cohigher!ad! higher! parents aren't perfect, but then they make us kraft mac & cheese and everything's good again. welcome to the second hour of 360. on the table tonight, the white house cover-up over accused domestic abuser rob porter deepens much the white house says the president supports victims despite the fact he hasn't mentioned them, only support for porter. security clearance questions at the white house for porter and dozens of other staffers who don't have it, including jared kushner, what the white house is saying and who it's blaming. and budget deficits and hypocrisy, a question pose to the white house secretary. if the national debt is a crisis, why hit the gas pedal instead of the brake? so the white house doesn't seem

clear on the time line of how all this played out, and they're unwilling to go into detail. >> reporter: anderson, that's right. again for another day here, starting another week here, the white house was not giving specific answers for the time line. sarah sanders said, yes, there were lessons learned. they could have done things better. but she did not answer specific questions, namely this. did the fbi know specifically about the photographs of the injuries, of the bruised eye to the second wife of rob porter, and did those two ex-wives say specifically to the fbi that they were abused, and did the fbi tell someone at the white house that? we know that from our other reporting that don mcgahn, the white house counsel, knew about this the longest, and then the white house chief of staff john kelly also knew about some of the allegations since at least last fall. but begin today at the white house briefing, sarah sanders, the white house press secretary would not say specifically what they know. she did say the white house does

not condone, and they abhor all types of domestic violence and domestic abuse. but, again, anderson, that was not what the president said at all. he had ample opportunity to say in front of cameras today or on social media that this was what he believed. but the white house press secretary was out much farther than the president was in terms of calling out domestic violence. >> i think you said it was the second wife with the black eye, but it was the first wife, colbie holderness. >> indeed. >> do we know about john kelly's standing with the president after all this? >> reporter: john kelly was in the room today with the president during that infrastructure roll out. the white house wanted to be talking about their infrastructure plan today. so john kelly was there front and center. we do believe that he is on somewhat better standing, but we know that the president is someone who is completely fine with being at odds with members of his own staff. we've seen it for months now, actually nearly a year with jeff sessions, the attorney general. so no question john kelly is in

the hot seat, but there is no sense tonight that he is on the verge of being replaced at all. he is carrying on here. he's doing all the work that's being done, so the white house is standing behind him. the question here, though, is anderson, how many days will these questions linger? will the president have to answer these specific questions about those domestic violence. we of course have another op-ed tonight in "the washington post" from the other wife of rob porter, essentially doing the same message here. so this story is not going away, and the white house today did not shed as much light on it as we thought they might earlier on. >> thanks very much. new reporting tonight from "the new york times" in reference to white house counsel don mcgahn knew and what was told about the fbi. earlier i spoke with "new york times" reporter matthew rosenberg. >> we're told that it was it november that the fbi kind of came to mcgahn and said, look, there's going to be a problem here, that porter wasn't likely to make the cut for a permanent clearance.

and that mcgahn kind of requested the fbi go out and finish the investigation and see what happens. >> with me at the table, van jones, jason miller, ana navarro, symone sanders, and mike shields. it's interesting, you know, this president we've been exposed to his inner thoughts on just about every issue, and yet it's sarah sanders and others who are being brought out from the white house to push this message that the president cares deeply about domestic violence. we're actually not hearing it from the president. >> he apparently doesn't care. what we know, there are two donald trumps. there is teleprompter donald trump who sometimes reads a good speech, and then there's twitter trump that's actually him. and the omissions and commissions that he engages in on social media is, you know, the clearest insight into his actual thoughts and feelings. i'm going to tell you right now if this president was upset about the fact that somebody on his team had hit a woman, i don't think we'd have to guess about that. donald trump doesn't keep people

guessing about his actual feelings. the fact that you just haven't heard it from him, and even, sarah sanders, she kind of kept reading the words, almost like they had had to fight inside that building over what is the right phrasing and phraseology. she was very tough to move off of it. i think donald trump is showing his true character and his true heart or lack thereof. >> this was the argument for the president being on twitter from all the president's supporters, it allows him to bypass the traditional media. he can go to the people with what's in his heart and head. >> when you and i were discussing this earlier, i did wish that the white house had a stronger response when this first became public. obviously a stronger response when they first learned about these allegations. again, i think it's important to take a look back and say, how the heck did this guy even get into the white house? how did he get into the transition? and how is he a chief of staff in the u.s. senate for a very powerful chairman of a committee for so many years? i think one of the things we have to be careful here is, remember, it was rob porter that allegedly was the one who went

