clearance, and fired and hired. and you have a white house that is in chaos. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your time. and thanks to all of you for joining us. have a great weekend. "ac 360" begins right now. >> more now on the news that broke just minutes ago. two competing memos. the republican version is out. president trump releasing over objections from the fbi and others. now, after several days considering the democratic rebuttal, the president decided not to make it public. jim acosta is standing by at the white house. >> reporter: a lot of people want some explaining when it comes to the decision. there was the expectation of

transparency. and the suggestion all along is that in the issue of transparency that they would go ahead and release this memo. of course, president trump is the final decider on this and he made this decision it sounds late today to go ahead and make this decision not to declassify this memo from the ranking democrat ranking committee adam schiff. i can read this key paragraph for you it says although the president is inclined to declassify the memorandum, he is unable to do so at this time. and it goes on to say, anderson, however, given the public interest in transparency and circumstances the president

instructed the justice department to work with the house intelligence committee and come up with a version that is going to satisfy officials here. earlier today the president met with white house counsel office about all of this. and that is where the decision was made. there is another letter here attach. this is to rod rosenstein. we have been talking about rod rosenstein quite a bit and chris wray. it is instructing democrats to come up with more suitable althou alternatives. some of the information they consider too sensitive to release this evening. i can't just report all of that and be hey, that's it, end of stair, because obviously, you are going to have political considerations, one is the republican memo, the devin nunes

memo was released almost no redactions. and that memo alleged all of these abuses on the part of the fbi, on the part of federal investigators investigating trump campaign contacts with the russians 2016 campaign. the schiff memo was supposed to be a rebuttal and supposed to be ten pages point by point. you are going to have democrats and i am sure we are all crashing the phones to get them on tv who are going to say, it is not the classified material, it is the rebuttal and they did not want this out here at this time. this came on a day where there was no briefing. one opportunity to talk to the president today asked about the porter saga. he said at the end we are going

to be issuing a letter. this is pretty explosive stuff and you are going to republicans and democrats fighting over this for the next several days perhaps weeks while this process is going on. the justice department working with house democrats to get this out there. >> is this the end of the five-day? did it have to be ton tight to make the announcement. >> this is the end of the five-day period and what they were telling us all week long is that we were going to subject this process for vetting the schiff memo, the same way we vetted and processed the nunes memo. and of course, we would be remiss if we didn't point out the president said to a lawmaker, 100% we are going to release this memo. and that was before he read the nunes memo. before the vetting process was

under taken with respect to vetting and processing that nunes memo. so the writing was on the wall all along. conversely, the writing was on the wall that the press was not going to release the memo. i know there were white house officials saying unless big problems, we are probably going to put it out there. i can't imagine this president declass fiei declassifying and releasing a memo, a memo he was heralding as vindication that the russia investigation is a witch hunt and a hoax. >> appreciate the reporting. anne milgram subpoena here, jeffrey toobin and evan perez.

are you surprised? >> i am not surprised. keep if mind that the first memo was plea .5 pages. no facts. >> essentially they omitted all of these facts that changed the actual time line and meaning. >> exactly. so i think there was a challenge with the idea of the intelligence committee having anything declassified and going out that could reveal sources or methods that the intelligence community uses. beyond that, there wasn't really anything in there that raised concerns. the thing we know about the democratic memo is more lengthy and easy to surmise that it is going to have more facts and more detail. the real question is that what we don't have when you look at this letter that has been sent from rod rosenstein and wray to

the house committee is what we don't have is the areas with the red blocks are the ones to worry about. and are there three red blocks or 300? >> this letter is a letter, but it is really more of a hand gesture to the democrats, one that is inappropriate to make on television. it is basically, i have the power to censor your argument. we wear ourselves out. this is a dispute about the propriety of the fbi's behavior. we heard one side. any fair system you allow people to hear both sides. instead of allowing people to hear both sides, they have kicked this thing down the road to a point where they know the news cycle the way we do, by the

