Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Reporting Indicate White House Counsel Don McGahn Extensively Interviewed by Special Counsel Mueller's Team; More Intelligence Officials Release Letter Criticizing President Trump's Decision to Revoke Security Clearance of John Brennan. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired August 20, 2018 - 8:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[08:00:00] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This as a key question looms. What did White House counsel Don McGahn tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigators? CNN has learned that McGahn's attorney did not give the president's lawyers a full account of what McGahn told Mueller's team. President Trump says McGahn is, quote, not a rat, and insists he allowed McGahn to be interviewed. The president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, he has a new reality bending argument for why the president should not testify to the special counsel. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he gets trapped into perjury. And when you tell me he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, that's so silly, because it's somebody's version of the truth not the truth. He didn't have a conversation --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Truth is truth. I don't mean to go --

GIULIANI: No, it isn't truth. Truth isn't truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Truth isn't truth is what Rudy Giuliani said over the weekend. Moments ago he issued a sort of clarification. Let me read this aloud to you. "My statement was not meant as a pontification on moral theology, but one referring to the situation where two people make precisely contradictory statements, the classic he said/she said puzzle," he says. "Sometimes further inquiry can reveal the truth, other times it doesn't." Can I say one thing?

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: I don't know.

BERMAN: I would never accuse Rudy Giuliani of professing any kind of moral the theology. That was not what I was suggesting here. I was merely saying he is trying to create a situation where there is no truth and that fact is not fact. And there's a pattern of it over time.

CAMEROTA: I hear your point, that there has been a pattern of it with this administration, but I heard Rudy Giuliani saying what he now says he said yesterday, which is that when there's two people in a room and they have a different story, how do you know what truth is? BERMAN: Evidence. Evidence.

CAMEROTA: One person's word against another. I understand the jury is tasked with finding the body of evidence, but sometimes it's hard to find the absolute truth.

BERMAN: Sometimes there are contemporaneous notes.

CAMEROTA: Sometimes there are.

BERMAN: And sometimes there are conversations --

CAMEROTA: Like I'm keeping right now.

BERMAN: Exactly. I see all this. I know what all this is. And that's why --

CAMEROTA: All I'm saying is that Rudy Giuliani sounds like he's on team Camerota this morning.

BERMAN: Moral theology. Once again, I wouldn't -- moral theology.

CAMEROTA: It's confusing.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump's longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen could learn his legal fate season. CNN can report that prosecutors are in the final stages ever their investigation and could be preparing criminal charges against Michael Cohen by the end of the month.

Joining us now with all of her latest reporting, and there is a lot of it, is Maggie Haberman, "New York Times" White House correspondent and CNN political analyst. Maggie, what is the truth?

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning. Well, Alisyn, I have to say I actually agree that I think what Giuliani was trying to say, but the problem is he has turned -- they have turned everything into a version of events where whatever is negative for Trump isn't real. And that's what they've been talking about for quite some time.

I agree with you what he was trying to say if it's a he said/she said, there's no independent arbiter. But normally speaking that's where you go to credibility, and as you know this president repeatedly says things that are not true. He has told many lies about a variety of topics, and Giuliani being on TV saying any number of different statements has not helped.

CAMEROTA: Maggie, first of all, thank you for being on team Camerota this morning, and thank you for stating it so much more cogently that I have.

HABERMAN: No thanks necessary.

CAMEROTA: Listen, we've been debating all morning how much of a mad hatter some of these folks' logic can sometimes be. But I heard what Rudy Giuliani I thought was trying to say yesterday, and it wasn't the highbrow, any sort of highbrow discussion about truth, I felt.

But in any event, the point of all of this, back to your reporting, is Don McGahn, the president's attorney in the White House. You have reported that he spoke for much longer than anybody knew to Robert Mueller's team, so you say 30 hours over the past I guess nine months. And is it your reporting -- first let me back up a little bit. First, it is your reporting that he felt compelled to do so. It's quite unusual for an attorney to do that. He could have exercised attorney- client privilege or presidential privilege, but he didn't. So why did he feel so compelled to talk to Robert Mueller's people?

HABERMAN: Because, to your point about what kind of privilege it is, it's executive privilege, he's the lawyer for the White House, not the lawyer for the president, which he has made clear to Donald Trump, to Donald Trump's chagrin over the course of many, many months. So that's one thing.