and assaulted his wives, who committed domestic violence, which, again, is a crime, a crime that people are locked up for. it sounds like a really, really bad guy. and i think behave to be careful that we don't cheapen what happened to them when we start trying to pull in the president and make it sound like this is something that he did. i mean this was rob porter, who is the one who committed these alleged crimes. >> nobody is trying to say that this is something that trump did. in fact, this should have been such an easy moment for him, right? he's not the one that knew about it. he's not the one that hit the woman. he's not the chief of staff. he's not the lawyer. he should have said, this is appalling. there is no tolerance for this. this guy should have been in jail, not in the oval office. it was so simple. i think it's all about trump. it all goes back to trump. he doesn't want the self-reflection and the fact that he's been accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment by so many women. and it's all about him looking in the mirror, and that sentiment.

but, you know, i think america is learning something. despite of donald trump, you know, we don't look at the white house for moral leadership anymore. we look at each other. we look at others for moral leadership. we look at the wives, at the girlfriend for moral leadership. i've been posting about this this weekend, and i have been so -- my eyes have been opened. my heart has been warmed in a way by the avalanche of people who are sharing their stories the same way we saw with the "me too" movement. this is a watershed moment in american history for domestic violence, for intimate partner violence. i've been looking up the statistics. i did not know that one in four women, one in seven men have suffered physical violence by an intimate partner. i think this is a moment that's going to be a learning moment. you know, forget trump. you no longer look at the white house. you no longer look at the oval office for any sort of leadership. >> there was a "washington post" op-ed that colbie holderness, the first wife of porter, put up a short time ago.

she writes, then there is the just as serious issue of being believed and supported by those you choose to tell. sometimes people don't believe you. sometimes they have difficulty truly understanding what you're trying to tell them. both willoughby and i raised our cases with clergy. both of us had a hard time getting them to fully address the abuse taking place. the issue of not being believed, it also pertains to the president of the united states. >> absolutely. i mean, look, we have to be clear about the fact that it's the good old boys club that has protected rob porter. be clear, the only reason he is currently not still handling classified information without a security clearance and working in the white house is because media reports came out. it's because the women came forward. the white house knew and were perfectly happy protecting him. the only reason we're having a conversation about donald trump's sexual misconduct and his sexual harassment allegations is because women came forward. folks knew. it is very tough for women to come forward in this climate, but we have to have a

conversation about the systems that are protecting these men. the good old boys club, general john kelly, the attorney mcgahn, all of these folks protected rob porter. senator orrin hatch. he put out a statement noting, saying i want rob to keep a stiff upper lip and get help. who we need to be patting on the back are the women that came forward and had the courage to tell their story. >> mike, again, for sarah sanders to be saying everybody in the white house cares about domestic violence. the president cares deeply about it. why not have the president -- i mean they ushered -- i said this to jason the last hour. it wasn't like when the president made a statement about rob porter, that he was like cornered and flustered by a camera. they ushered the press pool into the oval office for a pre-thought out statement. >> look. i agree with jason. the president should be stronger on this. there should be moral leadership from the white house. i mean when you're talking about domestic violence, it should be easy for us all to say this is wrong, and if there's credible evidence this has happened, maybe you won't go to jail, but

we'll have an investigation where you won't work here anymore. i think -- the press secretary speaks for the president of the united states and plenty of people will come on here and criticize them for, oh, my gosh, sean spicer and sarah, they don't have a brain. they just say what the president tells them to say. she wouldn't be able to say that. she is speaking on behalf of the president. >> let me just say i think the president is using his surrogates to -- >> that's a different issue than saying that it doesn't count that sarah said it. >> but he has not said it, and we've seen the president himself say many times, look, you can believe me from my twitter account. you can't believe these people that say they speak for me. i just want to know as a press secretary, yes, she does speak on behalf of the president. but, again, he is using sarah huckabee sanders to go out there and say something -- >> we interpret what he's

