therefore can't comment on the process. we are following the process that has been used by previous administrations. a and. >> they would be the ones that make that determination and play a role in what those would look like. josh? >> on four different occasions the fbi has said it made the white house aware of the allegations. white house official said that -- the fbi or personnel security office being punished for not telling white house officials? how can those two things be? >> that is something that would be well beyond my scope to determine. >> they weren't told? if everyone knew but no one in the senior staff found out? >> i haven't asked them about that specifically.

>> matthew? >> last week raj said the situation could have been handled better. yesterday you echoed that. today the chief of staff said it was all done right. can you explain, does the white house think this rob porter situation could have been handled differently or do you think it was all done right? >> as i said yesterday every day we come here, we do the very best we can and every day we can do better than we did the day before and we're going to continue to strive for that. we're humans, making us imperfect people. i think every day we can learn from the day before and strive to do better. that's our goal within our team and we're going to continue to try to do everything we can to help serve the american people to the best of our ability. >> was it important for hope hicks to be drafting some of these statements given her relationship with mr. porter is this. >> she was not part of a lot of the conversations that took place. i don't recall any of you being in the room to say specifically what comments she made or didn't make. she's the white house

communications director. and is an important and valuable member of the staff. and she has done a great job in that role. steve? >> is there some exception regarding rob porter to another job at the time this all blew up? >> not that i'm aware of. i don't know the answer to that. jeff? >> the fbi said it was completed in late july. you said a follow-up required more field work on that. was that because something that rob porter said in response to that? the allegations weren't true or what required more field work follow-up? >> i wouldn't know the specifics. i can only refer you back to the previous statement. >> in an op-ed in the washington post, the first wife of rob porter said specifically of you, i expected a woman to do better. based on what you know, do you believe you were personally mislead and do you have any regret for how you explained this to the american people? >> as i said, we do the very best job we can every single day. i would never presume to

understand anything going on with that individual nor would i think that she could presume what's go iing on with me or th way that i am responding. look, we've condemned domestic violence in every way possible. in fact, the president's budget that he released yesterday fully funds the violence against women act. we're looking for ways to take action to help prevent this from ever happening to anyone to presume i feel differently is a strong mischaracterization of who i am, who this white house is, what our actions are focused on and what we're trying to do here. i'm going to keep moving. >> where does it stand as we sit here today? terms of if the president has confidence in him, why does he have confidence in him, based on everything we learned over the last week? >> look, i don't have anything further to add. the president's confidence in his chief of staff. we'll continue to do the best we can to help the american people.

julie? >> in july when the fbi was sent back to get more information, are you telling us that no senior staff, not don mcgahn, joe higgin, john kelly, nobody in the senior staff in the wist f west wing was involved in that decision to tell them to go back and get more information? >> not that i'm aware of. i can't say with 100% certainty. but not that i'm aware of any conversations between those individuals. >> are you looking at now ways that you can change the process so that if a senior official in the white house is facing credible allegations of spousal abuse or some other criminal charge that senior staff would be notified in a more timely way? this appears to have -- if your timeline is accurate -- taken more than a year. >> look, again i think this is a process that the law enforcement and intelligence community should weigh in on and determine if changes should be made in a way that it's carried out. >> i'm talking about the process here, an investigation where

serious allegations could surface and nobody in the west wing would be aware of that. >> but that would include those agencies and those departments. so, you can't exclude them from a conversation about what changes should and need to be made to any program. i think that would have to be something that involved all of the stakeholders and something, certainly, far beyond my purview to walk you through today. >> sarah, following up with what julie was asking, you're saying law enforcement should weigh in. but you're the white house. you're in charge. this is your process. should you not weigh in? >> it's actually not our process. a large number of the background xhoent is run by the fbi. other intelligence agencies weigh in. what i said is that all the stakeholders should be part that have discussion and it should be looked at and determined whether or not changes need to be made to the process. >> given that it impacts the white house staff, do you not want to request an improved process? >> again, that would go beyond my scope that i can walk you through here today. but i think it's a conversation

that all of the stakeholders should have. april? >> a couple of questions. in light of everything going on, is there an internal review of all those who have interim security clearances to see if they should stay or go? >> i can't speak about whether or not different staff have interim or permanent security clearances. >> i'm asking about the process. is there a review of those who have interim passes to see if they're going to stay or they're going to go in light of what's happening now? >> my understanding is that has been ongoing for a while. and that determination would be made outside of anything i can walk you through at this point. >> you spoke of fully funding the woman's up up for reauthorization. what is the president trying put into that, and is that the price prior to all of what's happened with these two people this past week. >> i'm not following your question. >> the budget, you said the president will fully fund the violence against women act.

