points over the last couple days. monday brutal, about 4.6%. context is so important. it's the worst one-day point loss ever. but it's not even one of the top 20 percentage losses. that's important to note. let's talk about the dow stocks. all of them just got hammered yesterday. it doesn't matter what you sell or what you make. it got hammered yesterday. how bad is this? the dow is down about 8.5% from its most recent high. if you see as bad as it looks for this morning, you will have hit a 10% technical correction. what's going on here? the trigger was the jobs report friday. wage inflation is good for workers but bad for corporate profits. if inflation picks up too fast, the federal reserve may need to raise interest rates faster than

planned. the biggest concern here, this selloff in bonds. bond yields move opposite to the price and they hit a four-year high on friday. as yields go up, bonds offer better returns, make it much more attractive to investors than risky stocks. even if you get this big selloff at the open, a few hundred points, there's no chance of a crash or panic. the conditions are still good, the economy is strong. the job market is strong. corporate earnings are expected to be very, very good. you've got this disconnect. the economy is doing well, the stock market is reflecting now our concerns about inflation coming back, bond yields rising. people are like what is inflation? we haven't seen it in so long. the fed has kept interest rates so low. wages haven't gone up, prices haven't gone up. there has been, to speak of, very little inflation in the economy. >> inflation cuts into corporate profits which is why you see it go down. inflation makes things harder for businesses. if it gets back r bad, prices go up, consumer products go up,

your money doesn't go as far. that's a concern long term maybe. >> we haven't had any inflation in the economy. a little inflation should be a good thing. the stock market has gone up so far so long without a meaningful correction this to me looks like this is that correction. wall street, the pros call it the pause that refreshes. you want the market to go down sometimes, not just go up all the time. there's also technical selling here i think. when you look at how erratic things were in the afternoon, you have computers that have complicated models when the bonds do this. they sell stocks here. there's some of that happening. these aren't mom and pop investors. these are the professionals and the computers that have been selling stocks terribly. >> this is refreshing. thank you very much for that refreshing report, christine. stand by. we'll need you throughout the hour. >> president trump has five days to decide if the democratic rebuttal to the gop memo about the alleged fbi surveillance abuses should become public.

the house intelligence committee voting unanimously to release the rebuttal. joining us is democratic congressman adam schiff who drafted the rebuttal memo. good morning. >> good morning. how are you? >> i'm doing well. what if the president decides not to release your rebuttal? >> i think that's going to be very hard for the white house. they've tried to make the case that they released the nunes memo in the interest of transparency. to say, well, we don't want the country to see this is untenable. what i'm more concerned about is they make political redactions, not redactions to protect sources or methods, but redactions to remove information they think is unfavorable to the president. that could be a real problem and that's our main concern at this point. >> okay. if that were true, then what would you do? >> we have limited recourse there. we could try to force a vote in the house of representatives or we can seek a declassification review with the fbi and the department of justice, but that

takes time. so there aren't a lot of options, but it will certainly appear that the white house is trying to stonewall again if, in fact, they make these political redactions that we fear. >> there are a couple of headlines from the nunes memo i want to bounce off of you. i know this is a challenge because until the president says you can release it, i know your rebuttal is classified. but this is out there. i want you to respond to it as best you can. one is that the deputy director of the fbi, mccabe, testified before your committee in december of 2017 that no surveillance warrant, no fisa court -- to the fisa court would have been sought without the steele dossier information. >> that's not exactly what mccabe said. while i can't go into the details of what he said, essentially his argument is we look at this as a complete whole.

all parts of the application are important. that was the sum and substance of what he said. the broader point was that the only parts of the dossier that were important were those that pertained to carter page. some of that was corroborated. we set this out in our responsive memo. it's important for people to understand, contrary to the misleading impression that the gop gives, the sell lay shows video was not part of the fisa application. only the parts pertinent to carter page. >> that's helpful. so you're saying that the fisa court never saw the most salacious, uncorroborated stuf? >> that's right. we'll release the transcript of our hearing and you can see members making the argument. unfortunately it's because they haven't read the underlying materials. one of my colleagues, for example, said, well, we don't have evidence that michael cohen made a trip to prague. this is also part of the dossier. that michael cohen trip to

prague wasn't part of the information to the fisa court. that information was never provided to the court. >> you say that the nunes memo mischaracterizes the underlying information and what really happened. they say it doesn't would it be possible for you to release the actual andrew mccabe testimony in front of your committee that was behind closed doors so everybody can read it with their own eyes? >> i think frankly all the testimony that we're receiving ought to be released at the conclusion of our investigation. we'll have to make strategic judgments about when to release certain parts of the transcripts. the downside is, of course, you tell other witnesses what others are saying and that allows them potentially to align their version of events. so as a general practice, i don't favor selective release of information. but we have made exceptions. the majority made exceptions for carter page and erik prince.