thinking through what his surrogates and spokespeople do. in this case, he has not remained silent. so there is no need to interpret what sarah sanders is saying because donald trump is saying it or, rather, not saying it. >> she spoke today, and so that is the latest word from the white house, from the official spokesperson of the president of the united states. look -- >> what has changed today between -- >> let him finish. >> on the idea there's some sort of conspiracy or people knew about this and it was covered up and that sort of thing, how many people here even knew there was a staff secretary in the white house for the last 16 years under the previous presidents? i didn't know that until the transition. i didn't know that was a position that mattered. i can tell you that staff secretary is not a senior position that people -- >> mike, they are handling classified -- come on now. they are handling classified information. >> they are bringing documents in to the president to sign it and then -- >> to be clear, it's a little egregious. >> let's just take a break, regroup, and you can start off your point when we come back. we'll take a quick break. also ahead, why the white

house says law enforcement is to blame for the fact that dozens of staffers don't have security clearances. ♪ ♪ there are two types of people in the world. those who fear the future... and those who embrace it. the future is for the unafraid. ♪ ♪

the future is for the unafraid. having mplaque psoriasise is not always easy. it's a long-distance run. and you have the determination to keep going. humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for over 10 years. humira works inside the body to target and help block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to symptoms. in clinical trials, most adults taking humira were clear or almost clear and many saw 75% and even 90% clearance in just four months. 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. join over 250,000 people who have chosen humira. ask about the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. humira & go. new year, new phones for the family. join t-mobile, and when you buy one of the latest samsung galaxy phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. yahoooo! ahoooo! plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included. spectacular! so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. whoa! join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free. all on america's best unlimited network. intrtechnology withnema. incredible color, sound and streaming. just as the creators intended.

♪ up to 40% off at dell.com ♪ as we reported, the white house today says when it comes to domestic violence, the president is focused on two things, victims, and the notion of due process for the accused. >> above all the president supports victims of domestic violence and believes everyone should be treated fairly and with due process. everybody should be treated

fairly and with due process. he certainly supports the victims of domestic violence above all else and believes everyone should be treated fairly and with due process. the president's simply saying there should be a due process. supporting due process for any allegation is not tone deaf. there should be due process. but the president also supports due process. i think anybody here, if they were accused of something, would want the opportunity to go through due process. >> mike, i mean is it a little hypocritical for the president to be focusing on due process when in front of police departments months ago he talked about you don't -- you know, don't put your hand and treat the suspects so gently when you put them in a police vehicle and when, you know, the central park five were arrested, he put out full page ads calling for the death penalty of these teenagers who were innocent. >> for proponents of criminal justice reform like myself, who are happy the white house is going down that path, let's hope this is an evolution and a new position that the president

wants to keep pushing for, which is due process as a part of criminal justice reform. that is something the white house is working on. just to finish the point i was making before, the white house is paying a heavy, heavy political price right now for having this person on their staff, right? the idea that that's worth it, that you would know about this and go, you know what, we could -- one of these guys -- this guy is beating up women. this could crush us. this is a massive political liability. we've all worked in political organizations. it takes a lot less than that to get rid of somebody you think could cause you a political problem. the idea that you go, no, this is the staff secretary, we couldn't lose him, i just find it -- they haven't handled it correctly. when don mcgahn's office got it, they should have investigated it, not left it to law enforcement. >> isn't that the argument of a normal white house that, yes, in a normal white house that calculus would be made. but this is a white house where omarosa is walking around without her shoes and -- >> that's actually my point. >> a guy like rob porter who is a rhodes scholar and well educated, general kelly latched

onto him and said, he actually is really important because we've got sebastian gorka who can't get a security clearance. >> i think the fact that omarosa in there shows there's a bungling, that there's a level of incompetence more than there was a let's turn a blind eye to domestic violence. >> or let's protect a guy who doesn't seem incompetent because everyone else seems to be in a clown circus. >> i go back to this learning moment. i remember your interview with jennifer willoughby last week. domestic abusers, there's no stereotype. they're not all in wife beater tank tops and looking like whatever, you know, central casting looks like. some of them are rhodes scholars. some of them went to harvard. some are mormon, some are catholic, some are atheist. there is no look, no type. we have got to learn that as society because we have got to be more supportive of the victims and be more -- be a lot tougher.