time this thing gets released in some form or another, the circus has moved on. what this is doing is making sure that the only substantive argument in front of the public about the fbi's behavior in this circumstance somebody the one from the republican and it is shocking. >> which is the exact argument the democrats made when the republicans voted unanimously to release the republican memo but not allow the democrats to release at the same time. >> correct. and fortunately for the democrats the nunes memo was so pa thetically bad that it almost refuted itself. we still believe in a system where both sides get a voice and this says we are not going to let you talk much less listen to what you have to say. >> josh campbell, you just resigned from the fbi. the white house released a letter signed. does that give this decision

more credibility? >> well, so i think we have to look at what our colleague jim acosta was reporting as far as the political considerations. let me talk about the national security implications. i have not been a fan of either memo being released for this reason. this is not the type of issue you want to litigate in public. i worked on fisa, very sensitive information that goes into it. what i am a fan of is what our colleague mike rogers said, the proper venue is with the fisa court in a classified proceedings. that is a proper venue for having such discussions not going tit for tat different memos. >> once you have gone down the road releasing one memo which

the fbi asked not to do and it was done anyway. the fbi made a rare public statement saying there were material omissions of fact. >> you are right. and i was not a fan of the gop memo. i think it was atrocious that you would release this kind of memo. as a former national security practitioner, i don't think it gives us the green light. i understand the political considerations but the proper venue is in a classified setting. >> how is it being perceived and what is next? >> part of the prop with this entire fight is that it is exposing the fact that our legislatures who are responsible for writing the law governing fisa and how the fbi uses the law. it is shown that they don't

understand how the fbi does this. this is the guy that reauthorizes the section of the fisa law, 702. and it is clear about how the fbi handled the carter page surveillance that they don't have any idea how the law works, the power of the fbi. the that is where the misunderstanding is coming. and inside the fbi, they didn't want either memo released. and certainly not a ten page if they didn't want a three page released. even though there is a lot of politics flying around, the truth is that there was grave harm that was done by the release of the republican memo even though it was a dud that there was information that never gets released. we identified a source for the fbi. we identified that someone was a target. this is stuff that is not supposed to get released and it was.

so i get the politics, but more harm would have been done according to the fbi if this ten page version were released. >> i want to bring into the conversation van jones and scott jennings. in this letter from rod rosenstein, it says the democrats can rewrite this with help from the fbi once the fbi and the national security system weighs in. what is wrong with that? >> first of all, a short lie requires a long rebuttal. the problem you have is the first memo should have never come out in the fliirst place, had all kinds of innuendo. it created a suspense of unease and suspicion in the fbi. it was a couple of pages. a lot of damage in a couple of pages. the idea that you want to respond and now you can't. you are moving into the

direction of one party state. and that is the problem. one party rule in washington dc. even though the minority had certain rights and certain privileges, tomorrow you might be in the minority. this sense of back and forth. that is now flushed in the toilet toilet. and what is now out there, some of the worst allegations of the fbi. stuff put out there over the objection of our national security. i am not one of these persons who runs around with my hair on fire every day about every tweet or whatever. i don't have the emotional fortitude to be in this every day. >> by the way, your hair burned off a long time ago. >> you are right. i am upset. this is a clear abuse.

how long is that going to take? and sure, you are trying to protect sources and methods but weren't concerned about sources and methods last week. not only are you cherry picking the data, you are cherry picking concerns. >> scott, do you share van's concerns. >> if you are going to release one, you should release both. here we are with a second memo that we should not release. they are not jeopardize any sources or methods. that is the responsible thing to do. it is clearly a longer document than the first memo. so my suspicion is that they e going to take it back and secure that information. >> isn't that what could have been done in the last five days?

