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 to the second hour

of 360 in a big, mostly bad consequencetial news day for the white house. we've seen the republican memo alleging abuses in the russia investigation, but tonight the president decided we will not see the democratic rebuttal. also tonight what has all the appearances of a white house cover-up. spousal abuse allegations against a top staffer, allegations some had known about for months. and vice president pence's strange olympic moments, just steps away from kim jong-un's sister. we begin with the president's memo decision. jim acosta has the latest. >> reporter: you're not going to see this memo. that's the latest. the white house has decided, the president has decided he's not going to declassify the schiff memo that was going to rebut the devin nunes memo last week that was essentially released and declassified by the white house with very little redactions or accommodations made to the intelligence community despite the objections coming from the

fbi. a very different process appears to have unfolded this week despite what we heard from the white house that the process would be exactly the same as what we heard last week. but to get to the nitty-gritty, anderson, let's show you onscreen what is said in a letter from don mcgahn to the house intelligence committee democrats. it essentially says, sorry, but you're not getting the memo. it says, although the president is inclined to declassify the february 5th memorandum, that's the schiff memo, because the memorandum contains numerous -- excuse me -- yes, numerous properly classified and especially sensitive packassage he's unable tow do so at this time. there's another letter attached to that letter, instructing the justice department to work with house democrats on the intelligence committee to try to arrive at a memo that all sides can agree upon. and apparently along with that, we did not see this, but along with that in terms of what was sent up to capitol hill, the memo included some redactions and revisions, some suggested redactions and revisions that

they want the democrats to take into consideration and work with the justice department on. and of course we would be remiss if we did not talk about all the political considerations that went into this. of course with what happened over the last couple of weeks, i think we have one other thing to show ou viewers and that is how the fbi reacted to the release of the release of the nunes memo. we can put this onscreen if we have it. this was january 31st. as expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy. that was about the nunes memo. it was still released anyway, anderson. by all appearances, i think any objective observer would look at what has happened tonight and see two very different scenarios, two very different processes despite whatever the white house is saying, a different standard appears to have applied to the schiff memo, and i think political considerations went into effect

here. the president did not want to see a ten-page democratic memo rebutting everything that was in the nunes memo that he was holding up as vindication for all of his comments about the russia investigation. >> what is involved in the timing behind this, and is there any indication how long it might take to work with the fbi and the justice department to review the memo as it exists now and maybe make changes? >> well, it seems to indicate in all of this that they would like to get this done sooner rather than later. of course if you're a house democrat on that intelligence committee, my guess is that they're going to be looking at this with great suspicion and worry, i would imagine, that this is going to take a good period of time. the house minority -- excuse me -- the senate minority leader, kmchuck schumer has put out a statement saying, what are you hiding, mr. president? that appears to be the tone of this debate that's going to be moving forward over the next several days. they're just not going to be happy, and they're going to charge. and i think with some basis that

a different standard was applied here as we were saying in the last hour. the president said at the state of the union speech 100% we're going to release that nunes memo. i don't think it was ever 100% this week, anderson, when it came to the schiff memo. far from it. >> here to talk more about the mother of all friday night news jumps, jeffrey toobin, van jones, paris denard, and anne milgram. i don't know how we found so many people on a friday night. >> cnn has its ways. >> jeff, you've read this letter. what do you make of it? >> well, the unfairness is so obvious and so egregious. i mean if you are going to trust the fbi, you have to trust the fbi with regard to the democratic as well as the republican memo. the nunes memo came up last week, and the fbi objected, and the white house said, we don't care. we're going to release it. today the democratic memo comes up, and the fbi objects, and they say, oh, we have to respect

the opinion of the fbi. i don't personally care whether either memo comes out, but there should be the same standard applied to both. >> scott? >> i will frame this a different way. this memo comes over to the white house. it's ten pages. we don't know what's in it. clearly there's sensitive information in it. and they say, we're not going to release it tonight. we are inclined to do so. the president orders his own administration to work with the democrats to arrive at a solution and, tonight, congressman schiff of the committee has said, i will gladly work with the administration to come to a memo that can be released. now, i've said from the beginning i thought if one comes out, both should come out, and i think it strengthens the white house's argument about the nunes memo if they show the confidence to let the democratic memo come out. and if they don't ultimately release this memo, i'll come on here and raise holy heck about it. but i think it is prudent to measure twice and cut once on sensitive information. and if the memo comes out and d they arrive at a solution that everybody is happy with, we'll all be better for having the caution. >> why didn't they have that caution on the republican side?