>> her point was you can be good at your job and well liked didn't work and still be a terrible -- >> the process really let the president down here. the fact is rob porter fooled a lot of people for a long time, and the fact he was able to even get this close to the president, i think, is very problematic. >> but multiple people in the white house did know about this. i mean -- >> i just want to say somebody who worked in the white house for six months, people wear their credentials around their neck. you don't have to guess who is, you know, cleared to be in this wing or that wing. you don't have to guess who has their final status, who doesn't. that's all clear on the credentials. and people play games in terms of like if you're feeling a little bit sheepish, you do all this stuff. i'm telling you, the idea -- you're very kind. but i think the idea that people were not aware that this guy hadn't been cleared and that in a year, nobody had asked a question, geez, how come home boy ain't cleared because home boy should be cleared, that's just not possible.

>> although in a white house where jared kushner isn't clear, is the normal -- >> it seems to me there's an attempt here and maybe it's well intentioned to paint the president as somebody who is, you know, operating in good faith and that it's a conspiracy theory to suggest he may have been aware of this and not done anything. i don't think that's a conspiracy theory. >> he didn't know until last week. >> listen, i think his chief of staff certainly knew. i think that the people who have been complaining about this situation through the fbi knew that the wives told the fbi. i don't understand your desire here on this particular point. i'm trying to understand it. to present the president as somebody who, you know, maybe is a huge champion for women's rights, a huge champion against domestic violence. he just forgot to mention it. >> i think we should have moral clarity out of the white house. i think the president should speak out against domestic violence.

that's not a hard ask to ask the president of the united states to say we don't want domestic violence and people on my staff that commit domestic violence, credible evidence of it, they should go through due process. i think it's a partisan thing that doesn't -- they've bungled it and they've left themselves open to that attack because they haven't handled it correctly. when they come up with something -- those are the kinds of things -- >> the problem is sarah sanders, when asked about this now for days, point blank, she just -- she's playing games with words. she says, well, i'm not going to get into -- you know, when asked specifically when did kelly know, well, we all fully knew, you know -- well, no, that's not the question. when did kelly know? well, i'm not going to get into specifics on this.

same with don mcgahn today. i'm not going to get into specifics, but we all came aware of it. and then when pressed on who is we all -- >> i believe they had multiple chances to do the right thing and screwed it up multiple times. there's no question about that. we wouldn't be here -- >> there's something that i -- you know, i just can't excuse donald trump for and anybody that's trying to explain him away. where he termed this a mere allegation. when you have got two ex-wives, one ex-girlfriend, picture evidence of a black eye, police restraining orders, this is not a mere allegation. this is a very strong, credible case for domestic abuse. we have seen. he made that statement after that picture came out. you can argue that john kelly didn't know that he made that statement before he saw the picture. but for people to make that statement after they saw colbie holderness' black eye takes an enormous amount of callousness. >> i want to know if anybody

knew the full extent of these allegations, which are absolutely credible, and if somebody did know the full extent and they didn't report that to the president, then if i'm the president, i want to get rid of them. >> they did know. the fbi called the white house counsel to tell them. >> we don't know the full extent. >> the fbi called the white house -- >> you know, let's -- [ overlapping voices ] >> let's talk to somebody who used to run the cia to learn about the security clearance process. there's much more to discuss including those long delayed white house security clearances. i'll talk to general michael hayden, the former director of the cia. why wait months for your next vacation when you can squeeze one in between friday and monday at hilton? there's a vacation at the end of every week. whatever type of weekender you are, don't let another weekend pass you by.

get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com because um, i've been meaning to talk to you, uh oh. well, you know, you're getting older. um, you might be experiencing some, ah, sensations. ah, it happened to your dad..uh with.. oh, look the tow trucks here! can't wait to be rescued? esurance roadside assistance lets you know when help will arrive. that's insurance for the modern world.® esurance. an allstate company. click or call. you have any questions, uh.. i'm good. awesome.

white house press secretary sarah sanders says in effect don't blame us for the delay in obtaining security clearances for its staff. it's on the fbi and other intelligence agencies. but in a statement issued late last week the fbi says in effect not so much. quote, the fbi does not grant, deny, or otherwise adjudicate -- indicate on behalf of these agencies, nor does it make any security clearance recommendations. after the fbi completes the background investigation, it provides the information to the agency adjudicator authority who determines whether to grant or deny the security clearance. that's a bureaucratic handful but it means essentially up to the white house in this case to clear its personnel. once the background check is completed and the information is handed over. joining me is michael hayden, former director of the national security agency.

