himself on his church attendance. >> you set yourself up for this by doing the book. that's why i'm asking the questions. >> when it comes to evangelicals, they are looking at man sins. women sin. we all sin. they go to the macro sin. they believe there is morality in the macro view rather than the micro view of the candidate. >> at the end of the day it is not what you say, it is what you do. do you believe as an evangelical that donald trump represents what you want to see is in a leader? >> to show god has a sense of humor, he decided to, out of all people, evangelicals get behind donald trump and he becomes this cultural warrior. that proves god has a sense of humor. we interviewed the president in the oval office. sorry, michael wolff. we did the interview.

hugh hewitt. this is a deep dive looking at his lutheran roots on the german side. mother, presbyterian. a story about how he actually has some dna with viking blood in him which shouldn't be shocking. i'm sure he wears it as a badge of honor. >> thank you for being here. thanks to you, our international viewers. thank you for watching. for you, cnn "newsroom" is next. for our u.s. viewers, "new day" continues. we have new information. let's get after it. >> christopher wray said they completed a background check months ago. it goes against what the white house said. >> this is a process that doesn't operate within the white house. >> the security office had not finished their process. >> we to the floor clearances. they're giving us multiple versionings of the story and frankly not telling the truth. >> everything was done right in the porter matter. >> there has to be some accountability here.

>> we have seen russian intentions to have an impact on the next election. >> the united states is under attack. >> we cannot confront this threat when the leader of the government continues to deny that it exists. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> finishing my card. >> roses are red, violets -- i hadn't gotten to the next line. i have to work on those. welcome to your "new day". eight days into the rob porter scandal. white house aides have repeatedly tried to up what they knew and when. the new fbi chief appointed by president trump contradicted the white house on porter's security clearance. the white house is trying to shift blame to its personnel security office, not them, though that i have known about rob porter for the pwrt part of a year. >> for whatever reason, the man in the middle is john kelly.

he remains there in the eye of the storm. sources telling cnn conversations are heating up about who could replace kelly as he defends his handling of the porter affair. that's not all. the president's personal lawyer, michael c michael cohen said he personally paid her out of his own money that $130,000. you'll remember daniels at one time alleged she had an affair with mr. trump. she then went back on that. this all happened about a decade ago. a source tells cnn cohen only recently told the president about his payment, that the president didn't even know at the time he did it. we have it all covered. let's begin with cnn's abby phillip live at the white house. happy valentine's day, ab. >> reporter: happy valentine's day, chris. eight days into this rob porter scandal, and the white house's days of spin has undone by

christopher wray on the hill yesterday. all of this has put john kelly president trump hot seat. and rumors are that he might be replaced soon. the trump administration changing its story again about the white house's hamming of domestic abuse allegations against former top aide rob porter. hours after fbi director chris wray offered a timeline about when porter's security clearance investigation was completed that directly contradicted the white house's accounts. >> the fbi submitted a partial report on the investigation in question in march. and then a completed background investigation in late july that soon therefore we received asks for follow-up inquiry. and we did the follow-up and provided that information in november and that we administratively closed the file

in january. and then earlier this month we received some additional information and passed that on as well. >> reporter: prior to wray's testimony, the white house had been telling a different story. >> what we know about rob porter specifically, and that's the incident everybody is talking about, his background check investigation had not been completed yet. it was still in the investigative process and has yet to be adjudicated. >> the process for the background was ongoing. and the white house had not received any specific papers regarding the completion of that background check. >> reporter: press secretary sarah sanders now conceding the fbi probe was finished and trying to shift blame to a different office in the white house. >> who is telling the truth? >> both. as i said, the fbi portion was closed. the white house personnel security office, who is the one that makes the recommendation for adjudication, had not

finished their process and had not therefore made a recommendation to the white house. >> reporter: but on monday sanders said the white house was not involved with security clearances. >> this is a process that doesn't operate within the white house. it is handled by our law enforcement and intelligence community. >> reporter: the administration's in ability to get their story straight again raising questions about chief of staff john kelly who learned about the allegations months ago. multiple sources tell cnn the president has not yet made a decision to replace kelly but that conversations about a possible successor are heating up. kelly telling "the wall street journal" his handling of the porter scandal was "all done right". even after sarah sanders admitted otherwise. >> we are looking at that internally and agree there are things we could have done better. >> reporter: cnn learned not only was the white house willing to overlook red flags in porter's back ground, they were in serious talks to promote him as kelly's chief of staff.