>> because it was a short moemp -- >> classified information isn't about how many pages it is. it's about the content. obviously the fbi had a problem with the short memo, why is that not a legitimate issue? >> they have a problem with any memo. we're already over that rubicon. they're coming out. >> i don't think anybody looking at this can feel great tonight. it looks terrible. and at this point the problem you have is you rush out a four-page, three-page press release which has no precedent in how our congress is given oversight into our intelligence community. zero. it's not how it's done. now you say when our guys do it, we're republicans, when our guys do it, it's good. we're going to push it out there. when your team does it, now suddenly we have standards. we have criteria. we have concern. we've got a whole building full of people who the fbi said shouldn't be able to walk in the front door, but we've got standards for you. once you're in that world, your confidence in the idea that we

aren't just living under some kind of one-party rule starts to go to the toilet. >> this is censorship pure and simple. what is so ironic of what you were saying, scott, is the president was so hell bent on releasing the first memo without even seeing it. he hadn't even seen it and he was already saying, yes, we're going to release it immediately. what was the reason for them to release it immediately? because it was so important for the american people to see. transparency. it's so hypocritical. i don't think adam schiff was so happy to see this happen if you look at his tweet tonight. >> he says he's going to work with them. >> what choice does he have? >> what choice does he have? >> that's my point. he didn't throw up his hands. he says, sure, let's do it. >> paris, the fbi said about the nunes memo that they had grave concerns about it being released. i don't see them saying they have grave concerns about this memo. they've just been directed by

the president to work with the democrats. >> well, look, someone -- these memos are political in nature when you look at what is going on inside of the memos. and you can ask yourself, well, did the fbi think that this memo had something to do with vindicating the trump administration as to why they felt grave concerns because it wasn't redacted to the level that many people thought it was going to be. it was politically damning for the democrats, and it was actually something that was beneficial to the trump narrative about what transpired. but i think we are in a rush to judgment here when you look at what happened tonight. the president did not say, this memo is not going to come out. he said at this time. and then as scott pointed out, he asked his own government to work to get a solution so that this memo can come out in a way that the fbi is okay with it and it appeases both sides. >> why does the fbi matter now, paris? >> say what? >> why do the fbi concerns

matter now if they didn't matter last week? >> it's not a function of what mattered then and what matters now. what matters is the memo, according to what the president said, is going to come out but not right now. >> but why not right now? >> we don't know. we haven't seen it. >> with all due respect, he also said he would release his tax returns but just not right now. >> we're still waiting for those. they're being redacted. >> we can talk about tax returns, or we can talk about the memo. >> it's more about the president's word. you're putting great faith in what the president's word that you believe he really wants this memo to come out. >> if the president did not want this memo to come out, tonight the memo -- the letter would have said from the white house counsel, the memo will not be released. >> and that could come out tomorrow. >> but it didn't, so stop rushing to judgment. >> paris, i'll tell you what my concern is. you could put out a memo that he likes, but it could be so redacted and retracted with so many scissor cuts and black marks on it, well, but i put it

out. in other words, once we are over this barrier that we've never been over before, where we're just going to litigate what our intelligence community does by press release, by partisan memo, and in public, it seems to be totally unfair to handcuff one side to these standards and not the other. that's the problem. >> and the white house kept saying they were going to subject the democrats' memo to the same rigor, quote, unquote, that they subjected the republican one, which clearly the president wanted that released from the get-go. >> that's very true. if you look at the first memo, one of the deep concerns i have is it was completely conclusory. even the impression it was giving about fisa, i think it was calling the carter page information essential. you know, there's no way that that fisa would have been approved based, in my opinion, just on that carter page information. so i think it was misleading in that way. it also made it seem as though there was no information give to the judge about the nature of