general hayden, the trump administration is essentially blaming fbi or intelligence agencies that these are ongoing investigations. can you just explain how it would work, how long an investigation would normally take, and who gets that information in the case of staff of the white house? >> sure. so first of all, anderson, anybody who has gone through this process knows that it's invasive. it's cumbersome. it's overly bureaucratic. it is a very unpleasant life experience. and frankly i was willing to cut the administration a great deal of slack because, number one, they were so off the mark in naming their people. second, a lot of people like me did not volunteer or were not asked to be part of the administration. in other words, people with a clearance history don't make up a significant portion of this population. and, frankly, some of the folks there have very complex pasts that have to be looked at, like jared kushner and all his financial dealings. so for the longest time, i was saying, you know, this is fairly

normal. it's more complicated than average. they probably do need a lot more time. but now after 13 months, i'm beginning to move in the direction of a position that there are some folks in this process have an interim clearance because there's still work to be done. but, anderson, there are probably some folks in this process who have an interim clearance because they're never going to get a permanent security clearance. >> because of allegations, because of things that the fbi has found? >> yeah. now, keep in mind we're not talking about guilt here. we need to put that off to the side. what we're talking about here is risk or vulnerability. is there something in this individual's past that makes him or her particularly more vulnerable to exploitation by a foreign service, makes them more vulnerable to perhaps a character deficiency that they shouldn't have and be entrusted with this kind of information? so this is fundamentally a question about do i want this

talent, and am i willing to embrace this risk? >> so would the fbi, upon interviewing the two wives of rob porter, finding out this information, would they turn that over to somebody at the white house? >> oh, absolutely. they would deliver it and frankly would probably, as i think the public record already suggests, call a great deal of attention to this because this is not something that you normally see in the portfolio of someone with whom we entrust this kind of information. so i can understand why this was kind of, i think, put off to the side. we'll just live with the interim clearance, which of course the president or someone working on behalf of the president has the right to grant. >> so somebody in the white house would have made the determination, all right, we'll just go with an interim with this guy, or is it possible they would ask the fbi to just continue investigating while they continued with an interim clearance? >> they would. and either that's the reality, or that's the process cover for

what's going on here. >> because that's what the white house keeps saying, this is still ongoing. >> sure. >> i don't understand. >> no, no. i think the white house could, at least in terms of the paper trail, say that this investigation is not closed. anderson, there's no amount of investigation that's going to make the testimony of the two wives and the girlfriend or the picture go away. >> and those reports, do you know how widely they would be seen in the white house? >> you know, i really don't know. and, in fact, what we may be seeing here -- and i think it was suggested on your previous panel here -- this probably has a lot less to do with malevolence than it does with inattention. this is someone with whom he has established a personal bond of trust, in whom he has confidence, and so i can understand why there might be a

lack of energy to go back over here and begin pulling up these other old rocks. >> but if john kelly, who obviously has a long, distinguished military background, who is working with somebody who does not have a full security clearance, i mean, again, i guess none of us can get in john kelly's head. but you would think somebody of that experience would want to at least know, why does my closest aide not have a security clearance? >> i think that's right, and i understand it. anderson, remember what's going on here. we're using a very bureaucratic process through third persons to establish a very human factor here -- trust. all right? so you've got a bureaucratic process to create trust, and i suspect in many instances, what you have over here is a human process that actually has created in its own way the trust that the bureaucratic process was designed to build. >> i just want to turn to the dueling memos coming out of the house intelligence committee.

you do not want the republican memo released saying it puts not just the fbi but every intelligence agency at risk. i'm wondering now what you think of, you know, that was released. the white house says this democratic memo went through the same handling and problems arose. do you buy that? >> yeah, absolutely predictable. so you know that the republican memo is going to come out. it's filled with innuendo. frankly it kind of invalidated itself in its own context. i mean it was kind of a nothing-burger. but it's out there now, and a lot of people are waving it around, saying it proves certain things. and the only counterpunch to that, anderson, is to reveal the entire rest of the field of data, which the republicans would have known going in would have been a very difficult proposition on the part of the democrats. so now the democrats are in a very uncomfortable position of pushing against what i think are probably very legitimate classification concerns in order to push back against, again, what i believe to be a very