>> thank you. >> do you believe rob porter's ex-wives, mr. president? >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, do you have a message to domestic violence victims? >> thank you. >> reporter: all of that and this. the $130,000 payment that his attorney michael cohen made to porn star stormy daniels after he attempted to shut down the rumors that the president had an affair with her about a decade ago. cohen only told the president about it recently, although that may not be worth a whole lot as the scandal continues. all of this news isover shadowing the push the white house has been trying to make. >> abby, stop giving us so much to talk about. narrow the reporting. thank you very much for all of that. let's bring in politics reporter chris cillizza and david

gregory. let's start with the fallout that continues. it was interesting to hear fbi director chris wray talk about how many separate times the fbi alerted the white house about rob porter's background, what they learned in the background checks. the ex-wives came forward with their stories of violence that he allegedly perpetrated against them. so it may be technically true that it was the office of presidential personnel that had the decision about whether or not he would get security clearance. but they knew. they could have gotten rid of him much sooner. >> well, and i think when you look at the level of bungling on this, how they mishandled this through their incense activisen covering up things. it is true not everything went up to the presidential level. certainly there is a process

around checks, background checks. but this was a high-profile guy. someone who recently was dating hope hicks apparently, a senior adviser to the president. and then the president giving the kind of statements he gave, doesn't acknowledge the ex-wives making the allegations makes it so much worse. and on top of that, you have the leaking that of the sizes kelly, who i don't think is in real danger of losing his job. i don't think that's a step the president would want to take. here is wreus wray standing up for the integrity of the fbi despite the attacks saying sorry what you're told is not accurate. here's how it went down. which only creates more problems and questions for the white house. >> look, by any indications, the truth on one level of this is pretty simple. they knew what they needed to know about porter and they knew for a long time and chose to do

nothing. similarly, the president chose to do nothing about addressing the victims of domestic violence. and it's not going to go away because it matters too much. mr. president, today is another day to do the right thing. cillizza, trump may not want to move on kelly. he said he was going to drain the swamp. it seems the swampiest place we have ever seen in this capacity. what about kelly and his appetite to take this beating from his own on the inside? he's never had to endure anything like this. >> no, he has not. some of the background quotes, white house official quotes -- >> not good. >> -- coming out of the administration are rough. some are calling him a big fat liar which is a remarkable quote even to say without your name attached to it. >> well, they're not going to attach a name to that. no one is going to say that to john kelly in the face. >> true. but it speaks to the -- he may have lost the team. you know how you say that with

the coach. that is the dangerous thing for john kelly. to david's point, donald trump may not care about that. he has an affection for generals. we know he and general kelly, particularly on immigration, are more soul mates than we were initially aware of on. that said, i do think there is a danger of having lost the team and sort of not being able to be that respected figure, particularly given how kelly set himself up. he said i'm not going to try to manage him. i'll make sure we as a staff are working in the best way we know how. that hasn't been the case up until now. that will be my goal. i don't know if you can execute on that if you have lost the confidence of the stafplt you can stay in the job as long as the president wants you to.

but i think he, john kelly, is in the danger zone at the moment. >> i want to challenge you on you saying the president isn't inclined to do that. it seemed he had lost the confidence of the president when after john kelly came out and said the president wasn't fully informed during the campaign about immigration. there were reports that the president wasn't happy about that. here are the names being floated if john kelly is to be replaced. gary cohn, congressman kevin mccarthy who is house majority leader and star bursts color. >> only the reds and the pinks. >> if that isn't a credential for chief of staff, i don't know what is. and mick mulvaney, who already has two jobs, but okay. he can take on a third. >> in this white house in particular, being of chief of staff makes you incredibly vulnerable to controversy, to being undermined because of the

