potential repercussions but we're talking about donald trump picking out particular people that he doesn't like for particular reason its and saying they may be subject to punishment because they were involved in a thing that makes me look bad. >> so this is -- as john brennan said, this is banana republic stuff or banana republican stuff since so many republicans are acting like they're living in a banana republic. it's gross abuse of power. there's no precedent for it in american history except if you switch the lens a little bit. so what nixon did in auditing the tax returns of his enemies, wiretapping people inside the government who he didn't trust, it's in that department, right? that's the kind of thing that this is. when they impeached nixon, all of that was thrown into the rubric of abuse of power. if donald trump is impeached, and i think it's becoming more likely every day, this will be revisited because this is -- it's not illegal what he's done, but it is a gross abuse of power. >> but it is the precedent he's setting not just with this, but the requiring to sign nondisclosure agreements meaning you can never say anything negative about this white house. if it's ten years down the line, you're still bound by that nondisclosure agreement. that doesn't just apply to the president, it applies to his entire family and any asset. >> it can't be enforced at all. >> it can't be enforced. >> but the fact that he thinks he can enforce it or wants to give the impression to those staffers that they need to legally -- they're legally bound to say good things about him. >> and if you have a junior staffer who has seen something, are they going to hire a lawyer to fight this nda or are they going to say i don't want to take the risk of paying millions of dollars. >> people should know there are strong whistleblower statutes and other laws that protect people disclosing things from the government. >> this statement, guys, i know i said it at the top of the hour, i'll say it again, was crafted on july 26th. >> it's political -- this is clearly a political move, but i do hope in general we can reexpect the clearance process and how people maintain their clearances in the aftermath. >> i don't think you're wrong about that, but i wonder if this sort of thing is just allowed to keep happening and nobody speaks up, nobody in the republican party speaks up, what happens down the line? not only when donald trump is president, what happens with the next president or the president after that and where does the line keep moving? and then at what point do we become a country where percent can you g -- persecuting your political opponents is common place. >> we need a congress that puts a check and balance on the executive and reins some of the executive power that's been running amok. and when republicans in power, republicans embrace it. when democrats are in power, democrats embrace it. now is a great time for us to look at some of the underlying systemic failures of our system. >> well said. ned price, thank you very much. sorry you got lost in that. philip, elise and jonathan, stay with us. ahead, the jury in the paul manafort trial is about to get the case. we'll have a live update from the courthouse, next. where i'd be right now... aah! ...i would have said you were crazy. but so began the year of me. i discovered the true meaning of paperless discounts... and the indescribable rush of saving drivers an average of $620. why does fear feel so good? i fell in love three times -- once with a woman, once with a country, and finally... with myself. -so, do you have anything to declare or not? -isn't that what i'm doing? this is a story about mailng to declare or not? and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. i do. check out the new united explorer card. saving on this! saving on this! saving in here. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com welcome back. you're looking at a live picture or you will be in a moment of the federal courthouse in virginia where closing arguments just wrapped up in the paul manafort trial. now the jury is getting instructions and soon the case will be in their hands. the stakes could not be higher. we cannot lose sight of the fact that the person who ran the winning presidential campaign could go to jail for the rest of his life, depending on what that jury decides. and this isn't just about the fate of president trump's former campaign chairman. if he is convicted on the 18 counts of tax and bank fraud. the credibility of the rest of special counsel robert mueller's investigation is on the line as well. julia ainsley is an nbc national security and justice reporter. she is also our eyes and ears inside the manafort trial. and harry litman is a former u.s. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general. julia, tell us about how both sides made their closing arguments today. >> we heard a really firm case from the prosecution. they took an hour and 45 minutes to walk through everything that paul manafort did on bank fraud, on tax evasion and on not giving the information he should have on his foreign bank accounts. the defense really put a lot of their eggs in the basket of discrediting rick gates. they wanted to say he is the one who led this double life, he stole from his boss. you can't believe what he is saying and they said that the prosecution is actually kind of nit-picking and cobbling together some evidence that they wouldn't have brought otherwise if it hadn't been for the special counsel's office. they said that's the only reason why we're here is because of the special counsel's office. but then there was a rebuttal from the prosecution. one of the things that they said, katy, is, look, rick gates is not a boy scout. we didn't pick him, paul manafort did. he picked someone who would do criminal activity because he is a criminal himself. but they said take everything he said aside, it is consistent with all the documents we have shown you. now we're going through the very end of jury instructions. the judge is giving those orally, which is a little unusual, and a little problematic because they'll have to go back and listen to everything he said on tape rather than having that in their hands. and then we can expect deliberations to begin sometime tomorrow, katy. >> and how much -- harry, how much is this going to weigh on the entire credibility of the mueller investigation? if the jury does not come back with a guilty plea, does that discredit the broader investigation, even if they come back with 17 guilty verdicts and one not guilty verdict, is that going to hurt robert mueller? >> 17-1 i think will be fine. and there's zero chance here of an acquittal. so that can't happen. the one possibility is will there be some kind of holdout juror, not based on the evidence but for some kind of, you know, jury nullification reason. it shouldn't hurt mueller who's come through with a basically bulletproof case and has proven it and really the defense had nothing to counter it with today. but i think so. i think if there is a holdout jury and a mistrial, it will generally hurt him. conversely, if there's a solid conviction here, i think it will mu muffle the cries of witch hunt even further. >> harry, zero chance they'll come back with acquittal? >> zero. >> why zero? >> the case is overwhelming. there was a little bit of a mystery at the beginning here why is manafort going forward with such evidence against him. and the answer is does he have something special up his sleeve? the answer is clearly no. it really was an overwhelming case and it's so strong on paper. the best line of the day, greg andres, the star witnesses here are the documents. the evidence to all observers, anyone who's watched it from the beginning, is overwhelming. and i think the only possibility -- there wouldn't even be more than one or two holdouts. that is the best hope now, however, for manafort. there's just -- there's just no possible road to acquittal. >> interestingly, rudy giuliani seemed to suggest last night that robert mueller's team has not gotten back on giuliani's proposal and the scope for a presidential sitdown because they're waiting for the manafort trial to end. here's what he said on cnn. >> are you any closer to having a deal with mueller to sit down? >> no. haven't heard from him in a week. >> how do you interpret that? >> i think they're waiting for the -- i hate to bring up the case, i think they're waiting for the manafort case. i think they feel if they win, they're going to be empowered. >> you know, i wonder what the government thinks, and by the government i mean i wonder what rudy giuliani, the president's team of lawyers, think when they watch the manafort trial, when they get the updates on the manafort trial, and all of the evidence that's been submitted by mueller's team against paul manafort. the 27 witnesses to back up their argument. do you think, harry, that that's the sort of thing that would make them nervous? >> sure. i mean for the reasons i said. and also because it begins to have at the end of the evidence a little bit of an inroad into the story of the campaign because that last loan, remember, is engineered by manafort's trying to arrange for a position. i should say on the giuliani point, right, there's no reason at all that mueller couldn't be discussing it with him and now we have that artificial deadline coming at september 1st, that they couldn't possibly have an interview after that. so i think it's all just meant to gin up an argument that we can't have an argument for some excuse other than we don't want to have an interview. >> and we will wait and see what happens with this jury. julia ainsley, harry litman, thank you very much. a red alert over a blue wave. judging by last night's primary results, maybe not. and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen by funding scientific breakthroughs, advancing public policy, and providing local support to those living with the disease and their caregivers. but we won't get there without you. join the fight with the alzheimer's association. gimme two minutes. and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... [mmm pizza...] is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent... medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... that's on you. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. wanna learn more? it's easy. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now and ask... for this free decision guide. inside you'll find the range of aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates. apply any time, too. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed. none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you- anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids, stay awhile... enjoy... and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor who accepts medicare patients. so call unitedhealthcare today. they are committed to being there for you. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice. it allows you to choose any doctor, who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for this free decision guide. cyou might or joints.hingay for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. welcome back to "mtp daily." alex jones will not be tweeting for the next week. twitter suspended the conspiracy theorist after he tweeted a link to a video that twitter said violated its rules against inciting violence. nbc's lester holt asked twitter's ceo, jack dorsey, about the video and jones' suspension in an exclusive interview. >> alex jones on twitter posted this week what essentially is a video calling for people to get their battle rifles ready against the media, saying it's time to act. it's got to be done now. move criminally against people. it sent a chill up my spine. how about yours? >> it did. there's a number of actions that we believe help a call to incitement to violence and those are the things that we need to make sure we're taking action on. >> you've taken action against him in this instance. can you tell us what it is? >> i believe we put him in a time-out. removing his ability to tweet for a time period. >> a time-out seems minor compared to the implications of someone suggesting a call to arms against a particular group, in this case the media. how do you respond to that? >> well, i feel any suspension, whether it be a permanent one or a temporary one makes someone think about their actions and their behaviors. >> do you think alex jones is going to change his behavior based on a time-out? >> i don't know. we have found that it does have the potential to change -- impact and change behavior, so whether it works within this case to change some of those behaviors and change some of those actions, i don't know, but this is consistent with how we enforce. >> you can see much more of lester holt's exclusive interview with twitter ceo jack dorsey tonight on nbc nightly news. we'll be right back. see that's funny, i thought you traded options. i'm not really a wall street guy. what's the hesitation? eh, it just feels too complicated, you know? well sure, at first, but jj can help you with that. jj, will you break it down for this gentleman? hey, ian. you know, at td ameritrade, we can walk you through your options trades step by step until you're comfortable. i could be up for that. that's taking options trading from wall st. to main st. hey guys, wanna play some pool? eh, i'm not really a pool guy. what's the hesitation? it's just complicated. step-by-step options trading support from td ameritrade welcome back. another round of primaries in the books, another round of alarm bells for republicans this november. last night's primaries in connecticut, minnesota, vermont and wisconsin showed robust democratic turnout and another big blow for the trump skeptic wing of the republican party. former minnesota republican governor tim pawlenty was defeated in the bid for his old office by a candidate who sounded like president trump. and in wisconsin, about 80,000 more gubernatorial ballots were cast for democrats than republicans in governor scott walker's bid for a third term. if this republican environment carries on to november, is the gop looking at a midterm disaster? joining me now at the big board is, who else, but nbc news national political correspondent, steve kornacki along with our panel, phil bump, elise jordan, jonathan alter. steve, first to you. take it away. >> well, you mentioned the governor's races there in the upper midwest. minnesota, interesting story there. pawlenty obviously going down, quite a fall for him. two-term governor, former presidential candidate loses this republican primary. you mentioned the trump dynamic. johnson certainly trying to run to pawlenty's right in this thing. trump became a bit of an issue and both of them had very negative things to say about donald trump back in 2016. in 2018, it seemed they both wanted to get as far as they could away from those comments. but jeff johnson knocking off tim pawlenty and republicans thinking the reason they worked so hard to recruit pawlenty into the race was they thought, hey, minnesota is a tough road to hoe for democrats, but maybe pawlenty was the guy that could do it. now they'll have to do it with johnson. a lot of conventional wisdom is that could hurt their odds. the other thing is who do the democrats nominate? they nominated tim walz, a congressman for a district that