>> i am not sure. but i know it is better to measure twice and cut once. it seems to me to be prudent. particularly what the white house said. >> i understand what scott is saying, it would have been prudent for them to heed the warning in the first place which they did not. >> that's right. and i think we should stop pretending that this is on the level. serious concerns about the content and the accuracy of the memo. i don't think there is any reality based fact here that he wants to actually, or open to putting this out otherwise he would have just released it. but doj has not expressed any concerns. and it is not about that.

it is about politics >> the other thing that is ironic here tonight. this president is so concerned about national security, and we just learn that had there are 30 people or more people out there tonight that have no -- a white house full of people who shouldn't be allowed to come in as visitors with their kids on the weekend. and the american people -- i would love to give the benefit of the doubt on this one. tonight you can't honestly in good faith give this guy a benefit of the doubt. not tonight. >> josh, how long does the process looking at this for sources and methods, i mean they say that the democrats -- they

can go back and work with the democrats. how long does that take? and was the last five days not long enough? >> we are in a whole new world. this is no tt what we do. so i don't think we can compare it to any type of standard. this does a disservice to the american people. you only need to dom pare what former director mueller is doing and what the house intelligence committee is doing. as it slowly releases information, it does the public a disservice because they don't see the big picture. they are going to wait until they reach a conclusion until it is all released. >> can the house intelligence

committee override all of this if the republicans are on board? >> we are told, our colleagues say the republicans aren't eager to override the president on this. they have redactions. they have identified specific parts of the memo that are problematic. so perhaps they can work through that. but at this point, i don't see devin nunes leading the charge to override president trump. >> everyone stick around. we are going to hear from a democratic member of the intelligence committee. later rob porter and his complete nonmention of the women making allegations against porter.

with best in-class towing 2018 ford f-150. best in-class payload and best in-class torque the f-150 lineup has the capability to get big things to big places --bigtime. and things just got bigger. f-150 is now motor trend's 2018 truck of the year. this is the new 2018 ford f-150. it doesn't just raise the bar, pal. it is the bar. your heart doesn't only belong ♪to you. bye grandpa. and if you have heart failure, entrusting your heart to entresto may help. entresto is a heart failure medicine

that helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital compared to a leading heart failure medicine. don't take entresto if pregnant. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. and help make more tomorrows possible. ♪ two,that was awful. why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo!

you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum -- just to help you improve your skills. boom! that's lesson one. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade. under statement to say there is a lot of breaking news. and late tonight word of another top white house departure. meantime, continue with this breaking news. rebuttal to the republican version already out there will not see the light of day. joining us now congressman

swalwell of california. congressman, do you believe, or i assess you do believe this is obstruction of justice. >> good evening. i am in phoenix arizona, with ruben gallego. we are doing a town hall. but i am skeptical. i have two questions about this. one, did he put any pressure on the department of justice in the redactions that they are seeking. and two, how did these redaction aspect the broader context that is needed in the poisoning in the investigation that has occurred from the republican memo. i trust the department. i don't trust the president. so i want to hear it from the doj. >> your critics in the republican party have accused democrats on the intelligence

committee of purposely putting classified information of sources and methods into the memo that they knew it would be rejected to. is that what is happening? >> we asked something the republicans would not do. if the doj has legitimate concerns, we are not going to be a part of putting out to the public something that jeopardize sources and methods. if this is pressure from the president, he want to knwe want. it is only appropriate to bring the doj in as was alluded. >> what options do you have from here on out? >> well, anderson, if these are political edits, it is incumbent on devin nunes to follow the lead last week.

but now to do it to the broader house of representatives. if he is consistent that he wanted this out to the public, then he should come to the floor on tuesday night and tell his colleagues that the public should see this. >> i appreciate your time. back now with jeffrey toobin, anne milgram, van jones. evan perez. >> it is not their candy store. the republicans run the white house, the house of representatives, and this is a subject to majority rule. but i think it is just worth pointing out that what the administration did when the nunes memo came out, they said fbi, we don't care what you think, we are releasing this.

