. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. deadline day on capitol hill. as congress rushes to spend a new budget plan, democrats are asking what happened to the plan to shrink the deficit and balance the budget? plus, what did they know and when did they know it? top officials protected a top aide accused of beating his first and second wives. no jokes this year. the president attends the national prayer breakfast and sticks to the script. >> all we have to do is open our eyes and look around us, and we can see god's hand in the courage of our fellow citizens. when americans are able to live by their convictions to speak openly about their faith and to teach their children what is

right, our families thrive, our communities flourish, and our nation can achieve anything at all. >> we begin the hour with this reminder. assumptions in the new washington are dangerous. but with the midnight deadline approaching, the prevailing assumption is that the government won't shut down, that the mammoth two-year framework brokered in the senate will end up on the president's desk. there is a lot of complaining on the left and the right. the plan itself, stunning. in washington where republicans control everything, this new plan is anchored on massive new spending, massive new deficit spending. and on erasing those restraints from the obama administration. gone, banished, it seems, from this republican party. >> what we have here is a spending gusher that's going to keep on gushing, and they have no plan to get this fiscal house in order. we are cutting spending. you haven't heard that kind of statement before around this town, but we really do believe that the value of this

republican majority has been a change to this culture. we want to balance the budget. they don't. we want to restrain spending. they want to spend more money. we think taxpayers have given enough to washington. >> cnn's phil mattingly live for us on capitol hill. phil, you were just asking the speaker the very question, what happened to your past? what happened to the old republican party that was committed to balancing the budget ending deficit spending? for today they think this will pass and they're going to explain it away? >> i asked the speaker quite plainly, paul ryan is house budget chairman, the paul ryan of a couple years ago, would he actually support this deal? where you're finding right now a lot of republican members are ending up. the defense spending outweighs everything else. the major plus-up for military spending is something james mattis has been on the hill multiple times pleading members to give him. that wins the day, plus

millions-plus dollars on top of millions of dollars disaster relief. all other things are kind of being pushed aside now. if this were four years ago, five years ago, the answer probably would have been no on a major bill like this. this is a bipartisan proposal. there are going to be things people don't like. right now it gets the key majority of what people are looking for. we don't know when the vote is actually going to be, but we know when the vote actually happens, they'll get it across the finish line. the question has been in the house and the question obviously has been, where are house democrats on this? there are a group of republicans, 40, maybe 50, who will vote no. that means speaker ryan needs some democrats. you just looked at the house, at nancy pelosi, to see what their issue is on immigration right now. what i'm told is the democratic votes will be there. they're not solidly there yet, but they feel like they're in a good place right now. the only question is, it seems,

when, and if somebody actually read this 250-page bill released last night shortly before midnight. >> long day ahead for phil mattingly. phil, the coffee is on me t. he here to share their opinions, michael warren with the weekly standard and cnn's jm lee. fi michael, i'll start with you. when the republicans came to congress, they said, yes, we're going to spend on the military, but we need to deal with the deficit. if president obama proposed this deal, they would laugh him out of town. now they're going to pass it. >> governing is a little harder than being in the opposition. i think republicans are finding there is a difference between republicans on what spending was important to control and what wasn't? a lot of defense-focused conservatives and republicans very concerned about that budget control cap on defense spending, really happy to see those caps

going. plus speaker ryan is someone that you knows, you can judge this based on all the work he's done. it's not the discretionary spending that is the problem and the driver of the debt, it's entitlements. but what do we have? a republican president who said i'm not going to touch entitlements whatsoever. so here we are. >> i think what republicans are also learning is that it's easier to give people things than take them away. it's hard to cut. even though that's been the mantra for a long time, i think you're right, if obama had proposed this, it never would have gone anywhere, even if the defense spending levels were what they were. but now the republicans are in the driver's seat. a lot of them are putting that aside because it's frankly more politically convenient to say, we funded the military, and then they don't even have to finish the sentence about domestic spending. they can just say what they did rather than -- it's harder to make an argument about cutting spending, especially in entitlements. >> you saw the speaker there. he brought to his press conference martha mcsally and a combat veteran said the military