went for trump by 15 points in 2016 down in the rural southern part of minnesota. so he's got some appeal to the trump, to the republican parts of the state. that could help him as well. the other big marquee governor's race, you mentioned it in the upper midwest, wisconsin. we will be talking a lot about this in the fall. scott walker, democrats couldn't beat him in 2010 when he first ran. they couldn't beat him when they tried to recall him in 2012, they couldn't beat him in 2014. now democrats have a candidate to go after him for a fourth time. tony evers nominated last night. we have a poll taken on that race very recently. it's not that button, let's see if this works. there it is. tony evers, our poll, our nbc/marist poll has him starting 13 points ahead of scott walker. here's the bottom line with walker. the bottom line with walker, 2010 and 2014 when he won and when he was re-elected, those were extremely favorable national midterm climates for the republican party. now walker running for a third term, he faces the prospect of running in a democratic climate. he hasn't had to do that before. we will see. early on, our polling certainly favorable to the democrat. boy, this thing has a life of its own. >> steve, you have a possessed big board. >> i don't know what it is. electromagnetic energy or something. >> maybe you have static on your shirt, who knows. panel, okay, tim pawlenty more not of the republican wing of the democratic party -- i'm sorry not of the trump wing of the republican party. interesting, though, his contender, johnson, who won basically said that he wasn't loyal to trump enough, as in he didn't stand by him during the "access hollywood" tape. he even ran an ad criticizing pawlenty for not standing by the president in his most reprehensible moment, that "access hollywood" tape. >> this is a sign and pawlenty referred to this as he was leaving the stage. he said this is now essentially trump's party. he made reference to the fact that what johnson did is not necessarily embrace donald trump or try to emulate donald trump. what he did instead was he tried to appeal to the fact that donald trump is extremely popular among republican voters, including in minnesota where he has an 86% approval rating according to a recent poll. johnson understood that the way to win a republican primary is to hug donald trump as tightly as you can. you don't have to be trump, but you have to show that you love trump. that's what he did and he ran that ad. there were a lot of other issues with pawlenty. he was a more moderate guy than voters tend to be looking for but that's what he did and it's a strategy we've seen happen over and over in republican primaries with success. >> i get that being successful for a republican primary. what does it mean for a general election? >> it means that the republican candidate for governor in minnesota is very likely to lose probably. it also means that you're going to see the continued coward's row on capitol hill among republican lawmakers who are not going to stand up to donald trump. you hear constantly, well, what is going to be enough for republicans on the hill to finally stand up? look at what happened yesterday. look at what has happened in these special elections and other primaries, and that's your answer. >> what will happen after november if there's a thumping? right now there are lemmings going right over the cliff. what happens when they actually hit the bottom and basically commit suicide as a party or partial suicide. at that point do some of them start to get the message that this is a pretty dumb approach for them in the medium and long term or do they continue to in a tribal way -- >> they're politicians. they'll do what's politically advantageous. >> i disagree. they will also have just gotten a lesson that all of them won in a tough pro democratic election cycle. they all won re-election. if you are a house republican sitting in a district that is r plus 12 at this point in time, you survive this election cycle and go into next year, your base is still probably going to love donald trump, barring what happens with robert mueller. your base still will love him, you won re-election. why would you the next two years buck donald trump. >> you lost the gavel. you want the gavel back. >> but those who win will be of the more radical faction and are going to dig in. >> so in vermont we're seeing some real signs of real progressive democrats winning and gaining steam. democrat christine hallquist won her party's gubernatorial nomination and she's going to face governor phil scott. hallquist is the first transgender woman to win a primary. are these -- are these the democratic candidates of the future? are democrats just better at embracing the change of this country, the way we are moving forward than the republicans are? >> well, they haven't -- first of all, she's likely to lose to phil scott, who's leading in the polls. he's a more moderate republican. he's pretty popular. but as a general matter, yes, the democrats for a while now have been the party of diversity. and that is a good thing in many ways. the problem is if identity politics push