christopher steele, so to me, just the first memo itself was misleading and should not have gone out in the way it did. and so to not release -- i don't think the first one should have gone out. i mean i feel very strongly this is a terrible way to run the american government and think about national security. but once it's gone out, it's hard for me to see what standard would have been applied here other than if there was a specific source or method. and in that case, i do think there's a difference story. >> we're going to continue the conversation after a break. later, despite knowing the allegations against white house staff secretary for months, top officials kept him on board, promoted him either. the president even praising porter today now that he's gone. they help restore my natural barrier, so i can lock in moisture... and keep us protected. we've got to have each other's backs... and fronts. cerave. what your skin craves.

directv has been rated #1 in customer satisfaction over cable for 17 years running. but some people still like cable. just like some people like banging their head on a low ceiling. drinking spoiled milk. camping in poison ivy. getting a papercut. and having their arm trapped in a vending machine. but for everyone else, there's directv. for #1 rated customer satisfaction over cable, switch to directv and get a $200 reward card. call 1.800.directv if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ...

with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. it's 6 am. 40 million americans are waking up to a gillette shave. and at our factory in boston, more than a thousand workers are starting their day building on over a hundred years of heritage, craftsmanship and innovation. today we're bringing you america's number one shave at lower prices every day. putting money back in the pockets

of millions of americans. as one of those workers, i'm proud to bring you gillette quality for less, because nobody can beat the men and women of gillette. gillette - the best a man can get. you can switch and save time. it pays to switch things up. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. the breaking news tonight, the president will not release the democratic rebuttal to the republican memo that alleges fbi abuses of its surveillance authority. joining us now congressman jim himes of connecticut. congressman himes, i spoke to

you earlier this week. you told me you were worried about redactions from the memo, but you didn't say you were worried about it being blocked completely. are you surprised they took this action? >> no, i'm really not. i quite frankly would have been surprised if the white house had let our memo go out at all. you know, i've never seen anything about donald trump that suggests, particularly after he mischaracterized the memo as -- his claim this was all a hoax, i'm not one bit surprised. i mean -- >> i think we're -- >> -- the justice department and the fbi were very clear it would be in their words extremely reckless to release it. i guess they had some concerns that the democratic memo -- the president decided that he would be extremely reckless with the memo that falsely made his case, but is not going to be reckless or whatever with the memo that -- >> the letter from the white house said they're blocking the memo at this time, not forever.

do you think the white house will eventually release it? >> well, they left that door open, and so of course we will pursue that. again, when you -- a fisa application, which is what happened here, declassifying other -- you know, it's hardly the big step. the big step is the declassification in the first place. but we are going to pursue this. look, this is very obviously a strategy. we move on to other things -- [ technical difficulties ] nobody will remember what the underlying nunes memo said to begin with. it's going to be an effective way to prevent the final line in the story showing very explicitly the allegations against the fbi and the doj were simply manufactured. we're not going to learn that until we're several news cycles down the road at best. >> do you have any sense of how long it might take to work with the fbi and the department of justice to their satisfaction?

>> well, no sense whatsoever. again, remember that the department of justice and the fbi -- again, their words, they said it would be extremely recless to release the republican shall the nunes memo, and the white house said, we don't care. we're doing it anyway. now we're in a -- >> i'm sorry. we're obviously having cell phone difficulties with congressman himes. sorry. we'll just end it there. congressman himes, thanks very much. back now with the panel. >> look, i think if this memo ever comes out, the people who get it back will be able to use it as an advertisement for a black magic marker. it's going to be so heavily redacted. they can say, we said we'd release it, we worked with you and we released it. but the reality is donald trump has no interest in anybody going back and punching holes in this ridiculous story. >> he has said this is a