needs this money. liz cheney, a conservative from wyoming, he says, we got to do it this time. that tells me, a, that the speaker is a little bit worried. and b, of how much things have changed. when john baynor lost his job in part because he cut a big deal like this. >> i think that definitely goes to show that nobody knows for sure until the votes are actually taken. i do think that paul ryan right now is in a position where he would like to exude confidence rather than have reporters talking about the fact that the votes may not be there yet. this is a lot of sort of bringing the different factions together, not just within the republican party but needing the democratic votes. i do think for the democrats who are watching all this play out and just got this personal reassurance from paul ryan that the daca issue is going to be dealt with as soon as this is voted on, that's important. i do think there is something to democrats sort of showing their displeasure until the last minute. there is no political benefit to

saying, hooray, we're on board right now, and putting the pressure on the other party until they feel like they need to vote yes. >> in defense of the republicans, it is just 51-49 in the senate, so they do have to deal with the democrats. but what's been interesting, michael, is the sense that if you talk to anybody on capitol hill, they'll say we did this essentially without the president. we know the president will sign it. the president has lofted his, let's have a shutdown. they have a non-republican president who is going to sign it and had no or very little involvement in it. >> and it's very confusing to figure out where this white house is. that whole back and forth about the shutdown you had. basically within a couple hours, the president saying one thing and the white house press secretary sort of denying what the president had just said. the fact is the president is not in the weeds on this bill. his involvement, if anything, is given the ryan wing cover to sort of -- to move to this kind of budget and allow this sort of

deficit spending. i don't think the president has necessarily influenced ryan or talked him into a different philosophy on budgeteering. but the fact is you have a president, who from the campaign trail, referred to himself as the king of debt. from the campaign trail said he was not going to touch entitlements, the entitlements that ryan has spent a better part of a decade trying to rework. at the very least, there is some calculation there that at least in that sense, this party is -- republican leaders are moving closer to their leader of the party in the white house. >> one argument they do have working in favor of getting votes is the military argument. republicans were part of the deal that imposed the military sequester as michael mentioned on the pentagon. capital spending there as well. now they want to take that off and say, listen to your defense secretary.

they need the money for training and for ships and tanks. >> to all my friends in congress who believe this is not a good deal, you should be listening to general mattis. freedom is not free, jim. the freedom caucus is a good group of conservatives, but freedom is not delivered by anybody on capitol hill. it's delivered by the men and women who have been at war in the last 17 years, who are all over the world, who need more help, not less, from congress. >> it's a valid argument. the pentagon says they need the money. they need to be able to do long-term planning. the freedom caucus lindsey graham is talking about said, okay. if we can cut here, why not somewhere else? is it that they don't have the votes thoor they don't have the will? >> probably both. the freedom caucus is sort of outside influence on a conference that is not so committed to cutting the discretionary spending. or certainly not committed enough to let defense spending continue to be capped. i think this is something that's sort of been missing in the underlying analysis of how the

republican congress has been over the last nearly eight years, which is a lot of that enthusiasm for sort of tea partyism. this is skin deep. >> these are republicans who are closer to lindsey vonn before the freedom caulk. >> they're reinserting their influence in the republican caucus right now in part because they now have a president who frankly doesn't really care all that much about deficit spending. he wants the military spending and he probably wants a new sfraur bill. but that he is all. if you have a 2-year spending plan, put the issue out until after the election, there is in parties in this bill they like, one party can have a bill they

like, and they can put it off for two years. fair? >> i think putting it off for two years is very, very appealing. >> those who say it can't pass, assumptions can be dangerous. a rising star at the white house after two ex-wives come forward with abuse allegations. but those claims weren't the secret inside the west wing. neither did our story. and that's why we'll always drive a subaru.

