special video package of what we think are the highlights. hit us at the beet with ari to see it and tell house we missed. i'll be back monday 6:00 p.m. eastern. "hardball" with chris matthews starts right now. >> weird night in the west wing. let's play "hardball." . >> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. as we meet, the mood in the office of the american presidency is grim and chaotic. the "new york times" is reporting the chief of staff is offering to resign. the communications chief is in danger. and the white house secretary is gone all together. president trump publicly addressed the growing west wing scandal for the first time today, defending the former aide who has been accused by two ex-wives of violent behavior. >> we certainly wish him well.

it's a obviously tough time for him. he did a very good job when he was in the white house, and we hope he has a wonderful career and hopefully he will have a great career ahead of him. but it was very sad when we heard about it, and certainly he's also very sad. now, he also, as you probably know, he says he's innocent. and i think you have to remember that. he said very strongly yesterday that he's innocent. so you'll have to talk to him about that, but we absolutely wish him well. did a very good job while he was at the white house. >> notice what president trump never mentioned. not one single word about either of the women accusing rob porter of abuse. one of his ex-wives jennifer willoughby was on the "today" show this morning and recounted one violent episode. let's watch. >> we had been fighting, and rob followed me to the shower and pulled me out of the shower to

continue the rage and immediately saw how scared i was and recognized what he was doing and released it, but that was a moment when i realized he didn't have control. >> you got a restraining order against him. so you feared some physical violence? >> it was a temporary protective order after an incident where had he punched in the door of our home during our separation. >> we, porter has called the allegations against him by two ex-wives outrageous and false. meanwhile according to nbc news it, president donald trump frustrated by his staff's handling of the allegations against rob porter is increasingly venting about john kelly and speculating about potential replacements according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. among the people the president called to express dissatisfaction according to those close to him was none other than reince priebus. priebus denied that today saying the president has never

complained to me about general kelly. the president's anger isn't just directed at kelly. he's also frustrated over communications director hope hicks' role in the porter controversy. hicks is reportedly in a relationship with rob porter and also tonight, "the new york times" is reporting kelly told white house officials he's willing to step down over his handling of the porter news. sources tell nbc news he has not made a formal offer to resign. i'm joined by chief white house correspondent halle jackson, "washington post" bureau chief phil rucker, the white house bureau chief and jason johnson who is politics editor the at the root. halle, just the sense you can only get when you're near something. is there a sense with the chief offering to resign, the communications chief in danger, the secretary gone, what is the feeling and the noise, the chatter level and the mood over there now? >> a lot of slammed doors, a lot of serious faces what we saw for most of the afternoon. you put that up headline from

the "new york times" that the white house chief of staff john kelly said he's willing to resign. kelly o'donnell just heard from the chief of staff and this is from the horse's mouth from, john kelly say nothing, he did not offer to resign. when she pushed him, he said again, i just said no. that is an on the record denial he has offered to resign. now, i will tell you when i spoke with a source close to the chief of staff, he said listen he's always willing to resign that jibes with what he said that he be ises at the pleasure of the president. a second source saying if the president were saying i don't want you to serve anymore, john kelly knows how the structure and command system works. that is something he would listen to. i'm told he's feeling irritated right now. that is his mood because he feels dogged by continued questions about the fallout from the porter scandal, as one person put it, hey, he's answered a lot of questions about this. why does he still keep getting questions when he feels he's put

it to rest looking to move past this. it was an interesting few hours here because remember, yes, the press secretary is on a preplanned day off. we saw a lot of hudding of aides behind closed doors. at points, had you aides who sit just outside the offices touching up the volume on the tv screens outside to perhaps seem to mask private conversations happening inside those offices. clearly there was some crisis control, some damage control happening as we have seen, john kelly in and out of an area called upper press where nbc news had the opportunity to talk with him a couple of times. he clarified the timeline of when he found out. he said he was first aware of investigations he said broadly, that something was up in november. but he said literally all he heard and i'm paraphrasing was there something being looked into. he said he didn't find out that the allegations were true he says till tuesday night and he said within 40 minutes, rob

porter was gone. that raises some questions because the timeline is confusing. tuesday night is when the white house put out a statement from john kelly that rob porter was a man of true integrity. there are still some questions. the bottom line seems to be people at this white house knew about what was going on with rob porter and these allegations against him. one white house staffer says don mcgahn knew about a year ago. so that is sort of where this conversation has been going today. but again, he asked about the mood. definitely one of those friday nights where you're like all right. >> let's talk about it as if it were a normal president and a normal white house staff. that's a elle of a leap. let's try that. president of the united states expects his chief of staff to deal with these kinds of situations to deal with personnel to know what the fbi reporting on declare full field investigation has come through when they find out all about them. they go door to door, every place you've lived. a thorough investigation by the fbi. according to all the reporting