president you're working for. whatever people think about john kelly, mistakes he may have made, controversial statements he's made, working for this president is incredibly difficult. because you're working for a president who, among other things, is going to undermine you by putting toxins in the water and spreading information about you. he is so transparent that way. you know, if you take a step back on this, any organization dealing with something like this would benefit from being both fair and more transparent than they have been. i think it's fair to say people in the white house had awe blind spot for rob porter just like a lot of people who know him do. who know him or are close to him who think he is a terrific guy and know that through their relationships with him and are incredibly pained and surprised by all that has transpired. i think there is a way to communicate that pain and confusion and consternation who are also saying we're listening

to all the steps along the way and trying to do the right thing. that's just not what the white house has done here. by not acting on certain things, trying to fight back when the politico is reporting they have reporters in there to get his story. and the president not even coming out and saying what a horrible situation for the women who have been through something awful, someone who we care about. we have to take this seriously. we ultimately did. this is just horrible for everybody. he didn't do anything like that. >> one in four women. one of the major causes of homicide for women in this society. he can't just ignore it the way he did. it is not going to go away. chris, something else that popped its head up, the alleged affair with the porn lady stormy daniels. with call her a star. is that a fair assessment of

her? >> i think so. >> this is your area. michael cohen, the president's lawyer said, yes, i paid money part of a nondisclosure agreement. i paid it. trump didn't even know at the time. the money came out of my account. i was never reimbursed. it wasn't about a campaign contribution. it was about me taking care of someone i care about. the reason i did it -- you this was at the same time of the "access hollywood" situation. that's why i did it. the president only ream found out. >> i mean -- okay. >> not the vote of confidence. >> well, it's $130,000. even $1,000 is a decent chunk of

change. a preemptive strike against a false claim in a campaign in which more than a dozen women came forward with credible allegations that donald trump had engaged in sexually inappropriate. >> he had a relationship with this woman. they had pictures together. he tried to help her in different ways. she had a lot more on him than other allegations. that's why they would address this specifically. >> right. michael cohen, it just doesn't pass the smell test. i think we can overthink things. why would a personal lawyer, unbeknownst to a client, make a $130,000 payment as a preemptive strike against something that he says is not true? if i told you that happened with my personal lawyer you said say, that sounds dicey.

>> it would be unethical in a lot of situations. david, what's your take. >> i don't know a lot of lawyers who he ethically would make a move like this. i am skeptical that there wasn't some kind of payback to his lawyer on this. the whole thing sounds fishy and is another round of embarrassment for the white house. >> ask yourself this, if any other situation if a lawyer paid a porn star to pay off an affair allegedly from just his money, no connection, what would you think? it is not that complicated. >> as you say, everything is new. >> true. looking glass. >> i think michael cohen knows in order for this story to be fully believed, they will have to know to hear it from his own mouth. >> david, chris, thank you. what about the house

democrats? what's going on there? they are demanding republicans do more to address the security clearance issue that popped up with rob porter in the white house. what is the gop response? we ask congressman jim jordan next 37. how do you win at business? stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com

the director of the fbi

selected by donald trump as a change agent says that his bureau's background investigation into former white house aide rob porter wrapped up in july. the investigation was closed last month. this contradicts the white house's repeated claims that they didn't know about abuse allegations against porter because the background check was still ongoing. let's discuss with republican congressman jim jordan of ohio, the chairman of the house freedom caucus. happy valentine's day, congressman. >> you too chris. >> i don't hear jim jordan. do you? >> i do. >> speak again, congressman. >> happy valentine's to you. >> can i have yours let's hear jim jordan. otherwise there will be a conspiracy theory that i'm trying not to hear him. jim, talk again. let me hear you. >> happy valentine's day. >> here we go.