you're more than just a bathroom disease.. you're a life of unpredictable symptoms. crohn's, you've tried to own us. but now it's our turn to take control with stelara® stelara® works differently for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs

or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion, and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. we're fed up with your unpredictability. remission can start with stelara®. talk to your doctor today. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for stelara®.

white house chief of staff john kelly is facing criticism for defending rob porter from allegations of abuse. yesterday rob porter announced he was resigning as staff secretary to the president. the staff secretary handles the most sensitive documents that reach the president's desk. porter was kept in that position even though he couldn't get top

security clearance because his wives had made allegations. >> he came and grabbed me by the shoulders here and pulled me out of the shower in a rage. immediately i'm seeing the t-- e terror in my face, retracted and changed composure immediately, but that was -- that was the first time that he had laid hands on me. >> now, porter denies these claims and released this statement wednesday. these outrageous allegations are simply false, the statement said. i have been transparent and truthful about these vile claims, but i will not further engage publicly with a coordinated smear campaign. so what did the staff know and when did they know it? we go to jeff zeleny. jeff, answer to the degree you can and is this the first time

that the chief of staff was asked this question? >> this is not the first time he was asked. we know the president is capable of being furious at someone and keeping them in their position. look at attorney general jeff sessions, for example. he's been furious at him for months, but he remains. so i'm told by talking to multiple people here that the president may be upset with the handling of this, but is not in any way, shape or form ready to dismiss him or get rid of him over this. the question here, john, i think, is an internal white house one. what did the chief of staff know? multiple white house officials we are talking to last evening and this morning say there was a sense that something was amiss, that he was not getting the security clearance for a reason. but rob porter misled, in the words of white house officials now saying he misled many of them about the serious nature of these allegations, about the serious nature of the abuse. but white house chief of staff john kelly, by putting out statements essentially of praise as though rob porter was leaving

for his retirement party or something, simply undermined the seriousness of the issues here. it wasn't until last evening that the chief of staff put out another statement talking about domestic violence. so the handling of this, no question about it, has not been one of the high points here. but the question is, where does he remain with the president? as of now, based on everything we know, john kelly, the white house chief of staff, remanins n his position and his role. he went with the president to the prayer breakfast. always a sign if he's with the president, he's still somewhat in his good graces. john? >> let's bring it inside the room. this is stunning, and for people at home that don't understand the titles, the staff secretary is someone essentially glued to the president most of the time. rob porter, by all accounts, was a rising star, even though he had a job to begin with. is essentially treated like a deputy chief of staff. so it gets to the point what did

they know and when did they know it? if he couldn't get clearance for months and months and months, isn't it john kelly's job, if he doesn't know the details, to get them? >> i think the white house has had many twists and turns on this story based on the evidence presented, the photographs, the fact that the daily mail published those photographs. >> pardon me, but once it's public, once you see these horrific photos, then they act. once they see these horrific photos, then they change their story. >> that's exactly the problem. prior to the photos where two of rob porter's ex-wives accused him of physical abuse in their marriage, that in itself is extremely problematic. it's disturbing that the white house didn't take it as seriously until there was a photograph of a black eye published. that's troubling because it fits a pattern of them not really doing due diligence on this stuff, putting out these lauditory statements about someone under these circumstances and giving not a

single breath or a word or a sentence to the accusations and the need for some kind of process around them. that's why we are where we are right now. that's why the white house is clamming down, because they completely mishandled this from the beginning. >> in the damage control efforts, the statements defending mr. porter are being written by hope hicks, the white house communications director, who is in a relationship with mr. porter. that is a stunning conflict right there. >> this is a very insulated white house. they're getting it from all sides. in the john kelly era, that circle has shrunk even more. it's hope hicks, it's john kelly, maybe a couple more people. in the john kelly era where he's trying to stop the inflow of information, trying to reduce the paperwork and articles and people getting in trump's ear, rob porter is key to that. and a number of people around the white house had said he