i've seen, the fbi was doing its job as long as a year ago, they were getting indication there was violence in the former marriages. and wasn't that enough, that information enough to be brought to the attention of the chief of staff? >> i assume you're directing that question to me, chris. what i can tell you, yeah, is that there is indications that this came to light in the fall, that there was word that this was happening, that these allegation fooz nine months to get the information to the chief of staff. >> that is what john kelly told us tonight himself. that in november he discovered he was told briefed he said about the investigation, but did not get briefed on specs. now, is it possible that the chief -- that the council don mcgahn his office knew about that earlier? yes, and our reporting indicates that perhaps as much as last january, last year, he was being told about this. there is an open question of whether that trickled up to the top levels.

>> i've been reading a lot of these reports with the timeline, and i'm getting backing to last january this information reached the fbi. by the way, i want to -- let's go to fig rucker, white house bureau chief for "the post." is there a problem here with the white house being incapable intellectually or emotionally of accepting fact from the fbi? that's their job to do background checks. john kelly doesn't go knocking on doors to say how a guy treated previous spouses. the fbi dozen. you have to rely on the fbi. are they accepting the truth of the fbi at this white house? sir? >> well, the problem, chris, is that there's no clear accountability here. there's no clear timeline. what we have are shifting statements, evolving timelines. this morning john kelly was in a senior staff meeting at the white house, a private meeting where he told aides that he wanted them to tell their colleagues to tell the lower level staffers at the white house that he had taken decisive action within 40 minutes of learning of these allegations about rob porter.

that does not match the public record. it does not match the statements that we have seen coming out of this white house where there was a concertive strategic attempt to try to protect rob porter, the staff secretary up until that came out. >> is general kelly having a cover-up? >> i don't know. he would serve himself if he would answer some of these questions deliberately and thoughtfully and be transparent what he and white house council don mcgahn and others in the white house knew, when they knew it, when did they notify the president, what were the conversations with porter. we still don't know, for example, whether porter resigned and his resignation accepted or was he fired and terminated? we've had conflicting accounts from the white house on that point. >> again, jason, you put the shoe on the other foot and you go, suppose barack obama had something -- i constantly go back and check this. suppose he was involved with any of this stuff with the adult dance area, whatever, imagine if somebody in his top staff had been accused of this on the

record with police records and restraining orders and the top person in charge of controlling all his paperwork and everything and then it looked like his people covered up for it. >> it would be -- inexcusable. i mean, he would be pilloried. people would be screaming for his impeachment. what galls me is general kelly talking to the american public and journalists like we're supposed to believe he's a dunce. this is a smart man who cleaned up a lot of things in the white house. for us to believe he didn't know for nine months and suddenly decided to take action once he saw pictures, that's unbelievable. it is a cover-up. >> you talk about the culture, hallie. it is so much a he culture they can't deal with a her question. >> because i think katy tur was excellent this afternoon. she said all i hear is hes and no hers in the account of the white house of what went down here. >> number one, when you look at the president's statement today and i stick to the realm of the

facts on hand, the fact on hand are that the president did not bring up the women who have accused rob porter of domestic violence both physical and verbal abuse. >> even with pronouns. >> no pronouns. >> contrast that with what the vice president said to lester holt in that sitdown in north korea. the vice president said things like domestic violence is not tolerated in this white house and should not be tolerated in this country. >> let's go to the interview, vice president pence said he didn't know about the allegations against port porter, until he heard about the resignation. here he is. let's watch. >> i was appalled when i learned of the allegations against rob porter. the time that he resigned is when i first became aware of the allegations of domestic abuse, and there's no tolerance in this white house and no place in america for domestic abuse. that being said, i think the white house has acknowledged

that they could have handled it better. lester, when he i return to washington, d.c., i'm going to look into the matter and i'll share my counsel with the president directly. >> hallie, one of our colleagues with the times -- "the post," she said how come the vice president is always about a foot outside the loop? he keeps this decent, this wonderful little respectful distance from the bad stuff going on and he can always come in a couple days later and say yes, when i find out more about this, i'll react. how does he do this? his office if you look at the west wing floor plan is two doors from the president's oval office. how does he do this. >> he obviously spends a lot of time at the executive office building. he is the number two guy in this administration. he is the person that the president can't fire when you look at all of this. i do think it is il luminative to look at the vice president's response to what happened. you mentioned ashley saying directly to him, why do you always seem to be out of the loop on these issues?

do think when the vice president says to lester i'm going to go back and give the president my council directly, don't underestimate that. he talks to the president who has his ear and talks with people here in washington, allies on the hill, allies in the conservative community, allies in the donor community, as well. when you ask about culture, there's one other point which is the president -- this illustrates his comments about porter sud. critics have seized on this in particular. the rez has shown a pattern of a pro pence sit to side with his allies and not accusers. you look at the rob porter case. it's an apples and oranges but with roy moore, the president saying roy moore denied it, siding with him. this dates back to mike tyson back in the early '90s. >> roger ailes, as well. >> right. >> bill o'reilly is another one. >> and yeah. let me thank you for that. i know you went up to the eagles parade yesterday. i'm so glad you represented us there.