today, when the democrats have a memo that they want to come out, they say, well, the fbi thinks this is very important. so we can't release it. i mean, you know, how stupid do we have to be to believe this nonsense. >> does it not seem hypocritical to you? >> no. because a, you don't know what is in the memo. you don't know. >> what about the nunes memo? >> the other memo was short and it didn't appear to me to be anything that is terribly damaging. this was a longer memo. we don't know what is in there. you are upset on the one hand about the fbi being disregarded and now they are being regarded and you can't have it both ways. >> the point is you either trust the fbi to say what should be classified. >> they said the president is

inclined to release it when they make a few he hmake a few editst is it. >> i am of the view the memo has to come out. >> i agree. >> i understand what josh is saying, but having run law enforcement agencies, this is just fundamental fairness at this point. the question is what it looks like when it comes out. i expect that if it is heavily redacted that we will hear the conversation will not end. i think it would be incredibly foolish and extend if a great deal if when released in a way they have taken everything out, that is the next fight. if the president is willing to let the american people see both sides. van is right, it is going to take a lot more span in space.

>> josh, was you who said something you want to get in? >> we see the national security establishment with their interest align, with the political party with whatever motive they have is selectively releasing information. again, it is a weird place to be with. if you are aligned with that type of political operation, but i don't think that changes the fact that the information is entive a sensitive and there is a proper venue for the release. >> once one came out, both should come out. and at the end of the day, a lot of americans believe we should. transparency is not going to be judged to be a bad idea no m

matter who is doing it. >> timing is important. there was a question yesterday about the incompetence of fema in puerto rico. nobody pays attention to that because it has been months since people have moved on from the story. if this comes out two weeks from now, who knows what fresh outrage there is going to be that we are paying attention to. >> we are so far from where we should be. first of all, this shouldn't be taking place in the public eye at all in this way. the idea that you would have a partisan memo come out basically trying to be -- >> this is not real oversight. >> no. where you say we think something is wrong. if nunes and other people thought there was something

serious going on, you don't need a press release thrown out to the public. you need hearings to figure out if we have a corrupt fbi. >> if the republicans had been concerned about the national security implications, when chris wray had said he wanted the fbi to come and brief the committee, the republicans said we don't want to. if they were concerned about the implications that would be one way to do it. coming up, another staff departure also over spousal abuse allegations.

oh, manatees. aka "the sea cow"" oh! there's one. manatees in novelty ts? surprising. what's "come at me bro?" it's something you say to a friend. what's not surprising? how much money matt saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

well. big night of news on top of the intel committee, there is the doj official who would have overseen the investigation if rod rosenstein is fired and cnn just learned about the departure of david sorenson. he stepped down after being accused of domestic. as long well as general john kelly willing to step down. over the last 13 months three separate women have revealed what they saw as abuse by rob porter. starting 2017 when two of porter's ex-wives spoke to the fbi people knew about the allegations. they knew and it seems they did nothing. porter didn't only remain in his job, his star actually rose.

he was promoted and became chief of staff john kelly's right hand man. and even when this became public, the first move by these powerful public servants was to defend rob porter. when photos of porter's first wife with a black eye, the white house began to change their tune. they dodged and weaved and tried to cover it up. today it got worse. today the president trump weighed in. he said nothing about the women, nothing about spousal abuse. what he did is he chose to praise rob porter. >> obviously tough time for him. he did a very good job when he was in the white house. and we hope he has a wonderful career and hopefully he will have a great career ahead of him. but it was very sad when we

heard about it. and certainly he is also very sad. now, he also as you probably know, he says he is innocent. and i think you have to remember that. he said very strongly yesterday that he is innocent. so you will have to talk to him about that. but we absolutely wish him well. >> we absolutely wish him well. just to be clear, the president is saying that about a man accused of doing this to his first wife. colby holderness. >> after he did ultimately and i closed the door and locked it behind him, he returned a moment later and punched in the glass on the front door. and because i did know that his anger was unpro dictable. i didn't know what he would do next. >> and you were frightened?