>> first time i have ever told a guy happy valentine's day three times in one day. >> and to you as well. sir, we have trouble. let's talk about trouble. christopher wray, the fbi director, says we gave the information. i don't think there's much of an open question about whether the white house knew what they needed to know if they wanted to move on him. that is a political decision. put it to the side. clearance issues. he was looking at highly classified information, whatever the president was going to see. you care about this issue of how this is cared for. he didn't have the right kind of clearance. a lot of people in this white house do not. dni, dan coats said the system is broken. do you agree? if so, what can you do about it? >> a couple things. porter no longer works at the

white house. if what is alleged is true, he should face the harshest sentence as possible. second, everyone believes there needs to be changes in how security clearances are made. everyone understands that. the white house will correct them going forward. >> what kinds of corrections do you see? you can put me on camera. i have this huge italian man behind me. it's okay. it's valentine's day. i can hear you again. people need to get to know the staff. the push back here is this. this is a dangerous on situation. because you have people with good reason that shouldn't have clearance and the white house is letting them get by anyway. you have dozens. you have more than usual. this is taking longer than it should have. it's irresponsible. do you agree? >> well, again, chris, i don't know all the ins and outs, the timeline. >> never stopped you before. >> well, but what i do know is general kelly's service to this

country is unbelievable. i know his son made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. he will correct it. if he stays in the position he willing correct the situation. the white house has been clear about that. i don't know what kind of access mr. porter had to certain information, but i think that's something that needs to be corrected moving forward. and i believe it will be with this white house. >> do you have confidence in keeping general john kelly? >> that's a question for the united states. my limited interaction has been positive. like i said, i respect the services he has given his service this entire career. that's a question for the president. >> you have expressed such sensitivity towards classified information and how it is used and how it is safeguarded. this seems at a minimum reckless. you keep being given information

about a individual that could very easily compromise him with other people if they knew about the information. yet you let them keep seeing everything the president of the united states is seeing. >> i don't know what meetings mr. porter was in. >> you know what he did. he presented information to the president on a regular basis that was often classified. he was very high up there. >> but, chris, to compare it to the fbi doing what they did, taking a campaign document, dressing it all up as legitimate intelligence and presenting it to a fisa court, a secret court -- >> you don't know that's what happened. >> we do know that's what happened. >> you don't know that's what happened. >> to compare it is not an apt comparison. >> fine. let's go with your own comparison. you do not know what happened in that fisa application. you keep calling it secret court which is not fair to the american people. the fisa court was created as an

oversig oversight. >> have you ever read a transcript from the fisa court? >> no. >> i vice president. >> that's why i don't have an opinion about them. i don't judge them when i haven't seen them. >> we know people who have seen them. >> you know one. and trey gowdy who will will be on the show today, he wanted to resign, get away from this mess. he said it doesn't change the russia probe. >> well, it does change the fact that we now know they took a campaign document to a court to spy on a fellow citizen. it. >> was part of an application. >> that's why i call on christopher wray two on months ago. show us the application. show us the transcript. i'm for making everything transparent, including the democratic memo when done with our sources and methods. >> that's a big if, though, right? that's a hedge. old on a second. i don't want to talk over you. one, you just gave yourself an out on the democrat memo that

you expressly didn't want on the republican memo. subject to what the community -- you treat thepld like there was some dirty object as part of a toxic political -- >> majority memo. >> you didn't even use them. >> on the committee voted to release two memos. >> and you delayed it. you put in a delay to get your message out first. you painted this picture of the intelligence community as nefarious. you could have put them out at the same time. >> it is the exact same process. >> yes, it is. >> why is the intelligence community, why is the fbi, why are they meeting and talking about the memo and discussing what to redact when they didn't with yours? >> chris, because when you do something wrong, you don't want it made public. >> so now it's a different standard. so they did something wrong. it is okay to use it on the democratic memo. >> when they use a campaign research document. >> they did tell the court.

>> what we saw in the grassley memo, when you look at how they explained it was a political context of of this dossier, it is the most convoluted way to explain something. >> that's your impression. >> tell the court the truth. that's what people have read. >> let me respond. here's a suggestion. by the way, we're both coming at this from a position of ignorance because either of us has seen it. you want to rely on what someone else has said, that's your choice. here's two things. one, they didn't bring it up because it wasn't -- first of all, they did put it in the application. this would be renewed at least three times. >> right. >> so obviously there was something going on seen as highly legitimate. but you are the one exaggerating the significance of this dossier information.