out other themes and then they just become a party of diversity and identity, then they're back in the ditch again. >> interestingly though, steve, you have hallquist on the one hand but when you look at the democratic candidates being put up in the midwest, a lot of them are run-of-the-mill, middle of the road white candidates. >> you know, it's interesting too. the vermont story is -- every time gun control sort of comes into the news, you hear this refrain from democrats. why won't republicans stand up for the nra? vermont to me is actually a little bit of a lesson in that because phil scott, a republican in april, he signed gun control legislation in vermont, a rural state, huge gun owning state. even bernie sanders, howard dean, democrats in vermont, they have been pretty pro gun. and what happened to scott is the polling out there show scott is now more popular with democrats than with republicans. i think one of the reasons you got this dynamic and he's so favored to win is a lot of big-name democrats in vermont just decided, you know what, i'm not going to run against phil scott this year and threw the nomination wide open. so in some ways it's the answer to the question, what happens when a republican actually bucks the nra and sort of comes around to that view on gun control. in vermont, it made phil scott more popular with the other party than with his own party. >> very interesting. steve kornacki, thank you very much. panel, you are sticking around, i haven't released you yet. you can't leave. ahead, kansas finally has a republican gubernatorial primary winner, but could the drama only be beginning for the gop? for just $59... ancestrydna can open you to a world of new cultures to explore. with two times more detail than any other dna test... you can get a new taste of your heritage. save 40% with our lowest price ever. directly to investors. and now we have zero account fees for brokerage accounts. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪ welcome back. in today's "meet the midterms" one electoral nightmare is over for kansas republicans, but another one may be just beginning. after an ugly week of back and forth over the integrity of the vote count, the republican gubernatorial primary is finally over. governor jeff colyer conceded the race to secretary of state kris kobach last night, but now the new nightmare for republicans is whether kobach, a staunch ally of president trump, will be too polarizing for moderate voters in november. kobach on the ballot could allow democrats to pick up the governorship in kansas and could even put republicans at risk to lose two house seats there. kobach told the "kansas city star" that trump's endorsement tweet the night before the election was, quote, absolutely crucial in turning out votes. and the president congratulated kobach in a tweet giving him his, quote, complete and total endorsement. kobach will face democrat state senator laura kelly and independent greg orman in november. we'll be right back. time now for "the lid." the panel is back, phil bump, lea elise jordan to take omarosa out of the headlines today. let's talk about omarosa. clearly they're worried about. the president's worried about it. he's tweeting about it. they pulled up the john brennan thing today, even though it was dated july 26th. politico, living in fear of omarosa's next tape. >> this may become a new head with the release of the book, it's fascinating to see the dynamic since 2016, someone's got dirt and they trickle it out. it started with hillary clinton e-mails, wikileaks did the same thing. and now the russia investigation, trump a little trickling out of the russia investigation, but this is the new standard in washington, d.c. now it is being turned against donald trump by omarosa very successfully in a way we're left wondering what else she's got. >> it makes me wonder how calculating she was about recording throughout the campaign and throughout her time in the administration, and if she was brazen enough to go inside the white house situation room and record the white house chief of staff, if i'm a trump staffer who was possibly recorded, i'm pretty nervous right now. >> tapes, that's nixon, watergate, impeachment, that's what it conjures for people. i also think that she has hinted that this friend in los angeles that she's been talking about really might have this tape with the "n" word on it. >> what's that tape going to do? what more do people need to know about donald trump? >> if they detonate it not long before the midterms, it could depress turnout on the republican side even more. >> it's not a bad point. i do want to play brian killmead on fox & friends this morning saying omarosa is beating the president in his own game. >> in order to sell a book, she's come out with a series of tapes, seems to have outsmarted the president who has taken the bait and gone out and tweeted directly after it. >> oh, my god, to be donald trump watching, to watch donald trump as he watched fox & friends this morning. >> it's like seeing the cheerleader clapping for the other team's touchdown is what that is. >> it is remarkable to watch his preferred, his