illegitimate accusation in the first place. >> general hayden, appreciate your time. thanks. our panel is going to be back right after the quick break. imagine if the things you bought every day... earned you miles to get to the places you really want to go. with the united mileageplus explorer card, you'll get a free checked bag. two united club passes. priority boarding. and earn fifty thousand bonus miles after you spend three thousand dollars on purchases in the first three months from account opening plus, zero-dollar intro annual fee for the first year, then ninety-five dollars. learn more at theexplorercard.com

the more you know the the commute is worth it.me, for all the work you pour into this place, you sure get a lot more out of it. you and that john deere tractor... so versatile, you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive.

but just like a john deere, it's worth it. nothing runs like a deere. now you can own a 1e sub-compact tractor for just $99 a month. learn more at your john deere dealer. (announcer) purchase $699 or moret tat helzberg diamonds and get a free megablast waterproof speaker with built-in amazon alexa. a $339.98 va

just spoke with general michael hayden about the lack of security clearances at the white house. up to 40 staffers do not have clearances including the president's son-in-law, jared kushner.

today the white house tried to pass the buck to white house intelligence agencies. back with the panel. >> i thought the most important thing he said was drawing that distinction. it is not uncommon to have people there who have not been fully approved. i was there for six weeks, seven weeks waiting for my -- that's normal. but once it's clear that the fbi is not going to approve you because you are a security risk in their eyes, it's normal for you to be out. the idea that there's this whole new category of people who just, y'all ain't never going to be approved but here's some security documents anyway, that is new. it's weird. it's not normal. it's bad. it's risky. it's dangerous. no matter what anybody else tries to say, oh, well, this is a new way of doing government. there's a reason we do it the way we've done it because i hate to keep pointing this out. if somebody can't pass the fbi

vet, that means they could be blackmailed. they could be bribed. there's something about them that history has proven people in that category are dangerous to our country. this is not just, you know, hey, it's a nice way to do it. it's a suggestion. this is national security being put at risk. >> michael, do ah agree in. >> i actually agree with that. it symone's point, there were some women who came forward in the rob porter -- there was actually three. but it did work hand in hand with the process because he was contacting them saying, hey, quit saying this because you're affecting my -- i'm not going to get a security clearance. >> he was trying to influence his second wife, jennie, about retracting -- >> this had been flagged and was probably at that point being investigated to see, okay, what can we do about this? it is not uncommon for this process to take that long until the fall before this stuff starts to come up. i mean there's a massive -- we love the cia and the fbi, but there are attached to them massive bureaucracies through

homeland security, the cia, the fbi. i know people in the white house who have waited even until now to get security clearances. they filled out all the paperwork. some of them had clearances before, and they still have to go get re-finger printed and have to go through the phone calls again. it does take a long time. maybe something good that would come out of this is some reform of the whole process. >> i've been -- two things i will say. one is one of the things that enrages me about this is just the level of effort that these women went through to get their stories out. i mean, look, she got -- the girlfriend got through to the white house counsel. you're not calling domino's to order a pizza. getting through to the white house counsel is very, very difficult. she told her story. for women who are survivors to tell their stories is a very difficult thing, and they did. and the process failed them. this white house failed them. the other thing is i am dismayed by the deafening silence from republican leadership. if this were happening in a democratic white house with republicans in charge of

congress, you bet that they would be lighting their hair on fire right now. the oversight committee, the intel committee would be demanding to know how it is possible that somebody that could have been blackmailed and that was vulnerable could have had, you know, sensitive information, security information in his hands. two days, three days after rob porter left, another guy left the white house because he had no security clearance and because there were allegations against him. i can't remember his name now. maybe you know him. the speechwriter. you know -- >> sorensen. >> how many more of these are there, and how come the republican congress, who is international security, who cares about law, who cares about national security and security clearances, is not saying a damn thing about this and allowing this to go on unchecked? that, to me, is dismaying. >> these are the same republicans who basically barbecued hillary clinton at the stake because they said she was putting national security at risk with her server and a whole lot of other things. huma abedin, they allege she was handling classified information