The other thing is he didn't exercise it because the president -- because the president and his then main lawyer, John Dowd, his personal lawyer, and Ty Cobb, who was working out the White House counsel's office and was the person dealing with the Mueller investigation, took the president at his word when the president said I did nothing wrong. And they laid, let people talk. This will clear this up soon. This will make this go fast.

[08:05:02] Don McGahn was afraid that he was being set up by this, that that was a decision to let him go in, and then if things went south, Trump would then say, look, I just got terrible advice from Don McGahn, and that's when I made the decision related to a number of issues such as firing Comey. That's how I did what I did. And so McGahn went in and he was quite open about a number of topics, including things that it's not clear Mueller would have known otherwise.

One of the things he talked about was the fact that Trump had told him to have Mueller dismissed last year. And I realize there has been a lot of pushback from people who are not privy to Don McGahn and Trump's private conversations who insist none of that ever happened. McGahn says to Mueller it did happen.

So that's where why he did what he did, and where it becomes a danger aside from the obvious, which is that you have an eyewitness who is now telling all kinds of things to special counsel investigating on possible obstruction, and also don't forget, investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Don McGahn was the lawyer for campaign. So I don't think that's irrelevant. But you end up in a situation where McGahn has been very deep in a lot of these conversations, is able to sort of shed some light on it, and he's been working in the White House this whole time. It's fascinating and very rare.

CAMEROTA: It is fascinating. And then Maggie, is it your reporting that he then after he then spoke to Robert Mueller's people came back to the White House and opened the kimono, so to speak, and disclosed to team Trump everything he shared? HABERMAN: That's the other piece of it. No. His lawyer did not give

a full blow by blow accounting of everything that McGahn had said. And before McGahn went in, and this is on the White House, they did not ask what he planned to say. John Dowd and Ty Cobb did not seek to find out.

CAMEROTA: And why not? That seems curious.

HABERMAN: That I can't speak to. I can't speak to why they did not think that was worth doing, but almost every lawyer I have spoken with has been aghast that that is how the process went.

CAMEROTA: OK, and then explain your reporting that after your initial reporting came out this weekend about how fulsome an accounting he gave, Don McGahn gave to Mueller's team, more than any of us had known, that the White House seemed to be caught off guard by that.

HABERMAN: Well, the White House was not fully aware, as you just noted, of what exactly was said by McGahn in the interviews, and they really didn't -- there's a difference between the White House and the lawyers. A lot of people in the White House are just fine not knowing what was said because they don't want to know and don't want to be sucked further into this. Trump's lawyers and some advisers did not know. Believe they have known. It is only becoming clear since our story that a lot more went on than they realized or they had been led to believe by McGahn's lawyer. They are now in a bit of a scramble to figure it out. I'm not sure they are going to.

So when Rudy Giuliani claims, well, John Dowd has a pretty good sense -- and John Dowd is not on the team anymore -- John Dowd has a pretty good sense of what was said, Giuliani is relying on Dowd, and Dowd, based on our reporting, does not.

CAMEROTA: OK. Thank you very much for sharing all of that. Next topic, Michael Cohen, the president's longtime personal attorney and fixer. You also have reporting on just what kind of legal trouble he may be in. You have more specifics. So what is he looking at now?

HABERMAN: What prosecutors are looking at in the southern district of New York is a potential bank fraud charge, basically improprieties related to $20 million worth of loans. Unclear whether that will also include, if they do go ahead that way, kind of a campaign finance violation, or if it would be related in terms of how he made the payment to Stormy Daniels, the porn star who had claimed an affair with President Trump who received a hush money payout from Michael Cohen. They might look at the method that that was done as opposed to simply a straight campaign finance violation.

I think the other question here is timing, obviously, and they are discussing whether to get this done by the end of this month. The end of this month is next week. They are looking at the window where we are within 60 days of an election approaching us fast, and I think there's a question of whether they want to go dark ahead of the election or get this done now.

CAMEROTA: So as you know, Michael Cohen also seems to be signaling publicly that he would be willing to talk to Robert Mueller's investigators. Do we have any sense on whether they are going to take them up on that?

[08:10:00] HABERMAN: We don't know. I think that it would depend whether he has a deal with the southern district of New York in terms of cooperation. It certainly doesn't seem at the moment as if he does, but these things are really hard to tell. It's really hard to tell when somebody is cooperating with the FBI. I've been reminded of this repeatedly by former prosecutors, that is still true. I think if he has a cooperation deal with the southern district of New York, which is the courthouse in lower Manhattan, federal court house, I think it would be contingent he would supply information to Mueller.