we made exception with both of us who supported the release of simpson's transcripts. i think we do need to be concerned about selectively releasing testimony and the overall impact on the investigation. >> here is another headline from the nunes memo that i want you to comment on. i'm taking it directly from it. neither the initial application in october of 2016 nor any of the renewals disclose or reference the role of the dnc, clinton campaign or any party campaign in funding steele's efforts, the dossier. even though the political origins of the dossier were known to fbi officials. >> as we will send out in the response, the fbi did contain information about a potential political bias. it sent out information about who supported christopher steel -- >> is the way they're

characterizing it true, the fisa court didn't know it was hillary clinton's campaign and the dnc? >> it's not true the fisa court didn't know of a political bias. they don't mention specific names. even when they refer to hillary clinton and donald trump in the fisa court application, they refer to them as candidate one and candidate two. this is how the masking process works. it's deeply ironic that the same people who have been complaining of improper unmasking are suggesting that names should have been unmasked in the fisa application. >> did it say candidate one, let's just say, pay for this? >> i'll allow you to see exactly what they said when our release is declassified so you can see precisely what was represented to the fisa court. i think the fisa court was made well aware of the potential political bias for those who supported christopher steele's work. there was at that time only one other candidate in the race. i don't want to characterize it. i'd rather have you seen exactly what was said in the fisa

application. >> we'd sure like to see that. the president seems disinclined to do anything you'd like him to do. he has gone after you personally. he tweeted about you. are you worried whatever conflict you're having with the president will get in the way of some of this? >> i think the conflict is less about the president and myself and more about the president's concern over his legal liability and what is coming to light in terms of relationships between his campaign and the russians. so i think he views this entirely through that prism, not any personal animosity between the two of us. frankly, i think his tweets are demeaning the the presidency and that's about it. i am concerned, though, that in an effort to protect himself he will order political redactions, and this is why we've asked the department of justice and fbi separately to report to our committee anything they recommend to be redacted to

protect sources and methods to separate any legitimate redactions from any politics the white house may try to impose. >> this is neither here nor there, but why do you have to share a nickname with bob corker and marco rubio and kim jong un. >> the last one was sleazy, now it's little adam schiff which is an improvement is he warming up to me? that's also continuifusinconfus. let's bring in chris cillizza and associate editor for realclearpolitics a.b. stoddard. it was interesting as i was listening to the ranking member talk to alisyn about the member. in a way they're precasting aspersions on what the democrats will do. they're suggesting i'm not so sure the president is going to release this. we think the president may stand in the way of this. democrats i think like the political position they've put

the president in, chris. >> i think they should candidly. if you are for transparency, you're for transparency. that was the argument behind the release of the nunes memo. that argument i think still holds true with the memo that congressman schiff wrote. the issue here is one of those two memos affirm -- we know affirmed a belief that the president of the united states has that there is a deep state conspiracy within the fbi and the justice department that is out to sort of undermine him. the schiff memo presumably does less of that. is transparency still the goal even when the information contained within that memo is not directly supportive of what the president already believes. >> a.b., if what congressman schiff just said ends up being true when and if this is released, in the fisa warrant they were referring to candidate one and candidate two as donald

trump and hillary clinton or vice versa, then the nunes memo falls apart. the headline that the fisa court was denied information that hillary clinton and the dnc paid for the dossier, then that falls apart. >> congressman nunes admitted there was a footnote in which this political bias was reported. so he's having to explain that. this was an overbuilt, overhyped memo. when you overhype something it has to be a blockbuster and it wasn't. that's why you heard congressman collins say they're going to have to have a rebuttal to the rebuttal. john is right. the president is sort of in a box here. he either blocks the memo or he releases it and it makes the nunes -- weakens the nunes memo even further. anyone knows that it's important