bombshell. he has said this is vindication. >> he's already staked his presidency on these three or four pages, saying this vindicates me. this proves that the fbi is out to get me. now, is he going to then sign off on a counter document that points out that almost everything in the original thing is hokey and bologna and nonsense? he's not going to do that. so what you're going to have is a bunch of back and forth and nonsense and it's going to fade in the public eye. and when it comes out, whatever he lets out is going to be inadequate to the task of -- >> saying that the fbi would be culpable in that. i mean if that's the case, because the fbi said, look, the nunes memo, we have grave concerns because of material -- >> but the fbi does not want to continue this precedent of now we're going to litigate all their oversight and press releases and partisan memos over and over again. they would be willing, i think, to take a hit now and not continue down this -- >> you just raised the correct point. this is not donald trump sitting at the resolute desk in the oval

with a pen, editing the memo himself. he has turned this task to the leadership of the fbi, and the department of justice will sit down with the democrats on this committee and work it out. so this is not a trump edited document. this will be law enforcement looking at this and coming to a solution, which is a key difference. look, if they send out a document and everything is redacted and there's only a couple of words left, that would be a mistake because i think it strengthens their argument to let all the information fly and let the people decide. it shows confidence in what you're doing, so i agree with you on that. but the task of eddiiting goes law enforcement, not people in the oval. >> you either trust law enforcement or you don't. >> thank you. >> and the fact that you released the nunes memo over the objection of law enforcement really, i think, damages your argument when you say, i'm not going to release the democratic memo based on the objection of law enforcement. all i think that , you know, we're saying here is there

should be one standard for democrats and republicans. is that so crazy? >>, no, it's not crazy but i think we're missing the bigger point. the bigger point is the fbi, for whatever reason, has become very political. and if you go back -- >> says who? >> why do you say that? >> if you go back to the narrative that the president's been putting out, if you look back at things that eric holder did or did not do, loretta lynch and the conversation that happened on the plane or at the tarm tarmac, the law enforcement, the department of justice, fbi, the politicization of these two entities has gotten us to this point now. and this is the point that the president has been making. so when you look at the nunes memo that came out, it reinforces the point that the president has been saying in the whole campaign is, you can't fully trust that they are going to be the fbi or the department of justice, do right by the american people because there are some things in there -- you

may call them hokey, but there's things in there that look suspicious. >> which means everybody you can't trust -- the president says everybody you can't trust are the people investigating the president. he has no problem in trusting police officers on the street or any police department in the country when it comes to -- you know, he has no problem trusting people who have been accused of abuse, but the fbi, who happens to be investigating him, that's the one? is that just a coincidence? >> i think also is it a coincidence that that same fbi is not having the same standard as it relates to president trump or the trump campaign as it would to hillary clinton or the clinton campaign? >> what do you mean by that? >> what i mean is the president has said -- for instance, if the russia investigation is one that the american people care about because they believe in russian medd meddling, then they would go with such vigor, and you would be just as vigorous in your call for the fbi, the department of justice, and everyone, the news media, to go after every single thing that might be seen as an impropriety of the clinton campaign, be it uranium, be it

russia. >> that was already looked at, paris, and it was completely debunked as a conspiracy theory. so let's not go back there. you've become -- you and trump become the entities that are politicizing in a much -- in a much more pernicious matter. >> i just see it differently, paris. i mean honestly, i've been hearing this more and more, this kind of almost discrediting of the fbi. the fbi is political. it's corrupt at the top, et cetera, et cetera. then when i try to figure out where is the evidence of that, it's because you feel the fbi wasn't tough enough on hillary clinton. that's basically what it comes down to. and yet the fbi destroyed hillary clinton's campaign by coming out, you know, twice with these things. so i think on our side of it, the fbi -- first of all, it's strange for me as a liberal democrat to be sitting here trying to defend the fbi because, you know, civil rights leaders and other people have had a very tough time with the fbi. but even we haven't made the case that the fbi is a corrupt,