was -- kind of openly talked about as a potential chief of staff. i would just kind of back up a little bit. those pictures came out which is when the white house acted. but even at that point, the white house was still saying they all wanted him to stay, that it was porter who was insisting on leaving. it was not until a similar reporting from cnn, a similar reporting from the "washington post" where his ex-wives pushed back on his account did kelly put out a statement that said, now i'm shocked. acknowledging that he didn't have the whole story, which goes back to your question, what is the process in the white house where it took a few phone calls to the women who are making these accusations to get a full story here that the white house clearly didn't do. >> a, the substance of these allegations is horrific. b, it is their job to do an excellent scrub of anybody who is close to the president who has access to such sensitive, classified information, whatever the potential issue of the

clearance might be. also former fbi agent, mike rogers, a cnn contributor. if you're doing a background check and you have allegations of domestic abuse, flashing bells. >> what should have raised the red flags is apparently the fbi came to them last year and said, could not get a clearance or wouldn't recommend a clearance. >> that should have set off an alarm. >> that should have set off alarm bells everywhere that they had something to deal with. it looks like, at least on the surface of it, someone didn't deal with it. >> how do they defend that? the fbi said can't get a clearance. not "we're working on it," can't get a clearance. kept a job where he's working around top secret information and handing it to the president. >> he did receive an interim security clearance which i think would allow him to do his job. he's also not handling the most sensitive information, the sort of intelligence that is in the president's daily brief.

that's not going through the staff secretary. but you can imagine for six or seven months, the chaotic white house, even more chaotic than normal at the beginning of the administration, would sort of slip under. the question is the fall, which is, i think, when most people are reporting that kelly and other folks at the white house found out about these allegations. why the lack of reaction? i think there is a sort of myopia particularly at this white house, feeling that they're under siege. and feeling that john kelly needs all the competent people who have the president's backing around him and sort of blinded somebody like kelly to this obvious problem. the other thing i will say is i talked to one person who is no longer at the white house, one person who still is who says that they were legitimately surprised that rob porter -- one of them said the last person you would expect to do this. this isn't something that is reflective of a lot of abusers,

but the evidence is out there, that they present a completely different person in public or their employment than they do privately. that may be something that contributes to the myopia. >> both the ex-wives said he was marvelously disciplined in his job, but abusive at home. that's the job of john kelly to do and keep a tight ship. the president stays on message and on teleprompter at the prayer breakfast. last year? not so much. >> i don't know, chaplain, whether or not that is an appointed position? is that an appointed position? i don't know if you're even democratic or republican, but i'm appointing you for another year, the hell with it. gas, bloating, constipation and diarrhea

can start in the colon and may be signs of an imbalance of good bacteria. only phillips' colon health has this unique combination of probiotics. it provides four-in-one symptom defense. it's your daily probiotic.

because no mattergineer what life brings,rgent? our commitment to clean remains the same. now with 10x the cleaning power. tide, america's #1 detergent

you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. ♪ ♪ ♪ olly. president trump addressed his annual prayer breakfast here in washington this morning, and

compared to last year, anyway, he took the cautious approach. >> let us resolve to find the best within ourselves. let us pray for that extra measure of strength and that extra measure of devotion, and let us seek to build a more just and peaceful world where every child can grow up without violence, worship without fear, and reach their god-given potential. >> the president's tone there quite a departure from last year's event which was just two weeks into the new administration. >> we had tremendous success on "the apprentice" and when i ran for president, i had to leave the show. and they hired a big, big movie star, arnold schwarzenegger, to take my place. and we know how that turned out. the ratings are way down the tubes. it's been a total disaster, and i want to just pray for arnold if we can for those ratings,

okay? >> this is one of the most fascinating relationships in american politics. evangelicals are a big part of the president's base and they talked about his character, even that his lawyer paid a settlement to a porn star. the president is not a churchgoer, he doesn't speak their language, but he is filling the lower courts with federal conservative judges and he did fund planned parenthood and the like. he's paid them on the policy front in order to look over the political front? is that fair? >> this is one of the most fascinating dynamics in the trump era, this line between the evangelicals and trump, and how long they'll stick with him. it seems like they'll stick with him for a while. but there's one incident after another. was it during the campaign that