what is he putting in his budget? >> i would have to look at the specific number. it was rolled out in the budget presented yesterday. >> is the number the number that's always been or did -- was it just -- would you talk to us about -- >> what was requested has been put into the president's budget. it was in the budget that was rolled out yesterday. that's been part of the ongoing process. we don't write a budget in 20 minutes. it's been part of something that's been ongoing. >> i understand that. i understand that. but some things in that budget mr. mulvaney didn't tell us about yesterday. >> that means you probably didn't ask those questions. i'm going to keep going. >> give us that information. >> sarah, i wanted to get some clarification from you regarding the testimony, sworn testimony today by the fbi director, laid out the timeline and, according to the fbi director's testimony, the fbi submitted a partial report on the investigation in question of porter's background

check in march and then a completed background investigation in late july. and i asked you yesterday, have you learned of the report of the daily mail last week your reply to me was the process for the background was ongoing and the white house had not received any specific papers regarding the completion of that background check. so those two statements, the fbi director's statement mr. wray and your statement, seem to be at odds with one another. is there anything you would like to clarify in terms of what i asked you today based upon your answer yesterday? >> as i said earlier, my understanding is any information would have gone to the personnel security office. that office had not completed their process in order to make a recommendation for adjudication

to the white house. that was still ongoing and, therefore, recommendation had not been made. that's part of the white house that the security office plays, run by career officials and we hadn't received a recommendation by that office. >> the fbi director said under oath today that the completed background investigation was actually submitted in late july. which is it? >> white house personnel security office staff bid career officials receive what had they considered to be the final background investigation report in november but had not made final recommendation for adjudication because the process was still ongoing when porter resigned. the july report required significant additional investigatory field work before personnel security office could begin to evaluate the information for adjudication.

we find those statements to be consistent with one another. >> sorry, john. i'm moving on to other questions. >> relay whatever information you know stlt a feeling that chief john kelly misled you and your colleagues for what he knew and failure to -- >> no. we're simply stating we're giving you the best information we're going to v the press team is not going to be as read in as maybe other elements at any given moment but we relay the best and most accurate information we have when we get those from those individuals. >> can you talk about the other staffers tho w.h.o. have been dismissed previously for not passing background checks and why porter wasn't treated in the similar timely -- >> the same process is followed

for all employees and it's the same process used in previous administrations. i can't comment on anybody else's dismissal. >> you talked about multiple times of wanting to give you the best information you've had. the scandal has been going on a week now and we still don't have answers to the basic questions of who knew what, when. >> i've done the best i can to walk you through that process, as has raj, pretty extensively. i refer you back to all the statements we've given you. >> have you spoken specifically to general john kelly and white house counsel to ask them these questions. you said i'm not sure. or i'm not aware. >> i have and this is the information given to me by those individuals. >> this morning, talking about entitlements, structural deficit, saying we need to get our other partners in government, white house included, to be willing to do the kind of reform that we're willing to do in the house. what does the president disagree with house speaker paul ryan on

that question of structural deficit and the problem of mandatory spending? >> i would have to ask him specifically on that question. i know the president would like to reduce the deficit. he will continue to look for ways -- >> structural deficit for mandatory spending not the discretionary spending that is the driver -- same as for years. why does he not agree with that assessment? >> i would have to ask hichlt. >> daca negotiations have to be done by the end of this week. did he give the white house a heads up on that decision? does that reflect any view from the white house that democrats are not bargaining in good

faith? >> it's up to congress to set the timeline. the congress has laid out priorities he has for that legislation. we hope republicans and democrats can come together to a consensus to fix that problem and not kick the can down the road. >> let's get a quick reaction here. david chalian, cnn political director, despite elaine chao coming out, this was all about more and more fallout from this rob porter scandal. >> right. >> what was your initial takeaway? >> not the news of that briefing, that's for sure. >> yeah. >> here my takeway. i don't think i've ever seen white house press secretary distance themselves so publicly from their superiors like the chief of staff or white house counsel. repeated attempts to get some clarity here. sarah sanders was asked time and again if, indeed, she believed

that chill had information about the allegations against porter and all she could say is that she had to rely on the information she had at the time and that's the best they could do. later on she said the communication shop press people may not be fully -- we can can only come out and say things when those other senior staffers brief us properly. i've never seen that kind of int intrafamily white house fight aired so publicly from the podium. they are clearly not all on the same page inside that west wing. >> stand by i want to get to our senator, patiently standing by on capitol hill. tammy baldwin, one of 12 democrat being senators who wrote chief of staff john kelly and white house counsel don mcgahn. timely tied to be talking to you, senator. thank you so much for coming back. >> thank you. >> let's just begin with the deputy chief of staff.