partisan organization in the hands of the democrats trying to destroy republicans. you've got to go way beyond, like, normal life to think that that's true. >> sure, but the point you just made about how you feel or some feel that the fbi sank hillary clinton's campaign proves the point that i'm talking about, which is there are -- not the whole fbi or not the whole department of justice, but there are people, and some of them are at the senior levels who have made decisions or judgment calls that have been political in nature. >> but they're the same people that you're accusing of being biased for donald trump are the same people the democrats are saying destroyed hillary clinton's campaign. >> and it reinforces my point that the fbi, doj, and all these others have become very, very political. >> but if they're political, then they're credibly confused because you both seem to be arguing that they have bias for the other person. >> they shouldn't be political at all, and that's why it's important to have the same vigor on the left as they have on the right. >> i think that this is a deeply unfair conversation for law enforcement and for the fbi for a number of reasons. first of all, it's not the same as the united states department

of justice where the president picks the attorney general for a term -- serves at the president's pleasure essentially. the fbi has a statutory term of ten years. obama extended it for two extra years for mueller and there's a reason. because the fbi is supposed to be incredibly independent. i've worked with the fbi throughout my entire career. they are appointed by whoever is the fbi director at the time. so most of the men and women who are in the fbi now, they're career folks. they've been there ten years, 20 years, 30 years. they were appointed by democratic and republican presidents. i do not know the political party of any police officer, any fbi agent with whom i have ever worked. the most political thing that i've ever seen happen in the fbi was the firing of jim comey. the first time i ever was concerned about the independence of the federal bureau of investigation was when president trump fired comey. >> have you read his tweets? >> this is about institutions, right? donald trump one day will not be. . robert mueller will one day not be doing an investigation. this is about the american public and the ability of law

enforcement to be -- to basically do their job. >> we've got to take a quick break. there's word tonight of yet another white house departure over spousal abuse allegations. also given how much was known for so many months about the spousal abuse allegations against rob porter, does how the white house handled it amount to a cover-up? we'll talk about that next. r ex. improve our workflow. attract new customers. that's when fastsigns recommended fleet graphics. yeah! now business is rolling in. get started at fastsigns.com. (whispering) with the capital one venture card, you'll earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, every day. not just airline purchases. (yelling) holy moly, that's a lot of miles! shh-h-h-h! what's in your wallet? man: shh-h-h!

shh-h-h-h! you can avoid extra calories trifrom cooking r. with too much butter and oil. introducing new pam spray pump. with 1 gram of fat and ten calories per serving plus the superior non-stick you love. hashtag omeletgoals new pam spray pump.

we know life can be hectic. that's why, at xfinity, we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now, with instant text and email updates, you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels, so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for - because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today. more breaking news in this growing landfill of news dumping from the white house which just

happens to be on a friday night. late tonight we learned of another staffer leaving after another spousal abuse allegation. david sorensen is a member of the white house speech writing team. he denies the allegations. that's on top of rob porter's departure. he called attention to porter's claims of innocence and spoke about the man's talent but said nothing about his accusers or even the issue of domestic abuse in general. >> i would say obviously a 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's also very sad. now, he also, as you probably know, he says he's innocent. and i think you have to remember that. he said very strongly yesterday that he's innocent. so you'll have to talk to him about that. but we absolutely wish him well.

>> we should note that like david sorensen, rob porter denies the claims against him. back with the panel. mj, what's the story -- this wasn't as if the panel was suddenly caught off guard by a bunch of cameras that happened to wander into the oval office. cameras were actually brought in. the president must have known he was going to talk about this. was anybody -- do we know did anybody brief him about what he might want to say? >> well, i'll address what trump said earlier today in just a second. but i just wanted to say having spoken to both jennie and cole bee earlier this week and you obviously got to sit down with one of the ex-wives last night. it was a great interview. having spoken to them on the phone over the course of the week, it was so striking to me both as a reporter and as a woman hearing them be so reflective and honest about the abuses that they said they suffered from rob porter and

sort of reflecting on what they said they didn't know at the time that they were being abused. it was heartbreaking for me to hear colbie holderness talking about the fact that she was repeatedly being choked but didn't realize that her life was in danger. that he would throw her onto the bed and lean his body into her and hurt her, but didn't realize that her life was in danger. but he punched her face, leaving a black eye. the photos we have all seen by now. even then she didn't realize her life was in danger. it was only when she met with a trained therapist for the first time that she was told that her life was actually in danger. that was heartbreaking. and the thing that kind of haunts me in thinking about what president trump said earlier today is that for the colbies of the world, of 15 years ago, because she now gets her life was very much in danger. for the colbies of the world who are listening to the president say those words, i think what stays with them is the fact that president trump said the person