also what congressman schiff says, it was only part of the dossier use in the fisa application. >> that's really important. they say this dodge gee dossier, more scandalous, sensational stuff. >> i hadn't heard that yet. that was news. that was very interesting. >> i don't know what's in the schiff memo, obviously. but i hope people have been googling the fisa warrant process and learning a bit about how filled with backstops and traps it is, how many people would have to get together to conspire to ruin their own careers, to cook up a fake basis, underlying basis for a fisa warrant application. we're going to hear more about the other underlying intelligence that made up the bulk of that application, but also in the end, when you think about opposition research and the fact that investigations into -- looking into hillary clinton's server and what she

did at the state department with regards to the clinton foundation was based a lot on peter schweitzer's book "clinton cash," opposition research isn't worth anything if it isn't true. i'm looking forward to the democrats' findings, but people need to learn a lot about how rigorous the process is of getting a fisa application turned into a warrant for surveillance or renewed three months later. >> it's interesting, the memo wars, if you will, really are a sideshow to what is the larger issue which is the mueller investigation into possible collusion and now obstruction as well. there's this sort of major overnight development, chris, "the new york times" reporting the president's lawyers don't want him to testify because they're afraid he might get caught lying. the fear among the president's lawyers, almost stated directly to t"the new york times" is they're afraid he might get caught lying or might say something that puts him in legal jeopardy to the special

counsel's lawyers which is a pretty stunning admission. they may be great lawyers here, protecting their client by trying to keep him from testifying for that reason. still we're talking about the president of the united states. it's awfully interesting to hear that. >> thank you for your incred utility. it's a remarkable thing to say the commander-in-chief, the president of the united states, we may not have him testify due to the fact that he has lied in situations like this in the past. but it is true. look at depositions that he's done before. i go back to my former colleagues at "the washington post" called trump revealed, where they wrote about the fact that he had been caught a number of times, either lying in a deposition or being forced to admit in a deposition he had either greatly exaggerated something about his wealth, this, that or the other, or he had not told the truth. so it is both i think probably wise legal counsel that the

president is getting and sort of terrifying in that it is wise legal counsel, that the president of the united states really probably can't be trusted if past is prologue to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under questioning from the special counsel. >> a.b., then if he doesn't agree to a request from mueller, then we're off to subpoena land. the destination could possibly be the supreme court, and they're just off to the races. >> alisyn, let me tell you how much fun this is for congressional republicans facing headwinds in a midterm election year. it doesn't look like the daca thing will be fixed soon, a fix for the dreamers. they're afraid that will bleed into the spring and summer and become a narrative in the midterm elections. they're afraid that president trump -- i echo what you're saying -- nobody saying he can get through a deposition without lying and talk to mueller. the idea of this being a

prolonged battle in the courts for months to come with everyone questioning what the president is trying to hide is the worst thing for congressional republicans who have done their best to squirm and wrap themselves into pretzels to protect this president and defend this memo and everything else that has resulted in people questioning their integrity and everything else. this is the absolute worst case scenario for them, for this to be a dragged out battle in the courts. >> a.b. stoddard, chris cilli a cillizza, thank you for the analysis. chris cuomo will interview former vice president joe biden today. you can watch their conversation tonight on anderson cooper 360. we'll have much more tomorrow. >> i remember both of them, chris cuomo and vice president joe biden. president trump rejecting the latest immigration bipartisan proposal as a total waste of time. one of the senators behind it,

chris coons joins us next. this is a diamond you can follow from mine to finger, and trust it never fell into the wrong hands. this is a shipment transferred two hundred times, transparently tracked from port to port. this is the ibm blockchain, built for smarter business. built to run on the ibm cloud. with a $500,000 life insurance policy. how much do you think it cost him? $100 a month? $75? $50? actually,duncan got his $500,000 for under $28 a month. less than a dollar a day. his secret? selectquote.

in just minutes, a selectquote agent will comparison shop nearly a dozen highly-rated life insurance companies, and give you a choice of your five best rates. duncans wife cassie got a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford.

the roasted core wrap.belly fat. 3, 2, 1... not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary.