that is the position they were seriously considering for rob porter and knew this as the white house flagged concerns about porter's security clearance, knowing that in some capacity he was an alleged spousal abuser. what was your visceral reaction when you learned that? >> it was hard to believe. this disturbs me on so many level. >> yes. >> first of all, the idea that spousal abuse was known about within the white house with regard to rob porter and yet they kept him on for months and months. the fact that right now, as this time line is coming out, it is clear that the white house is not being truthful with the american people. the stories that there are literally dozens of members of the white house staff that do not yet have their security

clearances. that, too, is disturbing. they may have alcohol's to highly classified information as mr. porter did. and last on my list is the fact that we saw the president introduce a budget and an infrastructure package that demands the public's attention also. and because they are so out of control in this white house, we're not focused on that. all of those things are so troubling. >> yeah. let me get to infrastructure. >> domestic abuse, domestic violence at the end of this meeting he had, and he totally declined to take that question. why do you think the president will not send a strong message to women, and men, in this

country? >> it defies imagination. i have to think it's about his own history and his own story. lots of folks have been asking whether the chief of staff should resign. the real question to ask is should the president fire him. the answer is yes. >> you think the president should fire john kelly to send that message? >> yeah. with the two ex-wives, the ex-girlfriend, the photo of the black eye, is it even possible for the president to comment

withes isity now after so many calls to say something? >> well, certainly he did tweet something that was a step backward backwards. >> who know people who have been victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse, harassment. this say step backwards for the president in terms of tweeting about mere allegations. it's clear that he is not hearing or understanding the stories and realities of women across this country, and men, too. >> what did you make of sarah sanders' explanation just then, that they were waiting on guidance, that the fbi had -- i guess wrapped the investigation, but they were waiting on guidance from the white house personnel office about what to do? >> what sort of guidance do they need in this instance? >> why do you think this wise

white house doesn -- white house doesn't listen to the fbi when it benefits them? >> we've seen a campaign to undermine the credibility of one of the most highly regarded law enforcement agencies in this country. you know, why didn't the president allow the democratic memo to come out? lots of questions that are being raised. again, it's deeply troubling where we find ourselves right now. both with regard to respecting and honoring the voices and experiences of women but also with regard to the handling of highly classified information by white house staff that haven't received security clearance.

>> she was asked if she was worried hicks might be or could be a victim as well. >> i'm sorry for any suffering that this woman has endured. in the case of hope, i met somebody so strong with such excellent instincts and loyalty and smarts, i didn't have the presence of mind and the professional capabilities at her age that i see in her every single day. >> strong women get abused, too. >> many women get abused, no question. let me agree with you on that. there's a stigma of silence surrounding all of these issues. >> still you heard her original statement and what one of porter's ex-wives jumped on that and part of her response in this washington post appearance piece, borrowing conway's words i have no reason not to believe

her when she says hicks is a strong women but her statement um applies those who have been in abusive relationships are not strong. i beg to differ. what do you make of that? >> i beg to differ also. i heard those words as reported and thought exactly the same thing. and the suggestion that this is about strength of women is il advised. the other thing i would say is that sadly too seldom -- it's sadly seldom that domestic abusers only act in one instance or one time only. what we're hearing from two ex-wives of mr. porter suggest that's the case with him. that's another thing that we

should know. >> i wanted to ask about infrastructure and immigration. >> let's do that. >> i know you have a tight schedule. i know you have to go. can we talk again, senator tammy baldwin? i appreciate your voice and you speaking up on these issues. >> i appreciate it. i just want to put one quick comment on infrastructure. >> please. president put out a plan yesterday after running for his entire campaign on buy america, hire america. that's not one mention about that and i was appalled to see that. he said in the state of the union with american hands, american heart, american grit. and i expected to see a commitment to using american products and american workers in this $1.5 trillion infrastructure package. i am appalled not to and we're