700,000 people there. >> it was totally worth it. >> you sacrificed for your country. thank you so much giving up a day. phil rucker of the "post" on this what about your colleague getting that amazing conversation going with the vice president? how come you're always a foot beyond the loop of reality? >> she's brilliant, ashley parker. i wish she were here in washington because she would be teaming up with us to cover all of this white house drama. she does it better than anybody else. she's out there in south korea trying to keep the vice president accountable. >> thank you. what a great colleague are you. the white house staff drama played on in a reality game show. only roman na gold rose to fame on the apprentice before working in the white house. she once said this about her former boss, trump. >> every critic, every detrac r detractoring will having to bow down top president trump. it's everyone who's ever doubted donald, whoever disagreed, whoever challenged him. it is the ultimate revenge to

become the most powerful man in the universe. >> in a world. anyway, that was her then. here she is now. >> should we be worried oh. don't say that. because we are worried but i need to you say no, it's going to be okay. >> no, it's going to not be okay. it's not. >> so bad. >> would you vote for him again? >> god no. never. in a million years, never. >> god from biblical epic down to soap opera. she's turned a 180 on this guy. >> live comes at you fast. a year ago he was the greatest guy on the planet. omarosa personally nice person but trying to sell books. now he's the most dangerous

person on the face of the planet, you weren't concerned if you still had a job there you wouldn't be concerned. if you're concerned about what he might do as president, you can go find robert mueller. i'm sure he would like to have a conversation with you. >> it's something. we had to end that segment on a comic relief. it is a seriously grim night at the white house. thanks. we flared halle jackson. what a night it's been at the white house. thank you phil rucker, "the washington post" and jason johnson of the root. coming up, donald trump launches another smoke bomb on the russia probe as watergate reporters woodward and bernstein we're on the precipice of another saturday night massacre. that's ahead, plus if the republican party now the is it now hitting a values deficit? the gop has long sold itself as the party of fiscal discipline, family values and law and order. recent moves call into serious question their commitment on all three counts. and steve bannon says

trump's base is starting to question account president's commitments to building his famous wall on the rio grande and one trump promised mexico would pay for it. remember all that? let me finish tonight with trump watch. he won't like this. it's friday night and this is "hardball" where the action is. ♪ ♪ wild thing ♪ ♪ you make my heart sing ♪ ♪ you make everything groovy ♪ wild thing, i think i love you ♪ applebee's handcrafted burgers. any burger just $7.99. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood.

♪ i'm 85 and i wannaa lifego home ♪savannah ♪ [ding] [boxing bell ding] [applause] according to a new report, president trump has abandoned a practice followed by past seven, the past seven u.s. presidents. "the washington post" reports that trump rarely if ever reads the president's daily brief. a document that lays out the most pressing information collected by u.s. intelligence agencies. instead, the president relies on an oral briefing one source says that reading the dense document does not fit in with trump's style of learning. experts like former cia direct kerr leon panetta warn by not reading the full briefing trump could miss important context on

intelligence issues putting the country in a more vulnerable position. he has downplayed the importance of a daily intelligence briefing. >> i'm like a smart person. i don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. could be eight years, but eight years. i don't need that. >> i like the look on mike wallace's face when the president of the united states, i'm a smart person. we'll be right back. i've always wanted to share a special moment with my mom. i think surprising her with a night ski trip would just be the biggest gift i could give her. let's make that happen. she's gonna be so excited. ♪ take me where i want to be. ♪ ♪ let me dream, oh, let me dream... ♪

you or joints. something for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.

welcome back to "hardball." we begin tonight talking about the chaos in the west wing of the white house. of course, meanwhile president trump and his defenders copied their attempts to cast doubt on the integrity of the russian probe. it seems that the more allegations they make, the faster those allegations are debunked. and now trump has targeted the ranking member of the senate intelligence committee democratic senator mark warner in an effort to discredit the investigation he's leading with his republican colleague richard burr who has impressed me very much these months.