some rare side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you and visit coolsculpting.com today... for your chance to win a free treatment. at holiday inn express, we can't guarantee that you'll be able to contain yourself at our breakfast bar. morning, egg white omelet. sup lady bacon! fruit, there it is! but we can guarantee that you'll get the best price when you book with us. holiday inn express. be the readiest. . president trump rejecting a bipartisan bill introduced by chris coons and john mccain. it provides a path to citizenship for dreamers but doesn't authorize the $25 billion the president wants for his border wall. the president wrote, any deal on daca that does not include strong border security and the desperately needed wall is a total waste of time. march 5th is rapidly approaching

and the dems seem not to care about daca. make a deal. joining me is one of the senators behind the bipartisan bill who serves on the house judiciary committee, senator chris coons. your bill would provide a pathway to citizenship with dreamers, authorizes more technology and drones to monitor the border, green lights a study of further border security needs and increases the number of immigration judges and attorneys. that is what thement is calling a total waste of time. your reaction? >> well, i think once again we're seeing the president isn't particularly constructive as we try to get to a bipartisan deal in the senate. part of why i was so honored to have senator mccain reach out to me is he has long represented a border state, arizona. and the bill that we've introduced is already a bill in the house that was introduced by congressman hurd of texas from el paso and congressman aguillar from southern california. it has 27 co-sponsors, 27

democratic co-sponsors, 54 co-sponsors. it's our hope it can be a promising base bill for further discussion in the senate. as you referenced, it calls for the department of homeland security to present a detailed plan for how to achieve operational control of the border by 2020. as an appropriator, i would support the appropriations necessary to accomplish that, but i don't support what president trump is calling for, for us to hand over $25 billion without any on going oversight by congress. >> you would give -- and you know this is a negotiation, he gets something, you get something. you are willing to give some money for what he could call, quote, his border wall. >> absolutely. i think we should be investing in a smart wall or wall systems. i don't think an idea of a single concrete wall going from sea to shining sea makes any sense. >> he doesn't anymore. he's moved off that point. i don't know how many miles of wall he needs. he wants fences, drones, other

things because of the rivers and mountains. on the other hand, you're not willing to go for the $25 billion but are you willing to go for more than what's included in your proposal? >> absolutely. i think we could and should support several billion in appropriations and come up with a pathway where a ten-year plan presented to us by dhs gets annual appropriations with a trigger. i'm working with a common sense coalition, a group of about two dozen senators, republicans and democrats to come up with a consensus proposal that would allow us to invest in border security while still maintaining a critical oversight role. >> one of the questions is what senator mitch mcconnell will be allowed to be produced on the floor as what he calls the base bill. do you have any sense on what immigration measure the majority leader will ultimately bring to the floor as he has promised to do? >> i don't know yet what he might bring forward.

i do think the mccain-coons bill with some commitment to border funding would be an excellent base bill. it meets the two core issues we agree on. the president and others have tried to bring in other issues. think we should turn to those broader issues in phase two of comprehensive immigration reform, clear out the underbrush of all the key unresolved issues that have been held up for months now, appropriations for the department of defense and our domestic priorities, responding to disasters that we still haven't funded, authorizing community health centers and take these two issues on, dreamer status and border security and move forward. i think this bill would be an excellent starting point for that debate on the senate floor. >> president trump does not like how democrats behaved during the state of the union address. very critical of the fact that they didn't cheer at times and didn't behave the way they wanted him to. this is what he said just yesterday. >> even on positive news, really

positive news like that, they were like death and un-american, un-american. somebody said treasonous. yeah, i guess. why not? shall we call that treason? why not? they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much. >> whould you call that treasono treasonous, why not? some of his allies says he was just joking. do you take it that way? >> let me be clear about this. i attended the state of the union. i was respectful, i stood and applauded when appropriate. on many of the points i thought were non-debatable, when the president was recognizing the service and sacrifice of soldiers, the north korean who fled for his freedom, police officers and community leaders who have taken great steps.

i, of course, applauded things like economic progress and some of his proposals like paid family leave, some of his ideas around infrastructure. there were lots of places in his speech where the republicans leapt to their feet to cheer, for example, by the things he's done to harm the affordable care act where i and other democrats chose not to applaud. the president once again is making a simple but scary mistake here. he is not the state. cheering for our president is not the same as being a patriotic and loyal american. in fact, there's this thing called the first amendment in the constitution that protects right of all of us as citizens to either cheer and applaud the president when we agree with him or to not applaud when we have differing priorities. he simply doesn't get that. he's not above the law and he's not the state and failure to cheer him when he thinks we should is not only not treasonous, some of us would

argue it's patriotic. >> some would argue it's not funny even if he was trying to joke. senator coons, thank you. >> thank you. >> president trump calling the democrats treasonous for not standing up and clapping during his state of the union address. so is it treason? was it treason when republicans didn't applaud then president obama? a republican's take on this and so much more next.