jerry falwell jr. take a picture with trump in front of his me wall, and over his wife's shoulder is a picture of trump and a porn star on the cover of playboy. it's in the picture, they put out the picture. it just doesn't even matter. but when it comes down to it at the end of the day, it's exactly what you're seeing here, is that trump is always sort of flip-flopping in his ability to take both sides of an issue. he has been, in the last couple years, at least, pretty unequivocal when it comes to issues important to the evangelical right. >> and this, like on a lot of issues, trump is viewed as kind of an empty vessel. if you can get in his ear and fill him with what you want to fill him with, he will be good on that issue. the evangelicals talked to him about the johnson amendment, for example, which he tucked about publicly, that someone told him

they thought it should go away, and he turns around and says, we've got to get rid of it. that was viewed by evangelicals as a huge political victory, allowing them to use non-profit money in politics. and past presidents, even republican presidents, would not have gone so wholesale on an issue like that. it's just been effective. if you're the last person who talks to him, he might be what you want him to be on certain issues. >> you heard tony perkins give him the term mulligan. they forgive certain failings, if you will. what he has done is cause a lot of evangelicals em place mo momor more relativism. there are defenses of evangelicals voting for president trump. there are no defenses of

evangelicals defending the president's sins. >> i've done a lot of this on president trump's relationship with god, visiting the childhood church he attended on fifth avenue, and there was this amazing anecdote from, i think, right after he was elected. he had this private meeting with two presbyterian leaders, and as soon as he walked into the room, he said, you know i did very well with the evangelicals, and they sort of had to politely remind him, we're not evangelic evangelical, we're presbyterian. and he was quizzing them on what the difference was. so i think we know this is not a man who has a close relationship or spiritual relationship even though he talks about his religion, his relationship with god in these kinds of settings. and i think that's why you sort of see this disconnect, that he understands that the idea of getting the evangelical vote is important, and he wants to act on that, but it doesn't necessarily come from a personal place deep inside of him.

>> he studies the maps. he remembers the primaries, just ask ted cruz. and he remembers the key states in the election, too. here we go. this one is hard for me. as we head to break, a live look at a celebration here. i wish somewhere else. philadelphia they're reveling in celebration. this could go far into the night. i hope they don't have to grease the poles. feel what lighter feels like. o

welcome back. it's another wild day at wall street. you can see the dow down more than 500 points.

investors worried about inflation and rising interest rates. once again erased all the index's gains this year. checking our other stories on the political radar. a plan has begun for a military parade by the president. but that planning still in its early stages. >> the president often looks for opportunities to honor and appreciate our service members. we are looking at several different options. right now the army is the executive agent on it. but we don't have those options yet. we're still in the first stages. when we have those options, we will present that to the white house and the president will decide. >> a long list of members of congress from both parties say they worry about a cost of a major parade through the streets of washington. the pentagon says the ultimate decision belongs to the commander in chief. former president george w. bush say he thinks the russians

meddled with the election. he didn't go so far as to say they affected the outcome of the presidential election, but he did say the meddling is pretty clear. last night was the post political debut of omarosa n newman. when the show "big brother" debuted, she made it clear, nothing she hasn't seen before. >> there are a lot of people who want to stab me in the back, kind of similar to the white house. one thing that i learned from politics is you have to learn how to watch your own back, and in some instances, you have to watch your front, too. after the very interesting year i've had, i'm actually looking forward to being away from cable news, from twitter, from the newspaper, from the press. i'm omarosa and i'm -- >> i could tell at the table here, everybody who covers the

white house misses her very, very much. that's what i could tell. next, the president talks of more talk of a conspiracy that wasn't. touch is how we communicate with those we love, but when your psoriasis is bad, does it ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to help people with moderate to severe psoriasis achieve completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques.

in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms, or if you've received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz today. and go to taltz.com to learn how to pay as little as $5 a month.