it began last night when fox news reported that warn her communicated with a lobbyist for a russian oligarching in an attempt last march to make contact with christopher steele. the former british intelligence officer behind the dossier. the report faced immediate pushback from republican senator marco rubio, republican, who tweeted senator warner fully disclosed this to the committee four months. it has had zero impact on our work. despite that president trump seized on the news anyway writing this last night, wow, senator mark warner got caught having extensive contact with a lobbyist for a russian oligarch, warner did not want a paper trail on a private meeting in london he requested with dossier after dossier fame. all tied into crooked hillary. this comes as we await news from the white house on the release of the democratic rebuttal to the nunes memo. the president has till tomorrow to agree or release. he'll probably do it plid night

tonight. the number three official at the department of justice is the stepping down. rachel brand was a key figure because she was next in line of succession after rod rosenstein who currently oversees is the probe. i'm joined now by mir ram rack ca, david raqqah and bet can i woodruff is reporter with "the daily beast." anyway had, well, let me start with david on there because you are an aficionado of this stuff of wacky ideological behavior on the right. the president seems like every day he gets up and tries to find a smoke bomb, something he can throw over toward the russia probe, confuse his supporters and actually mudeverything up. he never seems to succeed. they fizzle in a couple hours. he keeps throwing smoke bombs. >> i would even call them a stink bomb. but they do work to a certain degree. for the last two, three weeks what are we talking about? not so much the investigations but the nunes memo which is a

deflection and distraction. we've talked about this before. >> probably written by the white house. >> they move from thing to thing. it's a one plate of spaghetti after the next. in the past week, we've heard about russian attempts to medal in the 201 midterm elections. we've seen the head of the cia meeting with russian interrogation chiefs. there's a lot going on we're not talking about as much because we're following all the craziness. >> i try to keep my eye through the smoke. >> one last point. >> it's still a question, what did the russians do, what role did the trump crowd do in helping them and what's happening right now in 2018. >> let's remember what's curious about the substance of this criticism of mark warner. the president criticized him for being in communications with someone who knew steele and talking about going to london to meet him. meanwhile two staffers for devin nunes went to london in search of steele. my colleague spencer ackerman broke the news one of those

staffers was kash patel who was instrumental in writing nunes's controversial memo. you can't have it both ways. >> who has close ties with the west wing. >> exactly. >> let me go to miram raqqah. what do we make of the fact, everybody thought it was important. i heard she's getting a job with walmart. she's not going to be there, i pose. rachel brand to take the job if something happens because the president fires or pushes out rosenstein. your thoughts on the importance of this. >> i think we have to be careful about reading too much into it too quickly because look, she had been at the department of justice for a long time. she had only been in the aag position for nine months but had been there a long time. people leave the government for private sector jobs. is it possible this got expedited because she wasn't looking forward to possibly being in in extremely political controversial role? definitely. but you know, and that would be a sad consequence of what trump is doing to the department of

justice, what he's been trying to do. >> what are his rights to replace her? >> i think he can appoint someone, an acting for a while but eventually that person would have to be confirmed which would be a pretty tough confirmation hearing for him. >> if they didn't get confirmed, would he have power if he fired rosenstein? who would take over if he didn't get someone confirmed from the senate? >> i think there's a lot of debate about this right now what kicks in. my understanding is there sort of a line of succession written in the regulations right now or by order of previous. >> who becomes in charge, david? who is going to be the boss of robert mueller when he comes through with his report late this year or early next year? who is the one who receives it? it's going to be rosenstein unless he gets fired or pushed out. >> it's actually not clear. she's right. we called the justice department we at mother jones this afternoon. they said it goes to the

solicitor general. but there are some memos outs there that people are pointing to that shows u.s. attorneys will get ahead of him in the line of succession. >> saturday night massacre, what would happen? >> we don't know who it goes to in terms of being in charge of this investigation. >> it's possible the president. >> he could fire sessions tomorrow. cofire sessions, rosenstein, anybody that comes in to replace brand and he can ultimately find a way to fire mueller. >> it's possible the president could appoint someone else who the senate confirmed to step into brand's spot and that would give that person significant power. >> any u.s. attorney. >> the senate confirmed or hhs secretary. the other piece about rachel stepping down that is significant is it's long been known in conservative washington legal circles that she was someone who could be a strong contender for a federal judgeship. i heard her mentioned as a potential supreme court nominee. she's not dump.

she's a highly intelligent lawyer. people in the trump administration get the reputations torched. >> i want to think about the nunes memo, the fact that died, it's a boring thing. it was cooked up by the white house i think like anything nunes does. the fact that the democrats have something to cop out here. what are they going to come out with? is trump going to prove it at midnight tonight? that would be the normal way to do the garbage dump. >> i've learned the democrats memo actually quotes the fisa warrant applicationing that fbi agents put together. it's really unusual to see text from one of those fisa applications. that's some of the most classified material in government. a big question for when or if this memo comes out is will those lines from the nice sass application be redacted or won't they? additionally, i can tell you. >> what's the importance of that. >> if they're there, we'll know a lot more how exactly the fbi asked for authorization to surveil carter page.