maybe they didn't get it into it that deeply. and something else you have to explain to our audience. you say they did this because it was during a campaign and they wanted to hurt donald trump. this happened weeks before the end of the election. it wound up happening after the election was there. that's when the surveillance was going on. what kind of caper is this? this is what they came up with to hurt president trump is to put a surveillance on carter page, a guy who had almost no real connection to trump to his own understanding? and they do it just a few weeks before the election. they think it is going to effect the outcome of the race? it's preposterous. >> the guy who started the russian investigation peter strzok talked about an insurance policy. >> out of con tefpblgts you don't even know what he was talking about. >> he was talking about the election and the campaign. the text comes from the middle of august. >> you thought he meant secret

society. a lot of things that wound up being bogus. >> i'm talking about the text message we saw last week where lisa page said the president of the united states, potus, wants to know everything we're doing. >> about what? >> about everything. >> no. >> you tell me. >> and then he meets with putin two two days later. and he doesn't mention the e-mail situation? >> here's the significance of that text message from lisa page about president obama. it's the timing of it. july 5th they clear clinton. no charges will be brought. end of july, peter strzok opens the russian investigation. middle of august, a text says we need an insurance policy. september 2nd, the text message said potus wants to know everything we're doing. >> and he meets with putin two days later. >> all those things happened in eight weeks. >> what about him meeting with putin two days later and has a conversation about stop what you're doing, cut it out?

how come you don't factor that in? maybe that's exactly what it was about. it was exactly about tell me what we need to know about interference. i'm about to talk to the guy. >> in the eight week time period, clinton is not going to be charged to when they open the russian investigation, to when we see the text messages, september 2nd, the president wants to know everything we're up to. >> peter strzok wrote the letter about reopening the case. jim comey crushed hillary clinton. this is crazy unless dan brown is writing it and putting it in a book. >> peter strzok is a guy who changed the exoneration level from gross negligence -- >> because they couldn't make a case. why put language in a letter that will presume it triggers a statute if you're not going to make a kpaeus. why do that? it makes you look in competent? >> no. it makes you look like the fix

was in. >> that's what you say. you have to come back another day. i want to talk about paul ryan. i know you're not happy. i know leadership is in question there. so we have to talk about that. but this is more right right now. i don't understand why you are willing to die on this hill, jim jordan. this in satiable appetite to paint the fbi as dirty and trying to manipulate the election to help trump. it reeks of false equivalency. >> jim baker demoted. peter strzok demoted, reassigned. chief of staff for comey leaving the fbi. that's the top people. that's who i'm focused o. you know why we know the fix was in? an e-mail from page and strzok when they said jim comey will make the decision lisa page said that's no profile in courage. she already knows we're not going to bring charges. that tells you the fix was in

even before they interviewed clinton. they know they haven't even brought charges and they haven't even interviewed the main person in the case. >> not everybody. and you. but that's okay. i don't understand why you have such confidence in something when you cannot find prosecutors, real prosecutors -- not people who just want to be on on tv and talk and say, oh, yeah, there was an obvious case against clinton. they have to have a case they can prosecute and win, especially in those circumstances. why dress it up and make it into this nefarious thing. the idea that this is what they came up with. get fake surveillance on carter page who has almost nothing to do with trump, and we will do it weeks before the election. nothing came from the surveillance for weeks and weeks later. it doesn't make sense. >> do you think it's normal for the attorney general of the united states to meet with the husband of the subject of the investigation. >> no. >> on the tarmac. >> no. and i want was wrong.

>> and the general has to recuse herself? but that is no profile in courage because they're not going to press charges. that's what that says. >> the dialogue between two lovers is not relevant to me as suggestive as an entire fbi investigation. was it wrong for lynch to meet with clinton? absolutely, it was wrong. >> i never talked about that aspect of the page/strzok relationship. >> i know. it doesn't suit your narrative. if you write them off as lovers bantering, it doesn't stand up so well. >> he was talking about an insurance policy. >> you don't know what he meant. it is just as out of context as secret society and all the stupid other things that you dice -- >> i never talked about it. >> you guys brought it up. jim, i have to leave it there. please come back to talk about the state of the policy plans and what it means for the leadership and your party, all