this is the story of green mountain coffee roasters dark magic told in the time it takes to brew your cup. first, we head to vermont. and go to our coffee shop. and meet dave. hey. why is dark magic so spell-bindingly good, he asks? let me show you. let's go. so we climb. hike. see a bear. woah. reach the top. dave says dark magic is a bold blend of coffee with rich flavors of uganda, sumatra, colombia and other parts of south america. like these mountains, each amazing on their own. but together? magical. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters packed with goodness.

the house will vote today on another short-term spending bill to keep the government open for another month and a half. can lawmakers avoid a shutdown before thursday's deadline. scott taylor serves on the house appropriations committee. good morning, congressman. >> good morning. how are you? >> i'm well. there's so much news this week, we haven't even talked about the next looming government shutdown. it sounds like you have the votes in the house, but maybe not the senate. are we looking at another government shutdown thursday at midnight? >> i don't believe so.

i don't believe it's in anyone's best interest to have a government shutdown. we're going to see a cr over there -- i hate crs, and we need to get back to regular order. we need them to play ball. it will have a full funding of the military which is very important to me and many others out there. we need the senate to play ball, step up and do their job. >> you are an iraq war veteran, former navy s.e.a.l. military funding is very important to you as it is to millions of americans. that's the sticking point. that's what the senate wants to strip out. >> they keep doing that, but, again, i think the american people need to contact their senators, of course, and make sure that defense is fully funded to protect us, to fund those folks as men and women in uniform overseas right now fighting are for us. >> why is that a sticking point for the senate? why does it hinge on the military fund? >> i don't know. why do we have 400 and some

bills sitting in the senate, 200 and some are unanimous and they just haven't taken up? i don't know. we need a little butt kicking over there to get something done. the military, we have to deal with it. secretary mattis has been very clear about military funding and how it's hurting our maintenance, readiness, training, extending deployment cycles which hurts our military families. our basic duty is to protect the american people here and abroad. the senate needs to get their their butts and get something done. >> given that's the sticking point, why aren't you optimistic that we shouldn't reset our clock for thursday at midnight? >> look at the last shutdown which was shut down over an issue that had anything to do with the funding of the american government. i think that senate democrats, for example, got burned the last shutdown. so i don't think it's in their mind they want to have a government shutdown, same thing with senate republicans. it's important not to have that to show we can govern. i think ultimately cooler heads

will prevail and people will come together. >> next topic. because you're a veteran, i want to ask you, is not applauding for a president at the state of the union address treason? >> of course not. some would say that's pretty american actually. no, it's not. i was there. i thought the president did a great job with the state of the union. i looked over at the dems. i saw some things that i thought were petty, the one congressman got up and left. i think that's disrespectful. >> just to be clear because we had chris collins on who brought that up. i just want to be clear. he had made a commitment, we're told, to do a tv interview with univision, so it wasn't a protest walkout. it was a commitment he was trying to keep. >> okay. that's his story. no problem. i saw some things that i thought were petty, but not to applaud of course is not treasonous. >> when the president says this -- let me get your take on

this. listen to this -- hold on. >> even on positive news, really positive news like that, they were like death and un-american, un-american. somebody said treasonous. yeah, i guess. why not? can we call that treason? why not? they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much. >> are you comfortable with that language? >> i know he's at a political rally, and i don't think -- obviously he shouldn't be saying that. i'll let the white house, they can defend or speak to that. i won't. i don't think it's treasonous. >> i hear you. i understand. you always i think thread this

needle really deaftly. >> words matter. there's no question about that. again, it was a political thing, seemed kind of flippant and jokingly. certainly not funny. words do matter. it is important to temper our tone and what we say. as i said, i think some things were a little disrespectful and petty, but certainly not treasonous. like i said, some people would say that's pretty american not to clap on something you don't agree with. >> do you ever hear from the white house when you say something that is off message of what the president would like his supporters to say? >> no. >> and do you ever share with the white house your feelings about when the president's language goes too far? >> i don't really have the opportunity to do so, so no. >> about this memo, as you know, it's sitting on the president's desk. it's the democratic rebuttal to