>> this hit job against senator warner is the latest of a serious of allegations made against the institutions carrying out investigations of russian meddling in our election. each charge has been more quickly debunks than the last. last friday the so-called moouns memo alleged wrongful surveillance of carter page. however, subsequent reporting revealed numerous flaws in the memo and democrats expect their rebuttal to put those to rest. anyway, on wednesday, senator ron johnson incorrectly claimed that a text message showed president obama was personally involved in the fbi's investigation of hillary clinton's e-mails. however, the timeline suggests otherwise and "the wall street journal" among other outlegs deburveged that claim within hours. "the wall street journal" put that to bed. senator dianne feinstein is debunking claims made in which republican members of the senate judiciary committee claim the former british intelligence officer lied to the fbi about his contacts with journalists. she points out the criminal

referral fails to identify when if ever he was asked about and provided a materially false statement about his press contacts. it also fails to explain any circumstance which would have required mr. steele to seek the fbi's permission to speak to the press. david, i hate going into the weeds on this. i think the whole strategy of the white house and it's been good. i've seen in the polls. it's working. if you get people in enough crazy charges against this probe, you'll get something like an equilibrium. do you believe it or not. none of the charges hold up. they keep shooting them out there. >> they don't need to win or get these referrals. they don't need to convince us with the memo. they just need to muddy up the waters and make it seem like this is all about politics. today, the house intelligence committee released the transcript of the meeting they had earlier in the week about the democratic memo. most important thing to me in that was you had democrats saying you know, you guys to the republicans, you haven't subpoenaed one piece of

information. you have witnesses coming in, you're taking them at their word you're not coming in with follow-up interviews or subpoenaing them for information. so these investigations at least and the house side are really bogus at this point in time. instead, focusing on that and the bad job they're doing we're getting drawn into one mini fake scandal a day. >> miriam, it's great to have you on. you're a prosecutor. my belief is that if you have a criminal defendant who is guilty and you're a defendant, defense attorney and you know the man or woman is guilty, you know it, it's obvious, you throw up a lot of nonsensical stuff in defense of the person. you suggest possible theories, you suggest alibis. just hoping you'll find one juror that will say yeah, i guess there's something to that. that's reasonable doubt. it seems to me that's the game that the president's defendants are following. we got a guilty defendant. we've got throw up a lot of stuff in the air, a lot of flack in the air so somebody will say

yeah, that sounds vaguely clear especially somebody not paying attention. what is his defense? >> i think you're exactly right. i mean, the defense is not that he didn't do anything. the defense is whatever he can throw up and you know, prosecutors when they bring cases to juries in federal court like to say, you know, keep your eye on the ball to the jury. use your common sense. you don't throw that out the door. i think if we can say that to the american people now, we would say they're just trying to distract you from what's really going on here. he is fighting this like he's a private citizen who is being sued or you know or going on a criminal being put on a criminal trial. what he's doing to defend that by throwing all had stuff up is doing damage to these institutions in a way because he's not a private -- he's not a private siz citizen. he's the president. when he puts on this defense this way, he's doing damage in a way that other people can't do. it's very dangerous. >> you mean he's obstructing justice? >> i mean, he's damaging the

institutions, the credibility of the department of justice and the fbi. you know, institutions that we need to rely on every day to keep our country safe. he's -- he doesn't care the consequence of the accusations he makes. >> thank you so much, miriam, you're a great person to have on the show. it is a national security question the situation we face right now. the russians got involved with our elections. we'd like to know if americans played ball with them. that's a simple question. those who don't want the answer are not friends of this country. david corn, thank you, bet can i, thank you. up next the party versus its values. the republicans used to back fiscal responsibility and fam values. is president trump to blame. >> this is "hardball" where the action is. napoleon is duping us! all around louisiana... you're a nincompoop! (phone ping)

gentlemen, i have just received word! the louisiana purchase, is complete! instant purchase notifications from capital one. so you won't miss a purchase large, small, or very large. technology this helpful... could make history. what's in your wallet? some would shy away from throwing a big party in a small space. jeri: "guys, it's a lot of food." but you're going to make the most of every square foot. with blue apron, any night is a chance to see what cooking can do.

- there's a common thread i see every time i'm in the field. while this was burning, you were saving other homes. neighbors helping neighbors and strangers alike. - this is what america's about. - sometimes it's nice to see all the good that's out there.

bringing folks out, we have seen it in community after community. welcome back to "hardball." after roughly a year of president now, it's been a year, the republican party's metamorphosis is nearly complete. it used to be the conservative party for less taxes less spending with the party of the evangelicals, traditional family values. it's been a great marriage for them. let's watch. >> we republicans have been blessed with grassroots supporters who are committed to the ideals of individual freedom, family values, free enterprise and a strong america.