on a non-government-issued laptop. i too have questions. i keep reminding people, congress is a co-equal branch of government. they are to hold the president accountable where appropriate. the republican congress is failing us. they are not doing their job. >> i think there's an important thing to keep in mind here. they're two different things. if the fbi and law enforcement is being very thorough and they're going through business dealings or potential conflicts of interest, i want them to go through and make sure that they've completely vetted this. that's different than what we saw with rob porter. if there's an allegation of criminal conduct, then they should be gone immediately. there shouldn't be, hey, we need to finish the rest of the investigation. no, we don't need to investigate all three instances. i mean if there's one instance of a criminal activity like that, then they should be gone. i think the other thing, too, is there does need to be credit given to some of the other vetting we've seen from the rest of the information where i think for the folks they put forward for these senate confirmed positions, i think they've done a very good job of vetting. they know they don't even get nominated until they pass their

fbi vetting. >> you mean like -- >> i think the white house has done a really good job of that. they should get some credit. >> president trump unveiling his proposed budget. the deficit could soar. more ahead. introducing dell cinema. technology with incredible color, sound and streaming. just as the creators intended. ♪ up to 40% off at dell.com

♪

new year, new phones for the family. join t-mobile, and when you buy one of the latest samsung phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included.

sure. mom,what's up son?alk? 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. president trump has sent congress a new budget that spends a lot more on the military and slashes medicare and other social programs. white house press secretary sarah sanders was asked today. >> if the national debt is a crisis, why hit the gas pedal instead of the brake when it comes to spending? >> look, the president, one of the biggest and top priorities of the president's first year in

office was to pass the tax cuts and jobs act, which we think will have a big impact on that moving forward. the president also knows that one of the most important jobs he has is protecting this country. therefore, the need for rebuilding our military that had been ignored for so long. infrastructure, focusing on defeating the opioid crisis and a border wall. >> so she avoided answering the question just in case anybody thought they missed it. jason, what about this budget? you know, what happened to the tea party republicans and all the talk about the deficit and -- >> and obama the socialist. >> we know budgets are a rough guide. we know once it gets to capitol hill, they're going to do their own thing anyways. >> they're a statement of values. >> that's why i liked how the president put the emphasis on the military. i think that was good. finally making the investments that we need to there. but the budget, the one that was presented, it's too big.

i think once it gets to the hill, some things are going to get changed there. i think where we'll see the real work has far as reducing the scope of government is what mick mulvaney is doing at omb. i think he's doing a fantastic job with paring back some of these agencies. look, this budget that was put forward, they kind of have do it but watch what mulvaney does. >> this is a fundamental statement of values from this president. he basically is saying, i don't care about deficits, and he's going to have a party who beat the crap out of obama when he did deficit spending to get us out of the great recession. that was socialism. that was terrible. that was irresponsible. >> where i think you're wrong, i think the economy is going to grow another a much better rate. >> better than surviving the great recession? i mean we -- >> no. i think the economy, especially with these tax cuts and the way we see it taking off --

>> i love your pro-growth stand, but you guys were talking -- >> you're not denying the numbers, though? >> you guys were talking about the importance of deficit the importance of deficit reduction. i remember when the tea party marched tens of thousands down the streets of d.c. saying the deficits have to be brought down. where is that passion now? >> part of it is you wanted to socialize all of health care. >> no. >> that was a big part of it. >> i don't know what you're -- wait. i have to tell van this. i don't know why you're looking a gift horse in the mouth. the messaging that this budget provides for democrats in 2018 in a few minutes about what it does to pbs, the poor, medicaid. you can go on and on. what it does to foreign policy, foreign aid, to poor countries, i think it is manna from heaven for democrats running in 2018. >> mike? >> obama said he was going to shut gitmo. we had drone strikes.

there's things he ran on. the party was an anti-war party and the president did things in office that his liberal base didn't like because now he was president. this president openly said he is okay with debt. he said he has leveraged debt in the business world. that's how he looks at it. that's in conflict with the tea party and a lot of republicans on capitol hill. there's going to be a fight. the white house knows that. they are starting off with their priority saying we want to spend money. the democrats should love that. the conservatives will say, no, we're going to cut that down because we don't want to spend all that money. that's legislating. there is actually legislating going on after the budget comes out. one thing i'll add is that the federal government took in more than was expected in january because the economy is going so well, something the cbo always gets wrong. that brings more money into the government and it won't be as big a problem as it is right now. >> the tax cuts were absolutely tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. yes. more people got one-off check.