welcome back. a tale now about fake news. it began with an alleged fox news exclusive. >> you're taare they talking ab president of the united states? are they talking about barack obama? does that mean he was involved in whatever they were doing? that's a bombshell. >> there were so many buried bodies and there's so many secrets that everyone kept from us. >> the first text that griff talked about was potus wants to know everything we're doing. the question is, was there a little club going on? were they all exchanging information? were they trying to rig the election? >> deep state versus the deplorables, breitbart cried.

techs messages indicate pundits love obama. the president himself tweeted in all caps, new fbi texts are bombshells. once again, senator ron johnson has some explaining to you. a report issued by his committee includes this text by two fbi agents, quote, potus wants to know everything we are doing. now, that report from senator johnson's committee suggests president obama wanted a briefing on the clinton e-mail investigation. wrong. a source familiar with one of the fbi official's thinking says that text did not refer to the clinton investigation, that refers to the russia probe. the text came just days before then-president obama confronted vladimir putin on the sidelines of a g-20 meeting, the president issuing a direct warning to the russian leader saying, quote,

cut it out. the united states senate, can we at least get things right, get things straight? no? am i wrong here to expect fact checking in the united states senate? >> i mean, everyone makes mistakes. at least give them the benefit of the doubt here. this does seem to be a jump to a conclusion which for me, what is striking about this, this is exactly what the breitbarts of the world, the ron johnsons of the world, what the president himself has accused the mainstream media of doing when it comes to this russia investigation and the russia probe. here we have an instance of them doing exactly the same thing. and as you point out, my colleague at the "wall street journal" has written a lot of stories on these texts, and i encourage viewers to check out some of his stories, including the last one on the context of this e-mail. when the text message was sent, the clinton probe wasn't even open, and this was just days ahead of some meetings in front of -- about the russia

interference. >> it's also fascinating to just watch the president mimic back what he's watching on television that morning. he used exactly the same language. he called it a bombshell, which is the language that was being used in that segment on fox. and that's what's happening day in and day out with president trump. he's not going to the source of this information, he's getting it sort of chewed through this spin machine, and then he's repeating it on social media to his 45 million followers. >> forgive me, but he watches in the morning -- this is the president of the united states who has access to every bit of information in the world that u.s. intelligence agencies can gather, and that's where he chooses to get his information. good luck. senator johnson just a few moments ago asked about this and didn't back down. >> first of all, i encourage people to read the full report, and the texts speak for themselves. they raise a lot of questions and we continue our investigation. >> the texts -- i'm going to take issue with the senator here. the texts don't necessarily

speak for themselves. the texts show galactically bad judgment for people in sensitive jobs who should not be texting about things even if they're joking. it's galactically bad judgment. but you have the president rereading these text messages and reorganizing the planets in the stars without any evidence that they took whatever views they might have expressed in these text messages and actually took them to the office and changed investigations or tampered with investigations or showed bias in investigations. this is the world's greatest body, they used to say. >> i think it is a midwife, folks in the conservative media who want to believe the absolute worst when there has not been an investigation. it's not unreasonable to think the administration might have done bad things, and the fbi agents making some really, really poor judgments here and should be investigated.

but i think that the jumping to conclusions is ultimately muddying what might otherwise be a legitimate case, because it all has to go to the extreme level of this sort of discredits any investigation into the president. it just was simply wrong. >> i'll say the same thing i said about the nunes memo. if you have actual evidence of bias in law enforcement agencies, dear god, put it out. but put it out in a bipartisan way so the people can believe it, as opposed to this little cherrypicking stuff. as a result kellyanne conway, paid by you, the taxpayer, says this and says, wow. >> he said he did not interfere or ask about doj investigations, so people have to discern what the truth is. it's disturbing to see two people texting each other about this investigation on and on,

