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 they go forward. >> more to learn on this. coming up, more on the latest white house scandal and a timeline of what abuse allegations came to light and the white house's changing story. lilly.

she pretty much lives in her favorite princess dress. but once a week i let her play sheriff so i can wash it. i use tide to get out those week old stains and downy to get it fresh and soft. you are free to go. tide and downy together.

welcome to the second hour. the republican memo alleging abuses in the russia investigation. the president decided we will

not see the democratic rebuttal, at least not right now. what has all the appearances of a white house cover up of abuses. some covered up for months. we begin with the memo story and the president's decision with jim acosta for us tonight at the white house. >> you are not going to see this memo. that's the latest. the president decided he is not going to declassify the adam schiff memo that was going to come from the committee to rebut the devin nunes memo last week that was released and declassified from the white house with little redaction. despite what we heard from the white house, the process would be the same as we heard last week. to get to the nitty-gritty, show

you on screen what was said in a letter to the house intelligence committee democrats that says, sorry, you are not getting the memo, no sot so many words. the president is declined to declassify that schiff memo because it contains numerous properly classified and sensitive passages. he is unable to do so at this time. there's another letter attached to that letter to the justice department instructing them to work with house democrats on the intelligence committee, to try to arrive at a memo that all sides can agree upon. apparently, along with that, we did not see this, but along with that, what was sent to capitol hill, the memo inclued redaxs and revisions that they want the democrats to take into consideration and work with the justice department on. of course, we would be remiss if we did not talk about the political considerations that

went into this and what would happen over the next couple weeks. we have one thing to show our viewers, how the fbi rejected to the release of the nunes memo. this was a week ago. this was january 31st. we have grave concerns of material of facts that impact the memo's accuracy. that was about the nunes memo. it was released anyway. anderson, by all appearances, any objective observer would look at tonight and see two very different scenarios and processes, despite what the white house is saying. i think political considerations went into effect here. the president did not want to see a ten-page democratic memo rebutting the nunes memo of what he is holding for the russia investigation. >> what is behind the timing and

is there indication of how long it might take to work with the fbi and justice department to review the memo as it exists now or make changes? >> reporter: it seems to indicate in all of this, they would like to get it done sooner rather than later. of course, if you are a house democrat on that intelligence committee, my guess is they are going to look at this with great suspicion and worry, i would imagine. this is going to take a good period of time. the house minority or excuse me, the senate minority leader put out a statement saying what are you hiding, mr. president. that appears to be the tone of this debate that is moving forward over the next several days. they are not going to be happy and they are going to charge. with basis that a different standard was applied here as we were saying in the last hour. the president said 100%, we are going to release that nunes memo. i don't think it was ever 100%

when it came to the schiff memo, far from it. >> here to talk about the mother of friday night news. i don't know how we found so many people on a friday night. cnn has its ways. >> helps that we have no life. >> jeff, you have read this letter. what do you make of it? >> the unfairness is so obvious and so egregious. if you are going to trust the fbi, you have to trust the fbi with regard to the democratic memo 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 are going to release it. today, the democratic memo comes up and the fbi objects. oh, we have to respect the opinion of the fbi. i don't care whether either memo comes out but there should be the same standard applied to both. >> scott? >> i will frame it a different way. the memo comes to the white

house, ten pages, we don't know what's in it. we are not going to release it tonight. we are inclined to do so. the president orders his members to work on it. congressman schiff says i will gladly work with them to come up with a memo to be released. i said if one comes out, both should. it strengthens the white house's position if they let the democrats come out. i think it is prudent to mesh twice and cut once on sensitive information. if the memo comes out and they arrive at a solution they are happy with, we will all be better for having the caution here. >> why didn't they have the caution with the republican memo? >> 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 --

>> they have a problem with any memo. >> we have over that. >> i don't think anybody looking at this can feel great tonight. it looks terrible. at this point, the problem you have is you rush out a four-page, three-page press release which has no precedent in how congress is given oversight. zero. it's not how it's done. now, you say when our guys do it, it's good. we have to push it out there. when your team does it, suddenly, we have standards, we have criteria, we have concern. we have a building of people the fbi says can't walk through the front door, but we have standards for you. once you are in that world, your competence and the idea we are living under one-party rule goes through the toilet. >> this is sensorship, pure and simple. what is so ironic is the

president was so hellbent on releasing the first memo without seeing it. he hadn't seen it and, yes, we are going to release it, immediately. what was the reasoning to release it immediately? transparency. sorry, but that goes out the window. it's so hypercritical. i don't think adam schiff was so happy to see this happen if you look at the tweet. >> he's going to work with him. >> what choice does he have? what choice does he have? >> he didn't throw up his hands. >> he has no choice. >> the fbi said, about the nunes memo, they had grave concerns about it being released. i don't see them saying they have grave concerns about this memo. they are being directed by the president to work with the democrats. >> well, these memos are political in nature when you look at what is going on inside the memos. you can ask yourself, well, did