The question that is not clear is whether Mueller's investigators or prosecutors in the southern district think Michael Cohen has information of value, because it isn't just I'll cooperate and then you get a deal. You have to be able to offer something of value.

CAMEROTA: Maggie Haberman. Thank you very much for sharing all of your reporting with us this morning.

HABERMAN: Thanks, guys.

BERMAN: Thanks, even though Maggie says she's not on team Berman.

CAMEROTA: I know this has got to hurt.

BERMAN: But I'm on team Maggie. The important thing is I'm on team Maggie because allegedly she's on vacation, and all she's doing is burping out scoop after scoop after scoop. Some vacation. She's been on the byline of all these major stories over the last 48 hours.

CAMEROTA: I'm sure she appreciates that verb.

BERMAN: I'm on team Maggie.

CAMEROTA: Me too.

BERMAN: Despite the fact she has a misguided opinion about you.

More than 175 former officials signed a new statement this morning publicly condemning President Trump's decision to strip former CIA director John Brennan of his security clearance. Career diplomats, former defense officials have now joined the group of former intelligence officials who have already spoken out to say, quote, "Our signatures below do not necessarily mean that we conquer with the opinions expressed by former director Brennan or the way in which he expressed them. What they do represent, however, is our firm belief that the country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied before seasoned experts are allowed to share their views." This now means that more than 250 former officials have spoken out in, I guess, three letters now, spoking against the president's decision to retaliate against Brennan who has been very vocal still.

Joining me now is former CIA intelligence officer David Priess. He was one of 60 from CIA officials who signed the statement on Friday. I guess that was the second of the three. I've lost count. The important this is that more than 250 so far, and I suppose and going, have decided to speak out. Why do you think that is, David?

DAVID PRIESS, FORMER CIA OFFICER: John, that's one of the important things, is just the sheer number, including some people who don't speak out publicly on things like this and have not done so before. The other part of it is the breadth of it, the fact this is so wide. What happened is after some of us saw the letter that the former CIA directors and deputy directors had put out on Thursday, we wanted to add our voices to that, and we signed on to a very similar letter to theirs.

What was amazing was what developed organically after that is all of us who signed it started getting besieged by people calling to us, either former colleagues or people from across the wider national security community, saying how can I stand up and express the same feeling. So this letter developed to allow that.

What's amazing looking at it is there are no kidding Republicans on this list, and there are some no kidding Democrats on this list, but the vast majority of people on this list are completely nonpartisan, people who I don't even know their party affiliation but people who have served the national security of the United States in the past and said this violation of a longstanding norm of security clearances being outside of politics has to stop.

BERMAN: Let me ask you this. Each one of the letters seems to include this type of disclaimer, our signatures below do not mean we conquer with opinions expressed by former CIA director Brennan or the way in which he expressed them. Does that mean you are, am I right to infer you are uncomfortable with the way he's chosen to express his opinions?

PRIESS: There's a big division on this, because some people like both of the words he said and the tone that he uses. Many other people have said, because that in itself is different, because John Brennan is speaking out more publicly than CIA directors typically have before, and particularly in his tweets that he is taking a very different tone, some people have said, even if you feel that way, as a U.S. citizen entitled to speak those views, as former CIA director maybe you should back off.

BERMAN: What do you think?

PRIESS: That's really not the issue here. The issue isn't John Brennan.

BERMAN: But I think there are two separate issues, number one, you guys state very clearly and eloquently he has the right to do that.

PRIESS: Absolutely.

BERMAN: That is one argument. Another question is, does the manner in which he chooses to exercise that right make you comfortable or not? PRIESS: Yes, what he has done and what makes me uncomfortable and

some others uncomfortable is he has drawn the attention to himself and made it a John Brennan lightning rod situation. So as a matter of strategy, I wouldn't go the same direction. What instead he could do, make the same points but perhaps not as caustically.

What happened is a lot of people came to us and said I really don't like how he said things. But it's irrelevant to me, and frankly free speech cases are never people defending Thomas Jefferson. They're never people defending Gandhi types. It's always people defending the people who are pushing that envelope. And to the extent that he's pushed that envelope, OK, it's irrelevant. The issue isn't John Brennan here, the issue is the politicization of security clearances and national security norms.