>> yeah. i was scared. >> after that the police officer recommended that he get a temporary order of protection. the president did not mention her today. nor did john kelly's memo or his public statement last night acknowledge any of porter's accusers. the what stands out is the president's defense of an alleged abuser and total lack of consideration of the accusers and their allegations. and as stunning as that, maybe it isn't as stunning this president has had a history of doing for others what he did for porter. alleged serial abuser roger ailes. >> what he has done on television, he is in the history of television and placed within the top three or four or five

and that includes the founding of the major network. so it is too bad. >> he is talking about the history of television. nothing about the women. he has similarly defended bill o'reilly and mike tyson. he has even tried to let himself off the hook his boasting about being able to sexually assault women. telling friends that might not be his voice on the tape. now there are some exceptions and you can draw your own conclusions about them. in the '90s he took out full place ads. the central park five. and even after, the so-called central park five were

exonerated after they spent years of their lives in prison. exonerated by someone else's confession and dna evidence. there is also this tweet from 2012, quote, if rihanna is dating chris brown, then she has a death wish. a better is always a beater. the president of the united states -- >> let me tell you, roy moore denies it. that is all i can say. and he totally denies it. >> that is roy moore alleged child molester and general mall creeper. listen what he says in the next two breaths. >> mr. president, what is your message to women. this is a pivotal moment.

>> women are very special. i think it is a special time because a lot of things are coming out. and i think that is good for our society. and very, very good for women and i am happy a lot of these things are coming out. i am very happy it is being exposed. >> tonight, he is not so happy. he is said to be furious at hope hicks and john kelly, everyone he believes has failed to defend him. steve cortez, jen psaki andtaria set mayier. >> the communication director hope hicks has been in a relationship with the abuser. were you surprised that the president would have the press

ushered in and make that statement? >> yes, but no. this is president trump. what he did today was he solidified his legacy of a defender of abusers especially white abusers, as you just noted in your statement. it shouldn't come as a surprise. it is sickening and not surprising because he has defended abuser after abuser. this is the reflection of a morally corrupt white house. and a culture that accepts abuse. accepts sexism and masochism as a part of who they are and what they high-5 in the hallway and the larger problem is that they are sending a message to the public that you can excuse abuse if you have a good resume. if you went to a good school, or

a good looking white man and that is something that is troubling, a troubling message to abusers and to those who are abused and afraid to speak out. >> is there any way to interpret the president's comments today? >> i have to take issue both with your comments and the comments just made. i say this as a brown man. the president has treated me incredibly well and that is a side point. my community incredibly well. this is a man who cares about the prosperity of hispanic americans. this notion that we are going to paint the president as a racist. we would rather talk about inwent do. >> we did defend white abusers. >> we are talking about his

legacy on abuse not on latino unemployment. >> does unemployment not matter? >> does calling them rapist -- do you want to go down this road? >> that is incredibly unfair. >> he said it. >> no, he said some, some are rapist and murders. are some people who cross the border rapist and murders? of course they are. >> were you pleased in his comments today about rob porter. >> i think he could have been more explicit about the victims of domestic abuse and how domestic violence is never okay. i think please put yourself in his shoes for a moment. he doesn't know rob porter in that way. general kelly didn't know him.

they knew him in a professional setting where apparently he was exceptional. all of us know people like that. where they can be in a professional setting smart and gregarious and then go home -- >> do you need to go out of your way and praise them in a professional setting. he was praising roger ailes. and bill o'reilly as well. and roy moore as well because at the time of the allegations he was a professional, i think he was a district attorney or assistant district attorney. so he does seem to go out of his way. >> i am assuming -- here is the thing. i give the president the benefit of the doubt. when he said it was sad i think

it was sad for everyone. >> i have gone over his statements. he said it is sad for people in the white house and he knows that rob porter is sad as well. and that is it. >> that's right. he showed no empathy whatsoever. >> let's play it again right here. >> it's a obviously tough time for him. he did a very good job when he was in the white house. we hope he has a wonderful career and hopefully he will have a great career ahead of him. and it was very sad when we heard about it and certainly he is also very sad. now, he also as you probably know, he says he is innocent. and i think you have to remember that. he said very strongly yesterday that he is innocent. so you will have to talk to him about that. but we absolutely wish him well. >> so tara, it was sad when we heard about it and obviously he