and now you see it goes all the way to the top, according to them, anyway. >> sexting to texting. she's good. whether you agree or disagree, she knows what she's doing and she's good. we make fun of this sometimes, but this parallel universe thing is not healthy. >> it was in the morning after washington had been debunked. >> and clearly washington is trigger happy with jumping to concludes, especially when it is beneficial to your party or it looks bad to the other party. i think to your point about president trump watching television and then going on twitter to immediately react, he's also doing that not in a vacuum, he's doing it because he feels like he's under siege. he feels like a lot of the headlines about him and the russia investigation, those aren't looking good for him. so he sees something like this and wants to tell the world, tell the millions of twitter followers he has, you should be paying attention to this. >> that was kellyanne conway

this morning, and she was asked about a conspiracy theory -- unfounded. one of the president's top aides out after allegations of domestic abuse. we'll share some of the reporting, next. cleaning floors with a mop and bucket... ...is a hassle. swiffer wetjet makes cleaning easy. it's safe to use on all finished surfaces, ...trapping dirt and liquid inside the pad. plus, it prevents streaks better than a micro fiber strip mop. for a convenient clean, try swiffer wetjet.

i'm in the kitchen. i need my blood sugar to stay in control. i need to shave my a1c i'm always on call. an insulin that fits my schedule is key. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients.

don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, swtiting, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue, orhrhroat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪

more reporting now on one of our top stories today. cnn has learned a third woman contacted the ex-wives of the now resigning white house aide rob porter. he's accused of serial domestic abuse. a woman was seeking advice of how to get out of a relationship with him. >> this ex-girlfriend component is so fascinating, and during the course of my conversations with the two ex-wives, she both said they were contacted by a woman who said she had dated port porter, and she was basically asking for advice. she said she, too, like the ex-wives, was consistently abused by rob porter.

she was very unhappy, and she wanted to know from them, am i crazy here? did this happen to you? how did you deal with all this? can you give me advice on how to deal with these emotions i'm feeling right now? and the ex-wives ended up talking to the ex-girlfriend to tell them their advice, to tell hershey's not crazy, to tell her they also experienced this kind of abuse from rob porter. in the bigger context to the fact that rob porter is now resigned, we're trying to figure out when. this is not just two ex-wives, this is now two ex-wives and an ex-girlfriend who said they were all abused by rob porter. >> the ex-girlfriend wrote, i work in politics, and despitepos to rise. i'm sorry to bother you. i i wanted to reach out and hear

your story if you are willing to share. as well as how you broke out of it with him and mostly how you recovered. this is a frightened woman. >> that this is somehow a vast conspiracy you realize that conspiracy began several years before he entered the white house. it began with two ex-wives coordinating with each other and then coordinating with a girlfriend. it requires a lot of believing. that's what makes this story so surprising, and frankly, so important because i think there were a lot of people earlier this week suggesting, in these written statements sent out by the white house, that this was a vast conspiracy against someone who was rising in the trump white house. 2016 rob porter was not in the white house, there was no trump white house. so there are questions here that need to be answered about how this all fits. >> this is jennifer willoughby, one of the ex-wives, speaking to the "washington post."

>> i'm not at all surprised that people who work with him in a professional capacity see him as a model of discretion, integrity and character, because like i mentioned, i believe that he is. and i think professionally he is intelligent, and he is measured, and he is certainly someone that i would trust in that professional position. and in his personal life, he is also abusive and angry. >> what remarkable grace for her to say such complimentary things about someone who beats her. to that point the white house said, he deceived us. it's their job. they're supposed to have good people who can vet, and if the fbi came to us last year and said, he's not getting a clearance because of this. why was he still there yesterday? >> and to her point, it sort of speaks to how rob porter worked his way through the white house.

he was gracious in this town, he worked with a number of institutions. reince priebus came to him, they knew each other from political days. what reince didn't know was he knew jerry -- jared from their school days. hello, i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. in washington. wherever you're watching around the world, thanks very much for joining us. let's begin with breaking news on wall street. once again the dow plunging while swings continue. let's go live to cnn's maggie lake. she's on the floor over there at the new york stock exchange. maggie, update our viewers. >> the remarkable thing about this is the day started very calm. the dow was only off about a tenth of a percent. as the afternoon progressed, we saw the selling p