JOHN BERMAN, ANCHOR, CNN NEW DAY: Let me put up --

PRIESS: We have (ph) --

BERMAN: Let me put up one of the other arguments that I've heard over the last several days, mostly from conservative critics here -- Scott Jennings, who's one of our here at CNN, someone who worked for Mitch McConnell points out, well if this is meant to muzzle free speech and stifle John Brennan, it's not working because he's still out there talking and talking a lot. He's done interview after interview, written letter after letter since losing his security clearance.

PRIESS: Right. That's a red herring because the government suppression of free speech isn't about whether somebody else will then talk about it later. That person or somebody else. The U.S. government could shut down all of the cable news networks and all of the newspapers in the country tomorrow and there would be new press outlets that would talk about that and claim that is wrong and give all of the people who did that new voices.

So you don't necessarily stifle the speech in the future but everybody would admit that that's -- that that's wrong. The government does not have the ability by the first amendment to stifle free speech. That's what this issue is. It's not whether John Brennan can then go out and say now I'm getting more attention to this cause. That's not the point of free speech and that's not the point, as far as I know, of anyone who has signed on to these letters.

BERMAN: You make the case this isn't about John Brennan. It may be about the rank and file, the thousands of others who may see things they want to speak out against.

PRIESS: And that is the other implication here, is people currently serving in national security positions aren't signing this letter and they shouldn't. There's no pride and joy on the part of us who have signed this. The people I've talked to who have signed these letters aren't happy to do this. The -- the -- the verb I keep hearing they're saddened by this, that -- that people feel that this is a shame to have to do this.

But there is some sense of pride in -- in two things. One is that some people currently serving have spoken out to some of the people who have signed this letter and said, thank you for saying things we can't say. But what makes me even more proud is I had a discussion with a currently serving officer who came to me and was talking about what was going on this weekend.

And I said, yes, crazy news this weekend about this stuff. And he said what are you talking about. Because he had been at work, doing his job most of the weekend with his head down, defending the national security of the United States and he didn't need to be distracted by all of this.

BERMAN: Let's hope that continues.

PRIESS: That's what we want to see.

BERMAN: Let's hope that continues. David Priest, thanks so much for being with us.

PRIESS: Thank you.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, ANCHOR, CNN NEW DAY: Great perspective there. Meanwhile, let's get to the verdict watch in Paul Manafort's bank and tax fraud trial. In about an hour jurors will return for a third day of deliberations. CNN's Jessica Schneider is live at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia. What are you seeing, Jessica?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Well, Alisyn, the waiting game continues out here at the federal court. 14 hours of deliberations down and it remains to be seen how many are left to go. The jury will reconvene here at 9:30 this morning. Now, the defense team for Paul Manafort has repeatedly said they believe the longer this jury deliberates, the better the odds are for Paul Manafort. But really, the truth out here is that this jury has a lot too consider.

They are going over 18 complicated counts including bank and tax fraud. They also have to sift through 388 documents, considering the testimony of 27 witnesses. We didn't hear too much from the jury last week. They sent two notes, one of them saying that they had four questions for judge, trying to figure out some of these complicated counts, but also asking this judge what is reasonable doubt.

That was the one question this judge gave an answer to. And he basically said look, these prosecutors have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They said it's not beyond all possible doubt, just reasonable doubt. So John, remains to be seen if that was any clarification for the jury, but they will be back at it at 9:30. John.

BERMAN: All right. Jessica Schneider for us in Alexandria. We're watching this very closely. The midterm elections about two months away. National Security Adviser John Bolton warns it's not just Russia trying to interfere. So who else is in on it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: President Trump suggested this weekend that people should turn their attention on election interference in a different direction, away from Russia. His national security adviser, John Bolton, seemed to concur as we all head into the midterms.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, DONALD TRUMP: I can say it's a sufficient national security concern about Chinese meddling, Iranian meddling and North Korean meddling that we're taking steps to try and prevent it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right. Joining us now to talk about all of this and more is former California Congresswoman Jane Harman, who served as Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee and former Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a CNN Global Affairs analyst. Great to see both of you. Jane, let me start with you. Does -- does John Bolton have a point, that we've all been so consumed with Russian interference that we have not paid enough attention to China and Chinese interference, Iranian interference, et cetera?

JANE HARMAN, FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN, CALIFORNIA: Well, we have. It's a slam dunk that there has been and is Russian interference. We need to pay attention there. Should we put some brain cells on other countries too? Sure we should. And I think we're learning much better and hardening state election infrastructure. So that's a good thing and I commend the Department of Homeland Security for making a big effort there -- Trump's Department of Homeland Security.