>> let the other side ridicule family values. i'm talking about work, responsibility, loving thy neighbor. >> we discovered that we are is pore more important than what we have and we must restore our values to restore our country. >> with all its might not to take. >> we with physical conservatives. that means we believe government should not live beyond its means. >> wow. back in 1998, newt gingrich slammed president clinton for degrading the oval office writing in a conservative weekly publication "the institution of the presidency has been degraded to the point that it is viewed as the rough equivalent of the jerry springer show. a love of disrespect and decadence that should appall every american." 30 years later, the party has choosen to give president trump a pass. listen to them do it. evangelicals did not vote

for donald trump based on his moral qualifications. but based upon what he said he was going to do and who he was surrounding himself with. we kind gave hip, you get a mulligan, you get a do over here. >> the party of nixon, reagan and goldwater includes roy moore and a snaz nazi sympathizer running in illinois. what happened. we'll ask our roundtable next. stay tuned. what happened. we'll ask our roundtable next. stay tuned. ♪ ♪

wemost familiar companies,'s

but we make more than our name suggests. we're an organic tea company. a premium juice company. a coconut water company. we've got drinks for long days. for birthdays. for turning over new leaves. and we make them for every moment in every corner of the country. we are the coca-cola company, and we're proud to offer so much more.

i ran for office because i was very critical of president obama'starilyian dollar deficits. now we have republicans hand in hand with democrats offering us trillion dollar deficits. i can't in all good honesty and all good faith just look the other way because my party is now complicity in the deficits. >> welcome back to "hardball."

that was kentucky senator rand paul last night blasting his own party's flip-flop on deficit spending. abandoning fiscal responsibility is just part of the republican party's evolution away from what they were once had as its core values. washington "washington post" columnist jennifer ruben writes today the core mission of the gop is now to defend abusers noting that the gop at every turn enabled and encouraged trump by refusing to exercise oversight. joining in the disinformation campaign, declining to censure him and or attacking the media just as john kelly says rob porter is a man of great integrity, republicans praise trump as a successful president an admiral lead area of their party. so what's happened to the republican party? let's bring in the "hardball" roundtable, ira shapiro author of "broken," a beautiful book. alfonso aguilar is president of the latino partnership for conservative principles and an-guerin from the "washington

post." ira, what do you make of the republican party's ability to say especially this fellow tony perkins, evangelical minister, we'll give him a mulligan on his behavior. clinton never got a mulligan. your thoughts? >> first of all, there is some real consistency in the republican principles. they're always for tax cuts. and they're always for paying for them by cutting domestic programs. they're only fiscally responsible when the democrats are in power. so this consistency is there. >> they never say deficit unless they have a democratic president. >> take rand paul for a minute. i thought he made a great speech there, but he also just voted for the tax cut. that's where most of the money went. the what they did on spending is nothing compared to the tax cut. on the family -- >> we got news breaking in here. now from the "washington post," a second white house aide has now resigned amid past domestic abuse allegations which he

denies. "the washington post" story writes the abrupt departure of david sorenson comes after his former wife claimed that he was violent and emotionally abusive during their turbulent 2 1/2 year marriage allegations he denied. he said he was the victim of violence in their marriage. his resignation comes two days after another administration official staff secretary rob porter departed after two ex-wives said he physically abused them. anne, you've covered this. i go back to the question of the fbi. the one thing you know is that to work in the federal government for peace corps volunteer especially in the west wing of the white house in contact physically with the president, you can walk in the door, that you have to be checked out. why didn't the white house know all this stuff about violent behavior of these two officials? >> well, if this current case is like the first one, they did know. they had the fbi material at hand. the chief of staff and others

would have had that material. the white house chief counsel would have had that material. the question is what did they do with it and did they consider it in any way a disqualifying event that this guy had been accused of beating up his wife. apparently not. >> he would think that the felonies would qualify. because assault and battery. more breaking news from the white house concerning the democratic rebuttal to the so-called nunes memo. white house council don mcgahn writes that the president will not declassify the rebut. "although the president's inclined to declassify the memorandum because it contains numerous properly classified he's unable to do so at this time. he says the committee may submit draft of the memo for the white house to consider. that's even handed, isn't it? >> alphonse. >> that's a terrible idea. he made public the decided to make public the republican memo, the nunes memo. the american people want to

know. we already saw the nunes memo. now we want to see the democratic memo so the american people can judge for themselves. it looks very partisan. it looks terrible for the white house. >> what do you make of the republican party's 90% support for trump? the latest numbers are astounding. the old line was democrats fall in love are, republicans fall in line. they have really fallen in line for this guy. the top people voted with him on tax bill. all of them. including rand paul, including the two women who were reasonable people like murkowski and collins. i think they all voted. >> it's hard to be conservative in the era of trump. i ended up not supporting the president. i said look, he is who he is. i don't like his personality. i don't like the things that he says or offensive or his tweetses. for the good of the country, i have to look at his policies. i have to say since he became president, i support most of his policies. >> does the end justify the means?