the nun necessaes memo, do you that should come out? >> sure. i'm for transparency. you have a lot of americans, millions of americans who are very uncomfortable with this fisa warrant, how it gets done, may not understand some of the issues with it. but there are people who are very uncomfortable with it, myself included. that's a lot of power given to an agency. so my point in saying that is, it needs oversight and that's our job. some people may not like the political process. i don't either. i think rep schiff has been on your show and 200 other ones creating this narrative for the last year which is very political. when you see his memo, you'll see which memo is political and which one isn't. the first paragraph in his memo is political. >> are you saying the nunes memo is not political? >> i think the nunes -- i read both of them. i think they were careful not to be political, be u to try to be, hey, this is who it was, this is what happened, all that stuff. you could argue on both sides and say it's political or it's

not, whatever. my interest is transparency, and you should want that as a journalist, of course, for the american people to see that. >> for sure. >> there are a lot of folks on both sides who have an issue with this. i have great respect for the fbi. i have many friends of mine who i served with who are in there, who are great. but i have big problems with some of the actions of some of the senior leadership, and i think a lot of the american public does, too. it's important for us to have oversight, and it's our job, our constitutional job in congress to have that oversight. yes, put his memo out, absolutely. i think it's important to see both sides, sure. send it out. >> congressman scott taylor. we appreciate you being on "new day." thanks so much. >> any time, thanks. >> all eyes on wall street. will there be another big day of losses? we have a live report from the new york stock exchange next.

r. u.s. markets set to open in a little less than an hour, this since the dow's worst day since 2011. futures pointing to losses at

the opening. let's get down to the floor of the new york stock exchange. cnn's alison kosik is there. what are you hearing. >> reporter: this could be day three of big losses. it looks like big losses for the opening bell in about an hour. the dow up and down maybe 600 points. if it does, that means the dow will be in a correction. traders i've been talking to here at the new york stock exchange as they prepare for the day ahead, they say they're not sure if the losses would even stop there. what triggered this? friday inside the jobs report, we learned about wages. wage growth grew at its fastest pace in years. for american workers, john, that's great news. for wall street, not so great news. they see a big red sign calling out inflation which could mean the fed could be more aggressive in raising interest rates which could make borrowing money more expensive and could raise the

prices of goods and services and consumers pulling back in how much they spend. you see the domino effect, the faces of these traders, they're nervous ahead of these markets. >> stand by. we'll check back with you throughout the morning. an undocumented immigrant arrested after a deadly crash that left an nfl player dead. the president is tweeting about this. what he's now saying. we have all that in "the bottom we have all that in "the bottom line" next. plus, unlimitemily plans come with netflix included. spectacular! so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. whoa! join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free. all on america's best unlimited network. but when we brought our daughter home,

that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

the opening bell on wall street rings in less than an hour. things not looking so good right now. take a look at that. dow futures down more than 200 points, 216 points. it's been going up and down all morning long. since the election, president trump has repeatedly taken credit for the market's success. will he own the big losses? let's get the bottom line with cnn political director david

chali chalian. i keep looking down at my twitter for the president saying, hey, how come the media is not reporting the market is down 2,000 points in the last few days. >> i don't think you'll see that note any time soon, john. obviously we are seeing the very reason why donald trump's predecessors of both parties tended to stay away from talking about the fluctuations in the market. the moment you take credit for the gains, you know you're going to get some blame for the losses. here is the thing. donald trump also has a unique ability to completely ignore what he has said in the past. i don't anticipate him getting tripped up by touting gains in the past and now the market is down. it's not good optics for him to be out there speaking while the numbers on the screen are going down. i don't expect him to be that embarrassed that he touted the gains when the market was on fire. >> that split screen was

interesting. you can see the decline happening. what the president i think would say is the market has had all these record highs on his watch over the past year, constantly breaking records and it's kmt confidence he takes credit for. that hasn't changed necessarily today. >> donald trump tapped into a populous thing to get to the oval office. that would make sense and you hear the white house aides striking this note that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. i think that it would not surprise me if donald trump came out and said the wage increases that we're seeing, that's what i'm fighting for, the little guy, not for wall street executives. >> he specifically was going around the country to tell people to look in their 401(k)s for the last year. i wouldn't expect him to hold himself to account for his past