But what we're paying attention to, sadly, is this craziness about security clearances. And that is sapping a lot of energy, it seems to me, demoralizing our intelligence community which needs to pay attention to Russia and other countries. And I think we need to get past this. John Brennan I -- I don't think is helping himself by -- by the excessive rhetoric but his free speech is important to me and it's important, obviously, to hundreds of others. Thousands of others.

CAMEROTA: All right, well since you've -- since you've brought it up, let's go in that direction right now. Because Tony Blinken is one of the people who just signed this letter -- or at least it's just been released -- with 175 other national security former government officials. So Tony, why did you put your signature on this letter? What message did you want to get across?

TONY BLINKEN, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE, UNITED STATES: You know Alisyn, the president has the authority to revoke someone's security clearance but it's an abuse to do it for political purposes. And the president acknowledged that's exactly why he did it. There was no cause to take away John Brennan's security clearance other than the fact that John is a critic and the president associates him wrongly with the effort to find out if Russia was meddling in election and president was involved or the campaign was involved.

So this is a matter of profound principle.

[08:20:00

It has a huge chilling effect on officials past and especially present, if they cannot speak truth to power. So, beyond that, it's also, I've got to tell you, personal, it's about the person.

John Brennan is a man of extraordinary integrity, character, honor and decency. I sat with him for months in the room as we planned the operation to get Osama Bin Laden, I was a small part of that, John led the effort.

He's done more for our national security over his career, 35 years, than well, I'll leave it at that.

CAMEROTA: But Tony, hold on one second. If his security clearance is revoked, what do we loose? Just put that into plain and simple language for all of us. If -- I mean, was he using that security clearance? Were people calling upon his expertise in this White House?

BLINKEN: So look, there are two things that are at stake here. One is at least the ability and the potential for current officials to seek someone like John Brennan's expertise on a particular matter. And it makes it a little bit more complicated if he doesn't have a security clearance.

Now, they can always declassify something if they need him in on an issue, but it does make it more complicated. I'm more concerned, though, about the chilling affect that it has and the fact that, again, it's an absolute abuse of authority to revoke this security clearance, to revoke his authority to have for political purposes, because the president didn't like what he was saying, not because he was doing anything wrong.

CAMEROTA: Go ahead Jane. Yes.

HARMAN: Alisyn, I just want to add two more points, and by the way, I love being on this show with Tony. Two more points. Number one, we had two massive intelligence failures, one was on 9/11 and one was on the National Intelligence estimate of weapons of massive destruction in Iraq, which turned out to be wrong.

After that I was one in Congress who co-led the effort to reform our intelligence process, creating the Director of National Intelligence and a new way of doing National Intelligence estimates. That relies on outside input. People critique what our Intelligence officials are putting in these estimates.

They sort of red team it, they do like book critiques and a lot of those people are on this list to loose their clearances. That makes absolutely no sense. The other point is, that we rely on liaison relationships with other countries, many of them warn us about possible Intelligence attacks.

The cartridge bomb attack that was coming our way was warned to us by some Middle East Intelligence services. If they have no confidence that the people who work in our Intelligence services, are speaking truth to power, but instead are political appointees, they're not going to warn us and we're going to loose our eyes and ears that are so critical to protecting this country.

CAMEROTA: Tony, do you think that John Brennan has any legal recourse? Do you think that -- I mean, it doesn't sound like he's going to let this stand?

BLINKEN: I think the reason he might not let it stand is less about John and more about exactly what Jane just talked about, which is making sure that the president can't continue to do this.

The president's threatened to take away other people security clearances, he's threatened to spread the chilling affect that he's already had and that will have all the pernicious effects that Jane just outlined so eloquently.

So, whether he has a recourse or not is unclear. The president does have, in affect, absolute authority when it comes to these clearances. Normally, there's a process.

Normally, the agency that holds the clearance, reviews it. Normally, the person's who's clearance is taken away has an ability to appeal, but at the end of the day, it's up to the president.

But, the fact that he has the authority doesn't mean he's allowed to abuse it and that's what the president's done.

CAMEROTA: Jane Harman, Tony Blinken. You're right Jane, it is a great combo. Thank you both for being on New Day.

HARMAN: Thank you Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: John.

HARMAN: You're great too.