being accused, rob porter, said that he is innocent. what will stay with the colbies of the world is also the fact that he didn't say anything about how domestic abuse is a problem. >> right. >> and that violence is not okay. >> one of the things that jennie willoughby said to me last night was when she was considering taking out this temporary protective order, which a police officer recommended she get after he returned to her residence and punched his hand through the window, that she went to a bishop in her church to talk about this, and the bishop actually counseled her. he raised the concern that the bishop had that if she got a temporary protective order, one day it might become public and it might hurt rob porter's career. i was thinking about that when the president was talking about rob porter's career today as opposed to talking about anything related to any women. >> that's right. and this bishop that actually jennie says worked at the same workplace as rob porter -- so the person she was supposed to

be getting counseling and help from was looking out for his career and didn't want her to do something that could go in the public records and potentially damage his future. and i think this sort of brings us to an important point, you know, we've been talking a lot about john kelly, the chief of staff and his handling of all of this. and there's a lot of interest in sort of the palace intrigue right now of, you know, is president trump angry at john kelly? he certainly appears to be, at the handling of all of this this week. and obviously the who knew what, when, all of this is very important. but i don't think we should lose sight of the sort of bigger mistake that john kelly made other than angering trump is that he knew for months, for a very long time, that there were issues in rob porter's background, but yet he still continued to elevate this man. >> can john kelly stay on the job? >> you know, i don't see how he could do worse than he's doing. i mean think about everybody. i mean republicans, democrats. oh, my god, john kelly's coming. maybe i can sleep more than two

hours at night. you know, maybe there be will some order. if anybody could do it, it will be him. and he gets in there, and in some ways he's worse than trump. don't forget, he is aggressively covering up for this guy. he apparently, if you believe our reporting -- and i do, is then coming -- he's trying to engage in a cover-up of his own mistakes, trying to tell other staffers, listen, say i did a good job. and the staffers are leaking, saying, why is john kelly asking me to lie about him covering up for an accused wife beater? this is not a reality television show. this is the white house under john kelly. what would he have to do to get fired at this point? i don't know. >> scott, can he stay in? >> it strikes me that there are clearly people who have it out for john kelly right now. some inside and some outside the white house. and i read today that john kelly had told the president if you want me to resign, i will. that's different than tendering your resignation. i've also heard that kevin

mccarthy, the congressman from california, member of leadership, could be the leading choice among some people to replace him. what i don't understand about the strategy this week is when all this became known, they chose to die on a hill that had already been abandoned. rob porter was either fired or resigned. we don't know the time line exactly because they never issued a time line, which was a mistake. then they went and tried to die on a hill that they had already abandoned. i don't understand it. then the president came out today -- >> when you say die on a hill -- >> the porter hill. porter hill has been abandoned. he was gone. they should have said what he did was terrible. he knew this was coming. he tried to pressure one of the women into -- >> jennie willoughby -- >> there are reports coming out of the white house that he was misleading people in the white house about what happened. we don't know what he told the fbi. this was not someone worth defending before or after the information became public, and all of it hurt the president and the presidency today. >> so why -- >> and that is a terrible thing.