the fbi think this memo had something to do with vindicating the trump administration, as to why they have grave concerns? it wasn't redacted to the level many people thought it was going to be. it was politically damming for the democrats. it was actually something that was beneficial to the trump narrative about what transpired. we are in a rush to judgment 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. as scott pointed out, he asked his own government to work, to get a solution so this can come out in a way that the fbi is okay with it and it appeases both sides. >> why do the fbi concerns matter now if they didn't last time? >> it's not a function of what mattered then and what matters now. what matters is the memo is going to come out, but not right

now. >> why not right now? >> we don't know. we haven't seen it. >> he said he would release his tax returns, just not right now. >> we are waiting for those. they are being redacted. >> we can talk about tax returns or the memo. >> you are putting great faith in the president's words. >> if the president did not want this memo to come out, tonight, the memo or letter would have said from the white house counsel, the memo will not be released. >> that could come out tomorrow. >> but it didn't. stop rushing to judgment. >> we don't know if it will or not. >> here are my concerns. you could put out a memo he likes, but it could be so redacted and retracted with scissors and black marks. once we are over the barrier that we have never been over before where we are going to litigate what the community does by press release, by partisan memo and public, it seems to be

totally unfair to handcuff one side to these standards. that's the problem. and the white house kept saying they were going to subject the democrats memo to the same rigor, quote, unquote, as the republican one, which clearly the president wanted from the get go. >> true. if you look at the memo, a deep concern i had is it was con clusry. the impression that was given about fisa, i think it was calling the carter page information essential. you know, there's no way fisa would have been approved based just on that carter page information. i think it was misleading that way. it made it seem as though there was no information given about christopher steele when he was working for someone. to me, the underlying memo, the first memo was misleading and should not have gone out the way it did. to not release, i don't think the first one should have gone

out. i feel strongly this is a terrible way to run the american government and think about national security. once it's gone out, it's hard to see what standard would have been applied here other than a specific source of method. in that case, i think there's a difference. >> we are going to continue the conversation after the break. later, knowing the allegations against white house staff secretary rob porter, top officials kept him on board, promoted him and the president praising him now that he's gone. they were the best team in the world.s. we were about to pull off the greatest upset in american sports history. but we were more than american... i never realized we were from all over. italian, middle eastern, jewish, turkey, iran. that's what makes america what it is. we all came together as one. that's what made us champions.

from the moment you met you wantecomfort and protection that's why pampers swaddlers is the #1 choice of hospitals to wrap your baby in blanket-like softness so all they feel is love pampers swaddlers on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. does your bed do that? right now, save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com fora store near you. pain from a headache whcan make this...ld, ...feel like this. all-in-one cold symptom relief from tylenol®, the #1 doctor recommended pain relief brand. tylenol®.

congressman, i spoke to you earlier this week. you were worried about redaxs from the memo, but not blocked completely. are you surprised it took to action? >> i'm not. i would have been surprised if the white house let our memo go out at all. i have never seen anything about donald trump, after he

mischaracterized this as a hoax, i'm not a bit surprised. >> i think -- >> the white house, the justice department and the fbi clear it would be reckless to release it. i guess they have concerns with the democratic memo. the president decided he would be extremely reckless with the memo and made his case. it's not going to be reckless or whatever with the memo -- >> the letter from the white house said they are blocking the memo at this time, not forever. do you think the white house will eventually release it? >> they left that door open. of course, we will pursue that. again, when you have a fisa application, which is what happened here, declassified another -- it is hardly a big step. the big step is the

declassification. we are going to pursue this. this is obvious lay strategy. time means we move on to other things. you know, nobody will remember what the underlying nunes memo was. 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 manufactured. we are not going to learn that until we are several news cycles down the road at best. >> do you have any sense of how long it might take to work with the fbi department of justice to their satisfaction? >> no sense. remember, department of justice and the fbi, again, their words said it would be extremely reckless to release the republican, the nunes memo and the white house said, we don't care, we are doing it anyway. now, we are in a -- >> i'm sorry. we have having cell phone difficulties with congressman

himes. sorry. we'll end it there. thanks very much. back 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. he's going to be psychologically prevented from doing 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 office with a pen, editing the memo himself. he has turned this task to the fbi, 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 editing goes to law enforcement, not people in the oval. >> we don't know that. >> 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? is that wrong? >> no, it's not crazy, nor is it wrong, 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 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. there are things in there that are political. >> which means everybody you cant trust are the people, 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 meddling that happened in this election, 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. than any other administration has. >> 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 president. 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. harry's meeting clients...

...from far away. but they only see his wrinkles. if only harry used some... ...bounce, to dry. he would be a less wrinkly, winning guy.

swho live within five miles of custyour business?-54, like these two... and that guy. or maybe you want to reach women, ages 18 to 34, who are interested in fitness... namaste. whichever audience you're looking for, we'll find them we're the finders. we work here at comcast spotlight, and we have the best tools for getting your advertising message out there. anywhere, any way your audience watches. consider them found.