is very sad. >> a whole lot of hims in there. i didn't hear anything about the victims or she. it is amazing how donald trump is always the victim. he somehow becomes the victim here. and this is what, he didn't know or it is sad now. this is nonsense. what he should have said is yeah, it is sad that women have to face domestic abuse like this. and if it is true that rob porter was this doctor jekkyl and mr. hide, this could be a teachable moment. it could be professional in the white house, your neighbor. he could have had the opportunity. he is incapable of rising to the occasion. he is sad that it is embarrassing to him.

something he thought played the part so well because he went to harvard. all of this looks bad because of how poorly the white house managed the situation. and it sends the message to women that if you have the resume and you can portray yourself as an upstanding citizen then it is okay. >> this is not a partisan issue. there is no d or r on domestic or sexual harassment. whether we are talking about harvey weinstein or steve wynn. all four of the people i just named are reprehensible and terribly abused women and used their position of power to do so. that is a terrible thing. >> is roy moore rep pre

hencible? >> yes, but -- well, i don't know the fact. the four i named. >> how do you know -- you don't know the facts on roy moore? >> fine. i concede that. i haven't looked at it enough. >> you haven't looked at roy moore? >> there are republican and democrat men who have been abusive of their position of power clearly to women and it is r reprehensible in every case. and it is not a partisan issue. >> the fact that it is not a partisan issue is confusing why you are defending donald trump's comments today. part of what you just say, is that he did his job well, he was well liked. that is the whole point. abusers look like they are doctors, lawyers, people in the media.

when the president of the united states tried to justify that they look the other way is not okay. >> we have got to take a break. coming up, john kelly was brought in to calm things down and take a look at how that is turning out.

with word tonight that he's willing to step down over the

rob porter mess, we want to take a closer look at the man in question, chief of staff john kelly, who came to the white house of course after president trump's first chief of staff, reince priebus resigned after only a few months on the job. kelly's marching orders were to turn staff chaos into a semblance of normalcy. given all the news this week, here's that question, how is that turning out? david axelrod, former senior adviser to president obama, knows the job general kelly was hired to do. so the reporting today that kelly told the staff he decided to fire porter within 40 minutes and he secured porter's resignation, that accounting of events doesn't square with what's already on the record. does it surprise you that a guy like kelly would try to create this alternate history? >> yeah. well, i think creating it in this fishbowl is particularly alarming. but this whole thing has been mishandled from start to finish. the fact that he had been exposed to this information in the fall, did nothing about it,

gave more responsibility to porter, the way it's been handled this week, the lavish praise, relying on hope hicks, who's dating porter, to provide the talking points that he released lavishly praising porter, and then the changing stories over the next 24 hours. this has been a fiasco, and what is interesting to me, anderson, is that the story leaked out -- >> well, that's what's so incredible. within hours. >> yeah. which tells me that kelly has a real problem with the white house staff. one of the things that he has done successfully to a large degree is root out a lot of the leaking that we had seen before. clearly there's still leaks relative to what trump is telling people. but in terms of the staff-on-staff leaking, it has been reduced significantly since he was chief of staff. the fact that people are now

leaking on him tells me that he's lost the faith of the staff there. and you have to wonder whether all of this is a prelude to him leaving the job altogether. >> i didn't understand how the white house yesterday kept saying, well, there's this ongoing security investigation, and it's not resolved, and therefore we're not going to comment, and we don't want to go into the details. i mean how should this have been handled if information like this became known to the chief of staff and clearly others in the white house? you would think at the very least they would have done -- they would have looked into it as closely as possible and acted on it. >> yeah. look, i can only tell you how the white house i worked in would have dealt with it and i suspect every other white house before this white house. and you would have certainly removed at least on a temporary basis mr. porter from that job, handling the most sensitive documents that the u.s. government has, and you would have looked more deeply into