going to fight to make sure that our infrastructure commitment includes a buy america commitment. >> senator tommy baldwin, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> let me bring my panel back. nate, first, react to what the senator said a couple of minutes ago when we were talking about, you know, why doesn't the president send a message to men and women? he hasn't said anything pbly, other than the tweet, which i think flies in the face of any of this me too movement we've been talking about. the fact that she said forget john kelly resigning. how about the president firing john kelly? that would be sending a message. >> you know, i mean, such an interesting point. clearly, kelly is someone who has been such a valued member of the president's inner circle in the sense that he has brought a sense of order to the white house. but the fact that he is out there now completely vulnerable and that the president has said nothing to stem the political fallout on this issue much less

talking about what he would like to see his chief of staff do is just, you know, causing so much running damage. i was talking to a republican source yesterday who was literally screaming into the phone so frustrated with how the white house has been handling this issue and the fluctuating timeline and the fact that, you know, people like sarah sanders are suggesting that they didn't have all of the information at first. there's just a sense of panic about the fact that this white house cannot get this issue right and that they're clearly -- you know, the president does not have much credibility at all on these issues and the fact that he has not stepped out and said anything, particularly to try to stem some of the damage from his tweet on saturday is just befu did. did. ling to everyone, especially republicans, who would like to maintain control at the house this year and have some kind of

a bridge to women voters. >> we are a week out. i think it's been seven days, brian stelter. i'm sure you're keeping tally, since this whole story break. >> tuesday evening last week. >> i give a nod to our friend philip rubbinger with the washington post. we saw at the top of the briefing. we know what was dominating the briefing. we sort of traut out this cabinet secretary to talk about infrastructure when, you know, they bring out the special guests when they know chaos is a swirlin'. >> when the real special guest would be chief of staff john kelly or would be the head of the white house personnel security office. it seems to me that the new development here sarah sanders is pushing this off to the white house personnel security office. we're going to hear that trm a lot now all of a sudden. she said they were still conducting a process, looking into porter. even though the fbi had finished the background check last july. it's going to hinge on this. >> which is incredulous.

>> we would love to talk to the head of that office and sarah sanders is not providing that. really the white house is stonewalling here. it's clear that's what they're doing. this is a story about dysfunction and about dishonesty at the white house. by the way, talking about people who are being silent it's not just john kelly or the personnel folks. it's also hope hicks, who is at the center of this story, who has not said a word about it publicly. it's gone on a week now. the silence from these individuals who are so involved, that's partly what's keeping this going. >> sorry. >> go ahead, david. >> just to brian's point, sarah sanders is now putting it off entirely on white house security personnel office because she attempted to put it completely on the fbi yesterday and the fbi drkter made it clear that wouldn't work for him. >> that's what i was about to say, the person we did hear from today, christopher wray, totally contradicting the white house's time line. here he was.

>> the fbi sxhited a partial repo report on the investigation in question in march and completed background investigation in late july that soon thereafter we received requests for follow-up inquiry. and we did the follow-up and provided that information in november. and then we administratively closed the file in january and then earlier this month we received additional information and passed that on as well. >> i can tell you that we were in the process for the background was on going and the white house had not received any specific papers regarding the completion of that background check. >> so david chalian, to your point, precisely, the fbi director coming out today totally contradicts what we heard from the white house yesterday. >> what's left hanging out there that we don't know because sarah

sanders can't say she knows for a fact, we don't know what -- when exactly did john kelly get information and first learn that rob porter had allegations against him of spousal abuse? when exactly did that happen? we don't know. all we know from sarah sanders is it's her understanding the best facts available to her is that he didn't know until the daily mail story was reported. but that is where -- >> such a simple question. when did he know. when did he know? the point, too, you have a couple of people who fall under the category of, yes, this could have been handled better. raj shah from last week, filling in from sarah, sarah and the vice president. and then the guy at the center of all of this, one step removed from porter is john kelly, who talks to the wall street journal and says, hey, everything was handled just right. no remorse. >> so amazing. it was such a short, declar