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 a 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. the president's portrayal of

that is it's a loss to the white house. 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 lee. 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 colbie 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 will be 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. it's clear to me, too, 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. he denies. that that is a sign that the white house might be looking to staffers backgrounds more thoroughly? >> 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.

it only takes a second for an everyday item to become dangerous. tide pods child-guard pac. helps keep your laundry pacs safe, and your child safer. to close, twist until it clicks. tide pods child-guard packaging.

before the break you heard the president speak almost wistfully 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 called attention to porter's claims of innocence and talked about the man's talents. today former vice president joe biden seized on that and had this reaction. >> the rationale apparently was, i don't know, it 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 curious, and 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 didn't the fbi -- come on. >> 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. >> multiple women. even a 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. you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue.

how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

well, as friday night news goes, this is probably super fun. the justice department saying 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 shown great leadership. the department saying i've seen first-hand his commitment to the rule of law and keeping the american people safe. here's what the attorney general said at a 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 in command of the department. those two, ron and rachel, are harvard graduates. they are experienced lawyers. they have 27 years in the department. rachel has had a number of years in the department previously. they both represent the kind of quality and leadership that we want in the department. >> back now with the panel. jeff, you know -- >> i know. >> how unusual is it for someone to leave this position after only nine months? >> super unusual and she's a superstar.

i met her when she was involved with the supreme court. she was a senior lawyer with the chamber of commerce during the obama administration. obviously, a major up and comer. here she has this job that people wait their entire co-rears for to be number three in the justice department and she leaves after nine months. i guess it could be the job at walmart was so lucrative and wonderful she wanted to leave, but this is weird. this is a weird thing and suggests she wants to get the hell out of the department of justice because the president hates sessions and rosenstein. if rosenstein had gotten fired, the mueller investigation would have been left on her lap. maybe she didn't want to deal with it. >> scott, you know her, too? >> i know her from the bush administration. i second what you said, superstar, up and comer.

thought of as one of the best lawyers in the country. i don't think we should speculate about it being weird. strikes me as a once in a lifetime opportunity. if i ran walmart, i would want to hire her, too. >> this is extraordinarily unusual in the department of justice. this is the number three person. they run the apparatus of the department. this is the best job in america for a civil lawyer. they all go on to be the general counsel of huge fortune 500 companies and there are 499 other fortune 500 companies she could have gone to. nine months is an extraordinarily short amount of time. she drawing the ripcord, i don't know why. >> i can speculate on that. >> does it mean anything for the russia investigation? >> where i think it comes into play, we are speculating, but

the narrative is, if the president were to fire rosenstein, held manage the investigation. it calls into question, if the president were considering firing rosenstein, who is next? right now, the solicitor general. >> francisco, another distinguished republican lawyer. the complexity that could arise, if he does fire rosenstein, he could name a new deputy attorney general who would then supervise the investigation and he would have hand picked the person. it's also possible he could pick someone who would be the acting deputy attorney general. that means they wouldn't have to be confirmed by the senate. there is the possibility the president could install someone supervising the mueller investigation who would then be the person to fire him. >> before, that is all possible, here is what we know. it is so hard for women to climb

these ladders. it's hard. you can be brilliant, you can be great. you see the ducking and dodging you have to do to get there. for her to get there and leave this soon, i think it's bad. i think it looks bad. if you have daughters, tonight, if you are watching tv and saying, my god, a woman can get punched in the face and the president doesn't say anything about it. a woman can get to the top of the government, this is a big deal. there is something wrong. there's something wrong in america. they are dumping stuff out and dumping stuff out and dumping stuff out. at the end of the day, you have to wake up and raise a family. it is not a good night. >> this is a good day, if i had a daughter, i would say, you know what?

you can work your way up to be the third in line at the department of justice and you can turn and go to walmart. women that reached the supreme court. look at this white house. look at your friend. look at sarah huckabee sanders and other women that this republican president put in positions of power to lead this country. look at young women and say you can be proud. that's what i would say. >> we have to wrap it up. final thoughts. >> i admire your optimism and determination to put a good spin on this. i see it very differently. i will say this. nobody tries to be there for nine months, nobody. >> a new episode of van jones is tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we'll be right back. mom, dad, can we talk?

sure. what's up son? i can't be your it guy anymore. what? you guys have xfinity. you can do this. what's a good wifi password, mom? you still have to visit us. i will. no. make that the password: "you_stillóhave_toóvisit_us." that's a good one. [ chuckles ] seems a bit long, but okay. set a memorable wifi password with xfinity my account.

one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. that does it for us. "cnn newsroom" starts now. history in the making. high-ranking north and south korean leaders meet for the first time in years, but an even bigger meeting it is now soon expected. also ahead, democrats lash out at the u.s. president. why they're saying the latest action should be counted as obstruction of justice. later, the first gold medal is awarded at the pyeongchang olympics. a lot to tell you about there. welcome our viewers in the united states and all around the world. i'm george howell and "cnn newsroom" sta