so, you see $1,000 bonuses. $180 over there. that is not long term for josé, maria and everyone else. it's the corporations and companies that are benefiting from the long-term tax bill. >> the federal government is bringing more taxes in. >> when we talk about the budget, though, medicare, medicaid you're robbing keisha, peter, paul and everyone else. >> are you saying people aren't getting raises and bonuses? >> this is not long-term, sustained dollars in folks' pockets. the wealth gap in america is the largest it's ever been in the history of this country. >> a lot of people will be happy on the 15th and 1st. >> thank everybody on the panel. coming up, a hot take on the u.s. olympic team from someone who thinks it needs more straight white people. that's actually happened. the re snoors why wait months for your next vacation

when you can squeeze one in between friday and monday at hilton? there's a vacation at the end of every week. whatever type of weekender you are, don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com the more you know the the commute is worth it.me, for all the work you pour into this place, you sure get a lot more out of it. you and that john deere tractor... so versatile, you can keep dreaming up projects

all the way home. it's a longer drive. but just like a john deere, it's worth it. nothing runs like a deere. now you can own a 1e sub-compact tractor for just $99 a month. learn more at your john deere dealer.

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. time now for "the ridiculist." in these times in which we live with the president who has defended some neo nazis. referred to african countries as s-holes. defended a man accused of assault. defended an alleged pedophile and defended a man accused of domestic violence. it's tough for anyone else to

manage to say something that cuts through the nasty noise. it's difficult but not impossible. tonight we congratulate john moody. the executive editor of fox news. i try to avoid cable news sniping but i couldn't let this go. mr. moody has an issue with the united states olympic team. he says the team is too darn diverse. too black, too hispanic and too gay. i'm not making this up. he wrote a column titled, "an olympics, let's focus on the winner of the race, not the race of the winner." the first paragraph the column reads, and i quote -- unless it's changed overnight the motto of the olympics has been faster, higher, stronger. it appears the u.s. olympic committee would like to change it to darker, gayer, different. if your goal is to win medals. that won't work. first of all, darker, gayer, different, is a terrible motto for the olympics.

it's a great name for a gay bar. but i'll assume that's not his favorite watering holes. apparently john moody likes his winter olympics like he likes his orthodontia, straight, white and all the same. why is he clutching his pearls in fear of team usa? out of 244 athletes on the team, 2 have had the courage to say openly and proudly that they are gay. 2 out of 244. as for the darker part of mr. moody's olympic fever dream, guess how many of the 244 athletes are african-american? ten. 10 out of 244. so that's a grand total of 12 athletes in moody's darker, gayer and different nightmare. 12 out of 244. what really seems to have mr. moody swooning like an antebellum lady on a hot summer day is that the u.s. olympic committee's director of diversity and inclusion said they were not quite where they want to be in representing every american. in his column he worries olympians are chosen because

they are the best publicity for having one each from column a, b and c. mr. moody has firmly planted his foot in column d. as in does this guy have so little to do that he sits around and worries that people with no athletic ability get put on an olympic team because they're gay or african-american? does it strike anyone else as inappropriate that a guy high up in a news organization is upset for another organization striving for diversity. even fox news had to admit this column was beyond the pale. and i do mean pale. they took it off the website and issued a statement saying it did not reflect the views of the company. his comments might be funny if he was a crank standing out on the corner of "fox and friends," trying to get his sign on camera, saying darker, gayer, different. but he is actually inside the building in a top position, executive editor and executive

vice president. again, i don't know exactly what he does. doesn't sound like he does much. as a gay man, if i was working under him, i would not feel all that welcome. but he is always welcome on our "ridiculist." thanks for watching "360." time to turn it over to don lemon. "cnn tonight" starts right now. this is "cnn tonight." i am don lemon. why do we keep asking why the president won't say what his spokespeople and surrogates are saying about domestic abuse? that is a grotesque and that it's wrong. maybe it's because he doesn't believe it. why do we keep asking why he tweeted what he tweeted will wishing an abused accuser well without even mentioning the victims. maybe because he can. because he doesn't relate to those women. because, doing otherwise would bring up his own shortcomings and the more than a dozen women who accused him of sexual harassment or assault. he talks about t