attachment iv. sentence to the wall street journal. no, he didn't think it could have been handled any better. it's maddening to a lot of people. the very fact that he we have a story that has gone on for two weeks and the fact that the white house can't talk about actual agenda means that that statement is not true. cleeshly, you know, john kelly at this point would like to stay in his job and is doing what the trump administration likes to do best, which is double down and not apologize. i don't think that that's working in this case, and it's especially not working for john kelly. maybe trump can get away with that. i don't think that's working here. >> coming up next, we'll talk to phil mudd, who will weigh in on how the fbi had its findings, relayed those to the white house and still we hear from sarah sanders today saying sthat they

hadn't concluded their own investigation at the white house that. 's coming up. number event' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. does your bed do that? right now, save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com fora store near you. almost $800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey! oh, that's my robe. is it? when you switch to liberty mutual,

you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call for a free quote today. you could save $782 when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. at holiday inn express, we can't guarantee that you'll be able to contain yourself at our breakfast bar. morning, egg white omelet. sup lady bacon! fruit, there it is! but we can guarantee that you'll get the best price when you book with us. holiday inn express. be the readiest. what can a president [ do in thirty seconds? he can fire an fbi director who won't pledge his loyalty. he can order the deportation of a million immigrant children. he can threaten an unstable dictator armed with nuclear weapons. he can go into a rage and enter the nuclear launch codes. how bad does it have to get before congress does something?

but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication,

astrazeneca may be able to help. despite the fbi painting a different picture of what happened and when. here is white house press secretary sarah sanders. >> i just wanted to drill down on one important fact. you and raj, and you said this again, that the investigation was ongoing. christopher wray said it was closed in january. 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 made their recommendation yet to the white house. >> phil mudd, former fbi, former cia phil mudd when you hear

sarah sanders citing that, you know -- i hear the laughter. the white house personnel office multiple times, what do you think? >> the fbi will conduct information for a lot of agencies. not every federal agency is interviewing people. white house says expedite a file review. go out and do your thing. pass it on to the white house security office. they'll take in what you gather and determine what to do. number one, brooke, are you telling me the fbi didn't advise white house last july when they gave them the final file, didn't advise them there were domestic abuse allegations out there? and what the audience will might seven months in adjudication? that's after the file initially closed in july and they couldn't figure out whether to give him clearance? that is a long time.

there's only one reason why i assume there was a problem with the file. >> so i take it that's not a legit excuse. porter was among this group of 30 to 40 staffers who still don't have clearance, including jared kushner who handles highly classified information. dan coates, director of national intelligence said that the clearance process is broken. >> i think sometimes it is necessary to have some type of preliminary clearance in order to fill a slot. if that's the case the access has to be limited in terms of the kind of information they can be in a position to receive or

the process needs to be removed. as senator warner has previously said, it's not evolution. it's revolution. >> so explain why these people wouldn't have this full clearanc clearance. >> the white house is sort of right unless you start digging into the details. senior official going to the white house to give them preliminary clearance. you're moving quickly and will say we'll expedite your full clearance. in the interim you can move along. the problem with that white house explanation is that you've got to presume when they decided they needed to go to a lengthy adjudication last july they had information that led them to that conclusion. at that point why didn't they say should this guy still have access to information while we go through this process? the question is not whether he got an interim clearance. the question was why he was allowed to keep that clearance once they got the damning information. >> what about even kushner, as

an example? people have been reporting is the one -- not the president but kushner who is reading these intel briefings and he doesn't have his full clearance. >> i can't figure out how that works long term. you get interim clearance you can't look at the most sensitive information provided to the white house. maybe the president can give him clearance on the fly. the president can clear anybody in. but to get access to the most sensitive information, for example, intercepted communications from foreign officials. you've got to go through the full process. my question, why aren't you going through the full process? do you not want to pass over your financial records? are you too lazy to fill in the foremans? not too many reasons you don't have your clearance. first one i can come up with, they don't want to pass over the information to get the clearance. >> phil, thank you. >> sure. >> senior fellow of government studies at the brookings institute and author of "why trump's staff turfover higher

than the five most reebt recent presidents." it's a 34% turnover rate in year one. you've been studying all these previous administrations. so, is this -- this is the highest number you've seen in modern presidencies? >> absolutely. it's off the charts. it's not just high. lowest was president george w. bush and highest was ronald reagan at 17%. you can see it's clearly doubled than the highest president who had the most first-year turnover, which was ronald reagan. >> to what do you attribute this? >> i think there's two things. one is that he ran kind of an insurgency campaign in which it was rather small. he didn't hire the typical politi politicos. and as a result he limited the pool of applicants that could be good for working in the white house. the second aspect that he prizes loyalty overall else. he therefore eliminated a lot of candidates that were highly experienced. >> he ran the whole drain the