chosen network say, hey listen, this is not so great. >> e. >> how many tweets yesterday, eight about omarosa? >> eight? >> this is a level of concern when you've got fox & friends striking a low blow like that. >> and geraldo, if you've lost him, you've lost america. >> what did giuliani say, he's making threats to robert mueller saying, send out this damn report now so we can refute it and we can comment on it. it seems like they are getting nervous about this sort of thing, i mean, omarosa is talking about wikileaks, and how the president knew before wikileaks released it. here's what yugiuliani said. >> omarosa's restraint in doling out her nuggets of information is what has them on edge. >> manafort might be going to prison for the rest of his life. we'll see what the jury decides. you have his former, most -- one of his most loyal aides, secretly taping him and other staffers, and unloading it piece by piece, michael cohen, by the way, still hasn't been indicted, there's all this talk about whether he's going to coordinate or cooperate with sdny, will he cooperate with robert mueller? that is a lot of pressure on the president. also, his press secretary can't say he's never used the "n" word. >> the point on the mueller report is, it is -- i'd be amazed if it's released between now and the election. they have a dead zone that prosecutors use before elections in some cases, six weeks, eight weeks where they don't want to -- jim comey, notwithstanding, generally the policy is they don't want to do things that might -- >> aren't we in that time zone already? >> it sort of starts in september. but it is -- what you just said about michael cohen, they're not nearly done in mueller's office. so the idea, giuliani is dreaming. it's not going to happen in the next couple of weeks. >> it's worth remembering, too, that most everything we're hearing comes through giuliani's and trump team. i said this, he said this. we don't know what mueller is doing or thinking. keep in mind, all this back and forth is solely coming through the lens of what trump's team knows and says. >> so you think rudy giuliani might not know the facts? >> leave it on that. phil, elise, john, guys, thank you very much. ahead, fire and furious. ♪ ♪ ♪ let your perfect drive come together at the lincoln summer invitation sales event. get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models plus $1,000 bonus cash. chair, new laptop headphones, with free 24/7 tech support. yep, thanks guys. i think he might need some support. yes. start them off right. with the school supplies they need at low prices all summer long. like these for only a 25 cents at office depot officemax. aah! ...i would have said you were crazy. but so began the year of me. i discovered the true meaning of paperless discounts... and the indescribable rush of saving drivers an average of $620. why does fear feel so good? i fell in love three times -- once with a woman, once with a country, and finally... with myself. -so, do you have anything to declare or not? -isn't that what i'm doing? -so, do you have anything to declare or not? this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. in case you missed it, up is actually down. dogs are actually cats and wildfires are actually caused by the people trying to protect the wild. here's secretary of the interior ryan zinke. >> i've heard the climate change argument back and forth. this has nothing to do with climate change. this has to do with active forest management. the extreme environmentalists again have shut down public access. they talk about habitat, and yet they're willing to let it burn up. >> that is the secretary of the interior saying wildfires are caused, in part, by overzealous activists, but not by climate change. and perhaps he has a point. seriously, maybe what we need is less interior. zinke believes the logging industry should have more access to national forests. fewer trees means fewer chances for a wildfire. right, right? stop environmental groups. but i say we need to go further. the time has come for bold action. that's why we need to endanger more endangered species. some of them are very big and could eat us. we are protecting americans, people, stop animal activists. you want cleaner oceans, why? we should want filthier oceans, more polluted water, means fewer people would swim in it, fewer drowning victims. american lives saved. you're welcome. stop pollution opponents. don't litter, you say, i say do litter. more littering means more people would be needed to clean up the trash. good jobs for hard-working americans. stop anti-littering groups. why stop and fix the problem when you can stop the problem fixers? that's all for tonight, we'll be back tomorrow with more "mtp daily." "the beat" with ari melber starts right now, the problem himself. >> katy, good to see you. donald trump is under fire for nixonian enemies list tactics, the accusations of one former fbi official after the white house is publicly admitting it is retaliating against john brennan, stripping security clearance over his public criticism of trump. there is a cia official who used to brief mueller himself that