statement. instead of tweeting about market losses, he's commenting about the case of an uning domted immigrant who may be connected to a vehicular homicide in indianapolis. let me read what you he has written this morning. so disgraceful a person illegally in our country killed colts linebacker edwin jackson. we must get the dems to get tough on the border with illegal impacts fast. then he says my prayers and best wishes with the family of ed jackson, a man whose life was so senselessly taken. this has to do with the football player killed by a drunk driver, that driver apparently an undocumented immigrant. not surprising the president trying to use this for political capital. >> not surprising at all. the only surprise is it took a day for him to comment on it. when we saw reports come out yesterday that the driver was an undocumented immigrant, you could tell from -- apart from

the personal tragedy of the family, from a political messaging perspective, this would fit right in his wheelhouse. as you know, the president is meeting today about immigration, ms-13, something he's mentioned for quite a while on the campaign trail as well as the state of the union address. he's going to continue to miss the message today of being tough on illegal immigration and painting a picture of only one kind of illegal immigration, when bad actors are illegal immigrants. that's the image of illegal immigration he likes to leave in american' minds. >> this is a sickening case. this guy was deported twice, in 2007 and 2009. he has been previously convicted of driving under the influence. this is exhibit a of part of how donald trump was able to win, because he talked about this. this is infuriating to americans, that people are here. as you know, the kate steinle case in san francisco which was also despicable for many people.

the problem with him talking about it now i think is that he's been president for a year and we've seen him deport people who are doctors -- you know these cases. we've interviewed some of them here. he said he's going to go after these exact guys, the hardened criminals first. that's not what's happening with deportations. that's why it's causing dissonance on this. >> not only do they not like people coming in illegally, but as any president says, there's no duty more important to a president than keeping americans safe. that did not happen here potentially because of this repeat offender, an illegal immigrant. you're absolutely right to note that. it's a textbook case for that. you note alisyn how complicated it is. who knew it could be so complicated to figure out the

right solutions to solve these kind of problems. >> this is exactly the type of guy he featured that should be deported, get out and stay out before something like this happens. instead, that's not who is being deported. a quick take from "the new york times," the president's lawyers are suggesting he will not speak to the investigators for special counsel robert mueller's team. cnn reporting that r they don't feel the special counsel met the standard for him to testify. how does this play out? >> first and foremost, how does it play out in the president's mind? how does he react to the notion that his lawyers don't seem to trust him to speak in an effective way with mueller and his team. we're shaping up here for what could be a legal battle over this. go back to mix nixon and clinto we're in for another lesson. >> they've already been fighting the political battle for some

time. that's where the memo and other things factor into the whole thing. >> david chalian, thank you very much for the bottom line. the market opening in a little bit. cnn "newsroom" picks up right after the break. ways to lose stubborn belly fat. the roasted core wrap. 3, 2, 1... not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. and no surgery.

results and patient experience may vary. some rare side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you and visit coolsculpting.com today... for your chance to win a free treatment. this is the story of green mountain coffee roasters dark magic told in the time it takes to brew your cup. first, we head to vermont. and go to our coffee shop. and meet dave. hey. why is dark magic so spell-bindingly good, he asks? let me show you. let's go. so we climb. hike. see a bear. woah. reach the top. dave says dark magic is a bold blend of coffee with rich flavors of uganda, sumatra, colombia

and other parts of south america. like these mountains, each amazing on their own. but together? magical. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters packed with goodness.

good morning. i'm erica hill in for john berman and poppy harlow. breaking news as we're 30 minutes from the opening bell, this after the biggest ever single-day point drop in the dow. futures pointing to what could be another wild day. here to talk us through it all, cnn chief business correspondent christine romans and cnn political analyst illiana johnson. as we look at this, there's a lot of concern. we're 30 minutes out. futures trending low to put it mildly. how concerned should we be? >> it's going to be an ugly selloff. we saw yesterday's big spiell of spill around the world. there's a fear in these markets. the feeling is this is a correction. the market is having a correction, the first since the end of 2015, a long overdue correction is what this looks like and feels like. the worst point yesterday, the dow was down 1,600 points, hard