swamp, injecting washington with outsider blood. might this just be a result of that? >> i don't really think so. every president has some missteps at the beginning of their administration. they make mistakes. skills you need to run a good campaign are not the skills you need to run a good government. when you get above, say, 17% to 20%, then you're questioning why is there so much turnover? i would attribute that to the fact that there seems to be an air of chaos within the white house. whether it's the mueller investigation, the quick resignation under a cloud of suspicion of michael flynn. what have you. there's been so much issues, stories and scandals of things happening it creates a whirlwind of chaos. >> if we're talking about 34% turnover rate, you have all these white house staffers who are there, who are left to basically pick up the slack, right, left behind by all these vacancies, what's happening behind the scenes? >> when you look at this kind of turnover -- i served at the white house for a year.

there's a brotherhood when you serve these positions. you don't serve because you make a lot of money. you serve because you think there's a greater cause and people around you have your back. if you look at the elimination of personnel around the white house, communications director spokesman, white house chief of staff, attacks on the fbi, attacks on the department of justice, i'm sure people are sitting back and saying, man this is groundhog day every day. i can't -- at some point, even though it's a great job with a great title you look in the mirror and say i'm not seeing my friends. i'm not having a lot of fun. i'm not getting paid. is it worth it? a lot of stress, i think that's what's going on here. >> brooke? >> go ahead. >> among the most senior people 7 out of 12 major departures. when they leave it creates a domino effect. junior staffers leave as well. my numbers, in a sense, are understating the number of turnover. i'm looking at the most senior people, a very small data set. >> katherine and phil, thank you

both. >> thank you. once praised the president's chief of staff is asking quite bluntly, what the hell happened to john kelly? up next. time to bask... in low prices! tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to

find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. refreshing, isn't it?. tripadvisor.

white house chief of staff is now defending how the president defended rob porter, saying it was all done right. scaramucci tweeted kelly almost certainly knew of the allegations six month ago and then force others to lie about that timeline.

inexcusable. kelly must resign. kelly came in, we must remind everyone, who came in and fired scaramucci. kevin cullen has an opinion piece out with the headline "what the hell happened to john kelly." you begin this piece talking about how you met him twice briefly in the past and how you had this great admiration for the four-star general. what happened? >> frankly, i was one of the people -- only columnist at the bost boston globe that welcomed john kelly to the administration, having seen him as a military person and the leadership qualities he had as not only a four-star general but also the commander of the u.s. southern

command i because a lot of my opinion on those who served with and under him. i heard stories about him and just admired him. i really believed he would be that adult in the room. but, frankly, from a very early point when he was the head of homeland security ierk specifically, in a column when he was appointing, say, just the right person for that job, because if anybody knows anything about borders, he fits that bill. under him the enforcement agency began targeting not criminal undocumented people or illegal aliens, they began going after what i would call low-lying fruit or low hanging fruit.

people who committed no crimes other than entering the country illegally or overstaying the visas. i know people say what part of illegal don't you understand, kevin. my response to that is what part of our economy do you not understand? undocumented workers are the people who pick our food, who prepare our food. they're the people who clean our hospitals, our hotel rooms and our homes. and, frankly, if everybody here in america wants to change our economic system and pay people a living wage then, yeah, i guess we could have a talk about that. but the rolity is having government resources go out and ruin families and break up families needlessly when there are plenty of criminals to round up, i think, are nonsense. >> i've got you for two more minutes and you pose this big question and you wrote toward the end, we all grow up terrified of becoming our parents. what has happened to john kelly is far worse.

he has become his boss. what happened? >> no question. a lot of what made john kelly a very good military man does not work good in the political arena, particularly when you're aligning yourself with somebody like mr. trump, who is not presidential. the idea that he would that he can whip him into shape, i don't think it is the same thing. i think once he hitched his trailer to mr. trump, i think it was inevery tabl that mr. kelly would end up where he is. the moral compass that guided john kelly, the military man, has given way to the situational expediency of a political man. and i find that tragic. >> you think just briefly, quickly, he should, being john kelly, should resign. >> i've been a columnist for ten

years. i am paid to offer my opinion. i don't think i've ever recommended or suggested in any previous call that somebody lose their job or leave their job. in light of the rob porter case and in light of what the fbi direct or mr. wray said today, do believe mr. kelly should resign. it pains me to say the. >> but you said it. pay for your opinions. thank you so much for lending in your voice. coming up next, omarosa. she's back and spilling the beans her time at the white house. the latest warning, a president pence would be worse than trump.