>> look, it's washington. politics. >> i'm only asking my question. does the end justify the means? he's the means. >> no, but i think. >> you just said no. >> it's a fair question if you think i'm supporting a policy it doesn't mean i'm supporting trump the pan. >> he's your means to getting your policy. you admit it. >> yes, but he's got three years to go. are you saying i should oppose trump at every single turn? if i agree with his policy, i'm going to say i like trump. >> is he a good role model for young people. >> no, he's done damage just like bill clinton. >> there is an underlying rationale on the family values part. the only thing that many of the family values voters care about really is the abortion issue. and so this other stuff doesn't matter as much to them as that issue and the supreme court justice issue. and so i think they care about that. >> they care about other things. >> i hope. i'd like to think.

>> >> tony perkins and social conservatives. many don't like the way trump behaves. when you look at his agenda, he's been more conservative than other republican presidents appointing conservative judge, expanding mexico city policy. he's done many things that other republican presidents. >> two of my mom's sisters were nuns who spent their entire lives teaching kids. i wouldn't generalize about. >> religious freedom. >> certainly there are issues beyond abortion that social conservatives care about intensely. but many of these things that have come just in the last week should come as no surprise, right? the bargain that social conservatives made early on in backing trump was a bargain made in full knowledge whether you believed his denial or not that he was accused of grabbing women, right? and bragging about it.

and a number of other statements that he made during the campaign that showed him to be sort of constitutionally out of step with much of what they believe. and they backed him anyway. in fact, have been among his most enduring and loyal core supporters to this day. and there is a reason for that. they're getting what they want. >> women conservatives of all stripes going to give barack obama and his family some credit for having a really excellent role model for the american people. everything about him, good father, good husband. maybe he spent too much time with his family, not enough time hanging around with politicians but everything he's done, clean record, not money grubber, everything he's done is to do good for the country. and no conservative says you know what? he's a liberal. he's african-american. maybe i have a different background than him but boy, he's been a clean representative. >> i don't know about that. i think there are conservatives willing to accept that. >> silence they defend this

mulligan president on everything he does. when are they going to be consistent about their values. >> four more years to go with this president. he is the president of the united states. for the good of the country, we can't just oppose him at every single term. >> we must think of the future? ha. history doesn't think kindly. more breaking news. president trump will not declassify the democratic rebuttal of the nunes memo. joining us is intelligence reporter ken. this is a shocker. kennedy lannian. why in the world is the president saying i'm going to keep it secret as alfonso pointed out, americans don't like secrets. >> i'm not very shocked by this. it was very clear that the democrats included some sensitive information in this memo to make the point that all the information did not come from the christopher steele dossier. some of it apparently is troubling some intelligence law enforcement officials. they want to work with congress to maybe change the language of the memo so it can still be

released make the same points but leaving out more sensitive information. >> do you think that's the president's reason or his excuse? >> i'm sure there are things that are embarrassing for them and that they'd also like to u the redaction process to get rid of. but the democrats are going to fight hard. it's part of a push and pull. when you're dealing with highly classified information, this is often how it plays out. the senate investigation, the cia torture took two years to declassify that report. i'm not surprised if there's last minute negotiation here. >> we can expect ranking member adam schiff from california to issue a new version of a memo next week. that will set the clock ticking again. is that right? >> reporter: that's our understanding. really the executive branch holds a lot of cards here. congress sort of has to defer to them when they say there's some secrets we need to withhold. they're going to work with them. the democrats don't have that much leverage. they need republican help to force the release of this over

the president's objection. >> thanks so much, ken dil lanian. alfonso, ira and anne. some people pointed out the republican party even without trump has lost some of its core principles. republicans have been very concerned as i have been growing up with deficits. i worry how much the government can borrow, how much before of it pushes interest rates up and taxes young couples to pay off bonds for older owners. how long can we keep doing that? apparently republicans already don't care about that anymore. there's no interest in the republican party about deficits. >> only under a republican president. the next democratic president comes in, they'll be very concerned about deficits. indeed, paul ryan will be very concerned about. >> it's over a trillion dollars now. when are they going to start being worried. >> obama concerned about deficits? >> paul ryan has already said the next thing we have to do is get at medicare, medicaid, social security.