right? >> thanks. take care. okay, chris. now to this. the nation's top intelligence chiefs trying to sound the alarm on russian election interference they say will happen in the upcoming midterm elections. senator angus king made an appeal to try to convince the president that the threat is real. >> i just wish you all could persuade the president as a matter of national security to separate these two issues, the collusion issue over here unresolved. we'll get to the bottom of that. but there's no doubt, as you all have testified today, and we cannot confront this threat with the whole of government response when the leader of the government continues to deny that it exists. >> senator angus king joins us now, member of the senate intelligence committee. good morning, senator. >> good morning. >> what was their response when

you asked can you all make a personal appeal to the president and try to convince him that the election meddling is real and they will do it again in the midterms in. >> i can only report body language. there was no real verbal response. i think they understood the point. these are all the leaders. four of six pinted by president trump. in their testimony, in their prepared testimony and what they said to the committee, they said what the russians did was real. it was an attack on our democracy. most importantly, they're winding up to do it this fall and in 2020. the point i was making is i understand the president's concern and sensitivity about whether his campaign was involved. that's a side. that's a different issue than who did the russians do? and i just wish he could separate the two, announce that he agrees with the view of the intelligence community and then we can start to have a whole of

government response to it. the other piece, and i mentioned this in my question yesterday, is the public reaction. i talk to people in maine. and they say, you know, we don't believe this. the president says this is a witch-hunt. this is a hoax. it never happened. and we'll never get this solved until there's a consensus in our country that what the russians did. a, that they did it. b, that it was wrong. and, c, we have to prevent it from happening again. and i think the president can help us with this. >> you were one of the democrats yesterday asking if the president has given any directive to try to look into this, to try to stop the russian meddling before the midterms to try to do anything about this. so here's senator jack reeld on that. >> as the president directed you and your agency to take specific actions to confront and blunt

russian activities going on? >> we are taking a lot of -- >> as directed by the president? >> not specifically directedly the president. >> is that a big deal, senator? do they need to be directed by the president? it sounds like wreus wray was saying they don't and they are taking their own actions. >> well, they are taking actions, that's true. we are taking about a pheupbmaj attack on our democracy. this is a place where you need presidential leadership to call the agencies together, to set out a timeline, to set out deadlines, to have interim reports and for the president to just say, well, i'm just not going to talk about that, you guys take care of it rell gates it to a minor place that it doesn't belong. this is a serious threat, one of the most serious since september 11th. we have to respond to it. and, again, i understand the

president's reluctance about this. it affects his election. and i fully understand that. i started my comments yesterday by saying this is more in sorrow than in anger. i'm not berating the president. i'm urging the president because i think he can separate these two issues, say to the american people, this was wrong and we're going to deal with it. and it would unify the government and unify the public. >> director of the fbi chris wray was asked about rob porter. basically he revealed how many times the fbi tried to alert the would you say to rob porter's background. four separate times they gave reports to the white house, some partial, some completed, about rob porter and the accusations of violence against his ex-wi s ex-wives. how is it possible he worked in the white house for a year while

that was happening? >> well, i think there is an aspect of this that hasn't gotten a lot of publicity. this isn't about what actually happened and those kind of things. this is a high-level official in the white house that has access to classified documents subject to blackmail. that's why you do security checks. a, you want to see if somebody is a spy. very unlikely. but, b, if there are issues like this that could be used to pressure them to supply information or otherwise compromise national security, that's why this is a concern. and it's very troubling as director wray testified yesterday, the final report was to the white house in july and this gentleman was still working late january, early february. >> yes. >> that raises concerns about national security because they knew they had a problem. somebody knew they had a

problem. it's hard for me to believe that the white house -- it's not the pentagon. it's not $30,000 people that somebody didn't realize, hey, this is a red tpwhrag. we have to deal with this one way or the other. we're going to go ahead and go, as somebody pointed out earlier, the president can do that. just to ignore it raises serious issues about national security and about management. >> cnn's reporting is that many people knew about this including don mcgahn, white house chief counsel, including john kelly, chief of staff. should john kelly keep his job? >> that's up to the president. i'm giving the same answer jim jordan gave. that's the president's call. i worked with him when he was commander of south comm in the military. he needs to be clear about how all of this happened, what did