(al♪rm sounds) oooooooooh! you sleep on a poorly crafted mattress, you might find yourself sippin' a hot cup of mud, too. you need a ghostbed™. the only mattress with cooling latex over gel memory foam to give you the deepest sleep. delivered to your door. in a box. at a great price. because you shouldn't have to pay a lot for a great night's sleep. order your ghostbed™ today and receive $100 off plus two free ghostpillows. ick! ghostbed™. amazing mattress. unreal sleep.

for just go to priceline.vel, now you can save even more

when you bundle your flight and hotel together, up to 625 dollars off your trip. wonder if i could also save money by bundling my personal trainer and pet sitter? nice kaley, 5 more minutes! come on trixie, burn off those treats! don't you quit on me frank! come on frank! goldie, this isn't even on! bundling doesn't work everywhere, but it does on priceline. omarosa taking shots at the trump administration. this time she's telling her house mates on celebrity big brother that mike pence is

actually worse than president trump. she is married to a christian pastor, warned her fellow contestants to be careful about hoping for a trump impeachment. >> can i say this? as bad as you think trump is, you would be worried about pence. >> i know. >> so everybody that is wishing for impeachment might want to reconsider. >> we would be begging for days of trump back if pence became president. >> he is extreme. i'm christian. i love jesus. but he thinks jesus tells him to say things. jesus didn't say that. >> and remember, she's made news previously telling her cast mates she wouldn't vote for trump again in a million years and said she was haunted every day by the president's tweets. let's discuss. with john murray, the editor-in-chief of always

a-list.com. john murray, great to see you again. it is my understanding, you have known omarosa for more than ten years. why is she talking so much? what is her motivation? >> we've been friends for a little more than 12 years. we're like reality show right now. we're a commercial break. we'll see what happens when she comes out of the celebrity big brother house. omarosa is one of the most strategic people i know. she was probably more prepared for tv than any speech donald trump has given in the white house. in this business when you try to land a book deal, you write a man script, hire a negotiator that goes into the negotiations to get a deal. she's giving you the audio book the presentation. she is show casing what she would put in a book for publishers every time she goes in front of a camera. she's strategic. and i don't think there was any interest for her book but i

would not be surprised if one of the publishers come calling. >> maybe it's a book deal. normal lay person who leaves the white house and talks and talks and talks like she is, would never be able to fwhorg d.c. again. >> yes. and she sent a warning shot. when she did a "good morning america" interview, she said she had a story to tell. here's the thing. omarosa is trying on reengage her core base which is african-americans. even though she was hired to be a liaison, she is not thought of very well by african-americans. so her wearing the clothes and the head wrap during black history month. >> is that -- how is this working out for her? >> i am telling you, she is the most strategic, some might say calculating woman and i know this is all being done with intent. >> let's remind everyone what the white house said about her when they were asked in the briefing. listen to what he said. >> not very seriously.

omarosa was fired three times on the apresent sxis this is the fourth time we let her go. she had limited contact with the president while she was here and she has no contact now. >> that was a bit of a zinger as far as zingers go from the white house. >> they know that she is out to get revenge. the reports of how she was fired are controversial in themselves and i believe the white house is developing alliances outside the white house. piers morgan has a scathing interview. he claims that there was an offer of sex. i saw him come one his children and take a photo of her in a wwe party. so the gloves are off. they realize what she is up to and they have to use their alliances to push back of will. >> i don't have independent conversation and i haven't talked to piers morgan in a couple of years and i can't say

whether that is true but there you have it. we're out of time. thank you for all things omarosa and getting the skinny from you. i wish you luck with your on again, off again friendship with him. in the meantime, i'm brooke in the meantime, i'm brooke baldwin. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com not donal the white house not get rid of porter but he was up for a promotion. the fbi director tells a different story about what the white house knew and what it but this a top aide allegedly having beaten his ex-wives and now we know the bureau flagged concerns about porter's security clearance almost a year ago. the director of national intelligence is under attack as all the intel chiefs agree that vush targeting 2018ful will president trump finally acknowledge it? plus if you're a fan of the 4.4 trillion broug