CAMEROTA: Thank you.

BERMAN: You're so great.

CAMEROTA: Aren't I great.

BERMAN: You are so great.

CAMEROTA: I'm glad you finally come around to this.

BERMAN: Only book people who say you're great for now.

CAMEROTA: Good.

BERMAN: Jane Harman, back again, after the break.

Now, White House Counsel, Don McGahn, cooperating extensively with the Mueller investigation. What does this mean? Well, we're going to speak to a former Watergate Special Prosecutor to get some perspective next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:25:00]

BLINKEN: Take away John Brennan's security clearance, other than the fact that John is a critic and the president associates him wrongly with the effort to find out if Russia was meddling in the election and the president was involved or the campaign was involved.

So, this is matter of profound principle. It has a huge chilling effect on officials past and especially present, if they cannot speak truth to power. So, beyond that, it's also, I've got to tell you, personal, it's about the person.

John Brennan is a man of extraordinary integrity, character, honor and decency. I sat with him for months in the room as we planned the operation to get Osama Bin Laden, I was a small part of that, John led the effort.

He's done more for our national security over his career, 35 years, than well, I'll leave it at that.

CAMEROTA: But Tony, hold on one second. If his security clearance is revoked, what do we loose? Just put that into plain and simple language for all of us. If -- I mean, was he using that security clearance? Were people calling upon his expertise in this White House?

BLINKEN: So look, there are two things that are at stake here. One is at least the ability and the potential for current officials to seek someone like John Brennan's expertise on a particular matter. And it makes it a little bit more complicated if he doesn't have a security clearance.

Now, they can always declassify something if they need him in on an issue, but it does make it more complicated. I'm more concerned, though, about the chilling affect that it has and the fact that, again, it's an absolute abuse of authority to revoke this security clearance, to revoke his authority to have for political purposes, because the president didn't like what he was saying, not because he was doing anything wrong.

CAMEROTA: Go ahead Jane. Yes.

HARMAN: Alisyn, I just want to add two more points, and by the way, I love being on this show with Tony. Two more points. Number one, we had two massive intelligence failures, one was on 9/11 and one was on the National Intelligence estimate of weapons of massive destruction in Iraq, which turned out to be wrong.

After that I was one in Congress who co-led the effort to reform our intelligence process, creating the Director of National Intelligence and a new way of doing National Intelligence estimates. That relies on outside input. People critique what our Intelligence officials are putting in these estimates. They sort of red team it, they do like book critiques and a lot of

those people are on this list to loose their clearances. That makes absolutely no sense. The other point is, that we rely on liaison relationships with other countries, many of them warn us about possible Intelligence attacks.

The cartridge bomb attack that was coming our way was warned to us by some Middle East Intelligence services. If they have no confidence that the people who work in our Intelligence services, are speaking truth to power, but instead are political appointees, they're not going to warn us and we're going to loose our eyes and ears that are so critical to protecting this country.

CAMEROTA: Tony, do you think that John Brennan has any legal recourse? Do you think that -- I mean, it doesn't sound like he's going to let this stand?

BLINKEN: I think the reason he might not let it stand is less about John and more about exactly what Jane just talked about, which is making sure that the president can't continue to do this.

The president's threatened to take away other people security clearances, he's threatened to spread the chilling affect that he's already had and that will have all the pernicious effects that Jane just outlined so eloquently.

So, whether he has a recourse or not is unclear. The president does have, in affect, absolute authority when it comes to these clearances. Normally, there's a process.

Normally, the agency that holds the clearance, reviews it. Normally, the person's who's clearance is taken away has an ability to appeal, but at the end of the day, it's up to the president.

But, the fact that he has the authority doesn't mean he's allowed to abuse it and that's what the president's done.

CAMEROTA: Jane Harman, Tony Blinken. You're right Jane, it is a great combo. Thank you both for being on New Day.

HARMAN: Thank you Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: John.

HARMAN: You're great too.

CAMEROTA: Thank you.

BERMAN: You're so great.

CAMEROTA: Aren't I great.

BERMAN: You are so great.

CAMEROTA: I'm glad you finally come around to this.

BERMAN: Only book people who say you're great for now.

CAMEROTA: Good.

BERMAN: Jane Harman, back again, after the break.

Now, White House Counsel, Don McGahn, cooperating extensively with the Mueller investigation. What does this mean? Well, we're going to speak to a former Watergate Special Prosecutor to get some perspective next.