>> why does the president of the united states defend him today? >> i don't know. i don't know. but for his presidency and for the way women and really all americans are going to view the way he looks into these things, i worry that no one is saying, mr. president, the long-term view of how you're going to be perceived on handling this cultural movement at this time of your presidency is being damaged. >> tara, there's now a second white house staffer, david sorensen resigning over domestic abuse allegations. that that is a sign that the white house might be looking to establish backgrounds more -- >> i think it means the wool is being pulled back now because they have no choice. now everything is under more scrutiny. and he should have resigned. there's some pretty serious allegations there as well and, you know, we can't -- i guess they learned from the disaster how they handled rob porter in this situation with the second one. but i have a theory about why

donald trump would not come out today and show empathy for the women. because, a, he's a narcissist, so he can't show empathy. b, because if he were to acknowledge these women were victims, he would be tacitly acknowledging his own failures as a man with women. he is accused of sexually harassing and potentially sexually -- a sexual assault of women. we heard his own voice talk about grabbing women by the genitalia proudly because he can. donald trump's own -- his howard stern interviews, i mean there's a litany of examples of how he sexually objectifies women, and he finds some kind of validation in that. and if he were to actually show empathy for these women and step up to the plate and be the moral leader that the american people deserve in the office of the presidency, then he would have to face his own criticism and

failures, and he will not do that. as a result, the office of the presidency suffers. >> we're going to continue this conversation. i want to hear from paris and maria as well. we're also going to hear what former vice president joe biden had to say about rob porter, the allegations, and the president's response. select securities 24 hours a day, 5 days a week. so i can trade all night long? ♪ all night long... let's reopen the market. ♪ trade 24/5, only with td ameritrade. depend silhouette briefs. feature a comfortable sleek fit. as a dancer, i've learned you can't have any doubts. because looking good on stage is one thing. but real confidence comes from feeling good out there. get a coupon at depend.com i thought i was managing my

moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep,uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

before the break you heard the president speak almost westfully about his former staff secretary rob porter while saying nothing about the women who have accused him of abuse nor domestic violence in general. he talked about the man's talents. today former vice president joe biden seized on that and had this reaction. >> the rationale apparently was, what you see in the press, but he did a good job. he was really good at his job.

i just read before i walked onstage a statement from the president saying he wishes him luck. he has so much talent. that's like saying that ax murderer out there, he's a great painter. no. think -- translate this into everyday terms. is there any other crime -- and it's a crime -- where there would be an explanation that the reason why we shouldn't pay attention to the transgression is because they're good at something? >> paris, there's what the president's capable of in terms of speaking and empathy and stuff, and then there's what people around him would advise him. does it make any sense to you that they would have ushered the press corps into that room, clearly the president knowing he was going to say something that nobody -- i mean i don't know if somebody had said to him, you know, you might want to mention something about the overall issue of domestic violence even

if you don't want to talk about the allegations of these women in particular. >> listen, the communication director was in the room. the chief of staff was in the oval office at the time. i don't know what was said or what was not said. i know the president sometimes struggles with nuance. what i mean by that is the president speaks and talks about people in terms of their capability, how he knows them. they were a good soldier, good fighter. he worked for me. he was good. and that's what he commented on. but what he failed to do was talk about the nuanced portion of, well, rob might have been good at his job as staff secretary. he might have been a good, you know, at harvard or wherever he went to law school. but the personal side of what he did is a problem, and if you look at where the american people are right now, it overshadows his professional

résume. so i think that it's possible for the president to come out and say what he said about rob porter but still have sympathy and empathy for the women. >> maria? >> i think he sometimes -- sometimes he misses the mark when it comes to the nuance of what he says. >> he has no sympathy. he has no empathy, and he doesn't just struggle with nuance. he struggles with humanity. at the end of the day -- it's all fake sympathy. >> you don't know -- >> we have seen this president, and we all know about how in an administration and the organization, the tone is set at the top. and from what we have seen not just during donald trump's presidency but throughout his lifetime, for him, women are expendable. women are not deserving of dignity. they are not deserving of equality. they're not deserving of humanity. we have seen how he treats women day in and day out, and tara went in and talked about all of the instances when he has

degraded and objectified women. so when you have that tone at the top, you're going to surround yourself with people -- or the people that are surrounding you are going to take that cue from you. if you are the president of the united states, in the oval office, they're going to see something that comes through your desk to say, oh, well this guy beat his wife. oh, well, you know, if the president of the united states can grab women by the genitalia, then this is not a big deal. but i want to talk about how insidious this is in other ways. one of them is what does this say to our young girls? i'm the mother of a 10-year-old girl who is very durioucurious, she sees those pictures of the woman with a black eye. and she's asking me, mama, what is happening? why is that woman with a black eye? so, yes, it's a great opportunity to talk to our little girls about conversations, but we have to talk to them about how this president degrades women and how he is not a role model. how does this also look on the international stage when we are supposed to be the country that