he know and when did he know it. >> given that he has not been cleared, as recently as yesterday he is reported to have said we handled everything just right, i know it's the president's decision to make, but are you confident in john kelly being chief of staff? >> that's not my call. it really suspect. i'm not the president. the president has to make that call. i think it raises serious questions. i would ask why this wasn't handled more promptly. he may have to make a decision to make a change. if he has confidence in john kelly and is willing to get to the bottom of this and if there's a problem, overlook it. for if there is a problem, try to rectify it. i'm not prepared to say from here 20/20 hindsight across washington and say the president should dismiss someone. >> senator angus king, we

appreciate you. >> yes, ma'am. >> ceo of goldman sachs talks to our christine romans. what he is saying about the economy, the strength of it and where you should and should not put your money, next.

this is the story of green mountain coffee roasters dark magic told in the time it takes to brew your cup. first, we head to vermont. and go to our coffee shop. and meet dave. hey. why is dark magic so spell-bindingly good, he asks? let me show you. let's go. so we climb. hike. see a bear. woah. reach the top. dave says dark magic is a bold blend of coffee with rich flavors of uganda, sumatra, colombia and other parts of south america. like these mountains, each amazing on their own.

but together? magical. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters packed with goodness. >> okay. . now to the economy. goldman sachs ceo says the u.s. economy is strong, but the trump administration wants to go on a spending spree ballooning the deficit. chief economist christine romans tells us what it means for all of our money. she is here to report the findings. his, christine. >> what a difference a decade makes. a decade ago we were talking about the viability of the american financial system. today we are talking about an economy that is really, really strong. roaring economy if you look at the gauges of main street. republican congress is spending money. deficit spending $1.1 trillion deficit expected next year. what does that mean?

>> what could possibly go wrong? i haven't felt this good since 2006. >> yeah. >> it's true. you have to have that in mind. >> is there a risk of overheating here? >> of course there is. the conditions are not just benign, they are highly supportive of a good economy. the economy was good before. on top of it we put in $1.5 trillion of tax cuts, additional spending. maybe even infrastructure bill. the sentiment is positive. interest rates are relatively low for the growth cycle. this is certainly not my base case, but i worry about small but adverse probabilities is too much of a good thing. and i would say that the odds of a bad outcome have gone up. >> so that got my attention. it's one of the reasons you have seen the stock market and the bond market moving so much in

the past couple of weeks. i asked was the stock market a bubble. he said there was froth in the market. was that a bubble? has it popped? and what should regular investors do? >> at this particular time, don't throw all in. people are saying, gosh, shoe buy more at the lows. yeah, if you are rich and you have excess capital. but i wouldn't throw all of that. plan for the contingency if this continues to be worse than people are thinking. i wouldn't be more audacious with the fed on a raising rate, with the budget deficit widening out, i wouldn't say this is the time i would max out on my risk as opposed to air year ago. >> regular investors. i'm not talking about bankers, hedge fund managers. for regular people who have their money in the is stock market, what is your advice? he said this is not the time to max out on your risk. i think it will be an interesting year, alisyn. running deficits, with an economy that's running hot, with

the feds starting to raise interest rates, stay tuned. this could be an interesting year for investors and the markets. >> that is an important perspective to have. christine, thank you for bringing us the interview. >> your welcome. >> appreciate it. president trump's new budget plan is out. mr. trump is set to spend serious moolah. the budget includes the infrastructure plan, the subject of a critical "new york times" editorial this morning you may want to look at. it's not a plan, it's a scam. the $1.5 trillion number is just is made up. he's only proposing federal spending of $200 billion, which is somewhat supposed to magically induce a vastly bigger overall increase in infrastructure investment, mainly paid for either by state and local governments, which cnn global economic analyst rana foroohar and economic analyst

stephen moore. i will allow you to respond both from what we heard from goldman sachs and krugman. you guys are spending too much and faking the numbers when it comes to infrastructure. >> first of all, why would anyone listen to paul krugman. he's been about the wrongest economist in the last ten years. he said a week before the trump election that if trump was elected, he would cause a massive meltdown in the market. of course, just the opposite happened. with respect to what christine was saying, i think she's, of course, right. you always want to be very patient, a patient investor. times are good. there's no question about it. we have seen a big ramp-up in the growth of the economy since trump was elected. the latest indicator is we might see 4% to 5% growth in the first half of the year. we haven't seen that in a long, long time. i still remain bullish. on your fundamental points. are republicans spending too much money? yes, they are.