these charges. there's ample evidence here that the story that jennie willoughby told so compellingly last night on your program is true, and it was backed up by another of his wives and a girlfriend. and yet all of this -- you know, there were orders of protection filed. all of this was available, and you have to willfully ignore it not to act on it. >> also for the white house then to allow the president to go out and speak apparently what he actually believes seems doubly insane to me. >> yeah. >> i mean if you know the president has said this kind of thing in the past, you would think kelly or somebody else would say to the president -- >> absolutely. >> -- you know, how about saying this this time? >> and we don't know that they didn't. that was my first thought. i mean i watched with my mouth

agape. they called the white house press corps in for the express purpose of addressing this issue, and the president delivered a full-throated defense of porter and not one word of solis tud for the victims. in fact, he appeared to be doing what he's done in many other instances like this. he appeared to be blaming the alleged victims here. so if no one said to him, whether it was kelly or anyone else -- if no one said to him going into this scrum, mr. president, if you don't do anything else, you have to express some solicitude for these women, you have to speak to their experience, if no one said that, he's got deeper problems here because that would be malpractice on a major scale. >> yeah. david axelrod, thanks very much. just ahead tonight, we have actually more breaking news. cnn has learned that up to 40

trump administration officials are still without full security clearances just like the now fired white house aide rob porter. we'll have the latest on that next.

continuing with our breaking news tonight, the now fired white house staff secretary rob porter had only an interim security clearance despite having been on the job for a year. it turns out he was not the only one, not by a long shot. joining me now is cnn chief

national security correspondent jim sciutto. what have you learned about how many people are operating without full security clearances? >> so, anderson, myself and my colleagues, we were told that some 30 to 40 white house officials and other administration political appointees still 13 months into this administration have an interim security clearance, something that's meant really to be very temporary. it's not meant to be a personmat situation. you've heard from the white house an explanation saying this is a product of the bureaucratic security approval process, but in fact we are told by multiple current and former intelligence officials who have worked for both republican and democratic administrations that this is one highly unusual. but also, too, not an accident, not purely a result of the bureaucratic process, but a result of the fact that at least some of these people still on interim security clearances are not getting permanent clearances because of continuing questions

from their fbi background checks. rob porter, of course, an example of that. his being spousal abuse. but, you know, there are clearly substantive reasons behind this as well. now, to be fair, we've talked to lawyers who have represented people in the security clearance process, which can be labyrinth yien. i've been through it myself. this does not mean everyone still on an interim security clearance has an issue. there are a lot of folks in the trump administration who did not have a government past, which you will have in previous administrations, which makes it a bit easeasier. it's not just that. clearly we have a number of officials here telling us where they have continuing linger questions that lead to them not getting a permanent security clearance. let's be fair. this is 13 months in. that's not normal we're told by multiple officials, and it's a potential problem. >> just in terms of a time line here, i know the white house wasn't clear yesterday on when they expect this to be resolved. has that changed? >> it's not clear, and really

it's not entirely in the white house's control. i mean the way this works is the fbi does not issue the clearances. they do the background checks. but they supply this information to the white house, and then the white house has to move forward and make the decision. but if the fbi presents information to the white house that is disqualifying for those, then the white house can't move forward and grant that long-term security clearance, which is a very difficult and valuable thing. there are reasons why you go through this process. one of course is a character question. that's important at these levels of government when you're handling sensitive information. but it's also a security risk question because things like the fact that you might have abused your spouse could be, if that's not public information, something that puts you at risk of blackmail. i mean there's a national security reason why you have this process, why it's a very rigorous process, and the fact that you have so many people, 30 to 40 in the trump administration who cannot get through that process, is both unusual, and it raises serious questions as to what is holding up those clearances.

why is the fbi not recommending that they go forward? >> more to learn on this. thanks very much. coming up, more on the latest white house scandal and a time line of what seems to be a cover-up. what we're learning about rob porter's departure after abuse allegations came to light and the white house's changing story. 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.