goes out and stands up for the rights of women and girls around the world? and this is what the president of the united states is acting like? and this is what the people that are surrounding him that are supposed to be advising him are acting like? and at the end of the day, the "me too" movement here, what does this say if the president on down about the "me too" movement? it says to them, you are worthless. >> you know what? it was a teachable moment that he missed to your point. >> mm-hmm. >> i think this is consistent with a lot of examples from charlottesville and the way he treated gold star families. now this. he's missing the greater context of what's happening here because he always operates from self-interest. >> mm-hmm. >> the fact that he went on and on about this guy's résume and all of these things without mentioning the women just shows you what's important to donald trump. this is only where it's at now. rob porter's only out because the picture of that woman's black eye became public. if there was no picture, rob porter would still be staff secretary in the white house

right now because he looked the part, and he made the president look good, and that's all that mattered. and we can't have that kind of moral deficit coming from the people who are supposed to, a, represent -- they work for us, taxpayer money, but, b, from the office of the presidency. we as a society need to determine if this is the kind of leadership we want in the future. >> two things. we forget in this country you're innocent until proven guilty, and i think they were going off of speculation, allegation. but when they saw the photo, that makes it a lot harder -- >> the fbi brought it to their attention. >> the fbi, paris. >> when the president -- >> no security clearance. >> when the president saw the photo, when john kelly saw the photo, that changes things -- >> why did. >> paris, in all honesty, when there's an order of protection put out at the recommendation of a police officer and there's a handwritten account by, you know, the wife several months into the marriage, you know, about rob porter coming to the house. they've already separated. he refuses to leave.

he puts his hand through a glass window on the door. i mean it's not as if this happened in a vacuum. there was no trail here. there was a trail. >> multiple women. >> and the fbi knew about it. >> even the woman that contacted don mcgahn in the white house. >> don mcgahn is another one who's complicit. >> i don't think we should forget about the ex-girlfriend who -- >> we're going to continue this discussion. i do want to take a quick break. also what we're learning about the number three official in the justice department stepping down. what that could mean for the russia investigation. need a ha. get super fruit moroccan argan oil with fructis sleek & shine hair is super sleek, for up to 3 days. no parabens. garnier fructis sleek & shine super fruit. super hair. garnier. we packed new banquet mega bowls full of majestic piles of cheddar mac n cheese, smothered in mozzarella. but it wasn't mega. so we topped it with protein packed chunks of buffalo-style chicken. now that's mega.

well, as friday night news goes, this is probably super fun. and rachel brand is leaving in a couple of weeks. in a statement sessions praises brand as a lawyers lawyer who has played a critical role, and who has quote, shown leader sp. the department saying i've seen first-hand his commitment to the rule of law and keeping the american people safe. here's what he said at the justice department meeting last week. >> thank you all for being here, and thank you, rachel, for your kind words and more importantly for your strong leadership as our third ipcommand of the department. those two, ron and rachel, are harvard gradsutes. they both represent the kind of quality and leadership that we want in the department. >> obviously a major up and comer. >> and so wonderful that she >> this is good day for when you look -- if i had a daughter, i would say you know what, you can work your way up department of justice and you can -- and look at the number of women that have reached the supreme court.

and look at sarah test

when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com.

. it's been quite a news day or news dump depending on how you look at things. the sorrenson deture, it's our world tonight. and "cnn tonight" starts right now. this is "cnn tonight" and i'm erin burnett. i'm in for don lemon this evening. we have breaking news. president trump refusing tonight to release the house intelligence committee democratic memo. that's the memo that rebuts the so-called nunes memo. the white house tonight saying the democratic memo contains classified and sensitive passages so it's sending it back to the intelligence committee for changes. but tonight chuck schumer is accusing the president of a double stand