>> rana, steven may say they see green shoots. we haven't seen revolutionary growth since president trump has come into office. we have seen big stock market and it kept getting bigger. that's a trend. you get into the nitty-gritty. krugman may be wrong about a million things. he ain't wrong that it's only $200 billion they're putting up. it pulgts a lot on states that are getting hit with that s.a.l.t. problem, that you are saying to them you can't have as much money coming in, but now asking to have more money coming out to have the infrastructure plan. >> absolutely. i worry this is a magical number. to be putting this on state and municipalities that have plenty of budget problems to begin with right now, i think it's cynical to be honest. the entire plan at the end of a recovery -- we're at the end of a recovery cycle. we've been in recovery for ten

years. we're actually due for slower growth. to be by these aftfirm means, trying to throw kerosene on the economy and expect somebody else to come up with infrastructure spending which is what you need to bolster mid to long-term growth i think is very cynical. >> are you cynical? >> trump is getting hit from both sides here. on the one hand, you're saying, i think we all agree they're spending too much money on the military -- >> i don't agree with anything. >> most people have been criticizing this budget on spending too much on the budget deal passed last month. >> why are they doing it? >> because they love to play santa claus. >> these are republicans and they're supposed to be the deficit hawks. >> look, i'm embarrassed by it. i think they've been fiscal frauds here. i'm very embarrassed by their behavior. republicans are supposed to be the fiscal responsible party and

they haven't been. on the other hand, then you can't turn around and say he's not spending enough on the infrastructure plan. where is the money going to come from? >> we do need to modernize our infrastructure. by the way, a lot of this could be paid for in my opinion with private sector dollars. we need more l and g terminals, pipelines, roads and bridges fixed. i live in virginia, we have private toll roads that work very well, rana. >> you and i agree on the need for infrastructure spending. i think this is the area the federal government should have been putting the dollars up for for real. the private sector are going to come in and cream the profitable projects off the top. they're not necessarily going to do the projects you need. >> like what? >> the next time i go to the airport and i'm on the bqe and i feel like i'm in mall dove yeah, is that going to be fixed? >> the state of our airports is

dismal. >> hold on a second. here is the answer. because we've seen this before. we saw it with prisons. what did the private industry do? they came in and creamed the top. they took the medium and the low security and the most expensive job, the most important job which is keeping people like us and our families safe for the maximum security prisoners, those they didn't want to touch. that becomes the concern. if you wind up helping private businesses make money but not getting the job done from an efficiency standpoint. >> we have a lot of examples of privatization of infrastructures that work well. a lot of public roads funded by tolls. i believe in the user pay system. the people who use the infrastructure have to pay for it. i'll give you an example why you don't want the federal government funding these things. you've got this absurd $60 billion high-speed rail system that nobody is going to ride, the biggest white elephant. why should federal taxpayers pay

for something they're not going to use? >> let's leave it there. i'm short on time. this is an ongoing conversation. >> we'll be back to this. >> we'll keep talking about it as we see more meat on the boats. rana, steven, thank you very much. will chief of staff john kelly survive the fallout of the rob porter scandal? what cnn has learned about who can replace him.

liberty mutual saved us almost $800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. liberty did what? yeah, they saved us a ton, which gave us a little wiggle room in our budget. i wish our insurance did that. then we could get a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey, welcome back. this guy, right? (laughs) yes. ellen. that's my robe. you could save $782 when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance.

the process for the background was on going. the white house had not received any specific papers -- >> the fbi submitted a completed background investigation in late july. >> when it went through the timeline, you say that's not what sarah sanders said. >> the white house is blaming its own personnel office. >> the president has confidence in his chief of staff. >> it seems to have changed since he's fallen into the orb of the president. kind of sad for me. president trump's personal lawyer says he paid thous thousands of his own money