>> he's cut the entitlements. >> he's got a plan. >> i didn't like that spending bill. i agreeded in general with rand paul. but you know, how do you govern in washington these days when washington is so polarized and when you have the 60-rote rule in the senate, perhaps this is the only way to actually legislate. it's not beautiful but they pass something. >> the news keeps coming. eric swalwell, the house intelligence committee. what do you make of the fact the president's sitting on this democratic memo. >> evening chris. i'm reflexively skeptical as one should be with the president around this investigation. it looks obstructive but i'm willing to give the department of justice the benefit of the doubt and hear from them if they come in on tuesday and explain to us what their concerns are and that those concerns are not from any pressure that the president has put on them. if they are legitimate, we should still release the memo that corrects the record but is free from any political omissions or edits that the

president may want to have. >> what do you think about the timing? here he is pulling the plug on this thing after the nightly news. probably after a lot of the first editions of the papers tomorrow morning, probably going to miss a lot of the press coverage by the way they timed this. this is the old garbage time of the week. midnight heading toward midnight on a friday night. that's when you tell people what you don't want them to hear. what do you make of that? >> well, in congress, we are now in the position where we must demand that of it be this way to the public. devin nunes was the one who move for this to become public. he should be the first person if these political edits to stand on the house floor on tuesday and say to colleagues to release it because it's now back in our court. we should hear from the department first but i do suspect knowing this president that he may have tried to put political pressure on the department of justice. >> can i trick you into telling me what the most important thing is we should read or expect to come from this memo or you can't

tell us? >> i can tell that you it shows the arsenal of evidence that went into surveilling carter page that was independent of the steele investigation. it puts i think a very accurate timeline and it shows and elevates the seriousness of what russia was doing and why we should have been so concerned who they were working for. >> anne, respond to the congressman. i think that is what people want to know, that this whole thing that was trumped up literally trumped up that somehow the only reason they looked into the russian situation was because of what christopher steele did for the democrats. >> yeah, as congress swalwell said, the democratic memo was supposed to give a longer timeline, showed the interest in carter page that predated that will episode. and why he in particular was of concern. he was of concern before this whole thing happened. >> 2013. >> right, exactly. so why was that? and you know, the thing that the

trump campaign and now trump administration has never liked is the obvious question that comes next is what were they doing hanging out with this guy? why was he a foreign policy adviser if he had these known problems. and why once carter page himself knew that there was a problem afoot and potentially knew that he was under investigation, like or surveillance, why did he himself not come forward. >> congressman, let me ask you about the fact that this memo, the democratic memo responding to the nunes memo would clarify the reason that the fbi looked and surveilled basically carter page. anything else we expect to hear as the final version comes out again next week? the revised version of the democratic memo? what else can we expect to learn? >> well, it was mostly to restore fairly restore the credibility of the fbi because they sought to you know really

poison the investigation. this memo of theirs needed an antidote. the fbi's credibility needed an antidote. that's what it did. but chris, we did something they weren't willing to do. we asked the department to review our memo before it went out. if this was the department saying they have concerns, that's legitimate. we should be open to addressing them. knowing this president and the way he's put pressure on individuals of that department, i have a lot of questions about what his role was in making this decision. >> there's a big story that broke later today which is you're going to separate the two staffs on the house intelligence committee by a wall. is that because you don't trust the republican staff members on the committee that they're working with the white house? >> no, we think that would be terrible decision. this committee has always worked in an open manner. it's been a bipartisan committee. this is something that we understand is being done at the urging of the chairman. and we hope that's not the case. and hell, chris, if we take back the house, you can expect us

having a tear down that wau party. so we can go back to bipartisanship. >> so you think they're up to something, they're hiding from you? >> no, i think it's just that their consistent nature of wanting to not bring us in on this investigation and continue to pursue their own. i think obstructive behavior. and actions. and so it's unfortunate but it's not how our committee's ever worked in the past and hopefully, this is only for the next ten months. >> do you have a sense the white house has failed to work effectively with the fbi to the point they don't even trust the full field investigations on their own employees that they haven't acted on that information brought to them? >> you know, my colleague sean maloney who was a staff secretary for bill clinton, he sent and referred over to our oversight committee concerns about not just mr. porter but it's been reported 30 to 40

individuals who -- >> okay. thank you, congressman. we're getting a lot from him. i want to hear more from eric swalwell. thank, ira, alfonso and anne geern. anne, you're amazing. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. all in with chris hayes starts right now. . good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. it is friday night and trump's america which once again means we've had an absolutely incredible of late breaking stories including the unexpected sudden resignation of the number three person at the department of justice, rachel brand would be the person who would oversee the mueller probe if rod rosenstein were to be remove. tonight she announced her resignation. also tonight within the last hour, within 20 minutes, in fact, president trump announcing he will not approve the release of that democratic memo a response to you the infamous devin nunes memo