we'll ask the news gods to let us bring it to you tomorrow. we welcome don lemon back for another edition of "cnn tonight." this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. every day brings more drama in this show. the worst reality show. 1600 pennsylvania avenue. in today's episode, accusations that a key insider had a history of domestic violence. problem is, this is not a reality show. this is the actual trump white house. and this is extremely serious. a top aide to the president, rob porter, resigning amid allegations of domestic abuse by not one but two ex-wives. sources telling cnn that senior white house officials knew about the allegations for months and scrambled to protect porter once they became public. think about that for a minute.

scrambled to protect an alleged domestic abuser. the white house pushing back tonight, as a matter of fact. an official saying that porter misled everyone in the west wing. plus president trump approved the release of a democratic rebuttal to the controversial nunes memo? the white house hinting he will providing there is no threat to national security. i'll talk to a democrat who is a member of the house intelligence committee. what we have got a lot of ground to cover. we'll bring in cnn's gloria borger, white house correspondent jim acosta, matt lewis, a commentator, as well. this story, gloria, is unbelievable. i understand you have new reporting before we dig into more details on rob porter, the outgoing secretary.

what have you found out? >> my colleague dana bash have done some digging. he didn't know about all of this until "the daily mail" article was brought to his attention and he was not very happy, he was furious about it. we also know that his daughter ivanka was very unhappy about it. and as you reported before, chief of staff kelly knew about it. we're not sure to what extent, however. but he knew about it this fall, dana and i are told by two sources, because his security clearance wasn't coming through, and he knew that there was something that was keeping it from going through. so kelly had some form of knowledge about this.

and the problem i think, kelly has grown to like porter. he's dependent on him. he's the sort of staff secretary that makes the trains run on time. they had each other's back. they trusted each other. and he was acting more like a deputy chief of staff in many ways than just the staff secretary. and so i think you put all of this together, and it becomes this kind of situation where it makes you wonder in fact how long the chief of staff can survive this if the president is so upset about this. >> especially reportedly saying, giving him advice not to resign, saying that he could weather this. again, this is an accused domestic abuser. >> right. you have to question kelly's judgment. and, you know, people inside the white house say, look, many of them like kelly, some of them don't like kelly because he silos everything and keeps them away from the president. but one thing most people seem to agree on is that he doesn't have any political sense. and, you know, he doesn't understand --

>> political? gloria, listen. >> no, in terms of -- >> i don't want to be insulting. >> no, but i'm not saying on the abuse stuff, but i'm just saying, a priori, this is such a terrible thing, get rid of him. >> why is he even still there after all of this time? >> that's a good question. >> i want to get to jim. chief of staff, john kelly, we're talking about him. i want to read a statement from him. he said, rob porter is a man of true integrity and honor and i can't say enough good things about him. he just put out a new statement saying, i am shocked by the new allegations released, there is no place for domestic violence in our society, i stand by my previous comments of the rob porter that i have come to know since becoming chief of staff and believe every individual deserves a right to defend their reputation. i accepted his resignation and will ensure a swift and orderly transition. he didn't say -- >> it's baffling. >> that's like a non-statement statement, you know what i'm

saying? >> it really is, don. one of the things that caught our eye earlier today was why john kelly would even put out a statement as it was being announced that rob porter was resigning with these very serious allegations facing him. and, you know, that statement from john kelly that came out as these allegations were coming forward was pretty glowing. and it's sort of odd, a senior white house official told us this evening, don, one of the reasons they were putting out these glowing statements not only from john kelly but from white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders is that those statements were drafted and written in response to the initial "daily mail" story that broke all of this, and that they did not respond quickly enough when these other reports were coming out including from cnn that featured a photograph of one of porter's ex-wives with a black eye. and that essentially, i'm told, the photograph of the black eye changed everything. there are many things wrong with

that on multiple levels. first of all, it should not take a photograph of somebody with a black eye to prompt the white house to take action. the white house should be a shining example of what's tolerated in the workplace, not having to spin itself out of control the way it's doing tonight. the other thing, don, and this gets to what gloria was saying, on the face of it, obviously domestic violence should not be tolerated and that should be grounds enough for dismissal. but there is sort of a political tone deafness, a political malpractice going on with john kelly, to think that he could keep rob porter on despite all of this is kind of mind-boggling. it leaves me with the impression that there are two trumps at the white house, the president himself and the chief of staff, and both of them sometimes don't listen to reason. >> i have to say this, because there's all this consternation about the memo, the memo, the fbi, the fisa warrants and all this stuff, classified information. rob portman was seeing classified information and didn't have a permanent security

clearance. >> so did jared kushner. >> so did jared kushner. this is in part because of the allegations of domestic abuse that john kelly knew about. walter shaub tweets tonight, the former head of the office of government ethics, he said john kelly, often touted as the white house's adult, falsely smeared a congresswoman, tells us a failure to compromise on slavery caused the civil war, called dreamers lazy and protected a wife beater. tell us again, press secretary, talking about sarah sanders, how we're never allowed to criticize a general. what do you say to that, matt? i think he has a terribly good point there. >> i do too. it's incredibly disappointing. i was hopeful and optimistic that john kelly could not only bring some order out of the chaos in the administration, but also bring some class, some character, some integrity. and i think he has probably helped the former. things have been a little more smooth, as smooth as things can be in donald trump's world, you

know, that's difficult. but in terms of bringing -- being the adult who brings maturity, not so good. i think it's been disappointing. and i would even say that statement he released tonight, you know, where he tries to walk back and clarify, and then he has to -- why do you have to say "but i stand by my argument that he was a great guy"? it's very politically tone deaf. i think when you juxtapose it with that picture, the black eye, you know, look, it's reprehensible, it's horrible, but, you know, gloria was talking about the optics and the politics of that, yeah, i think it's a lack of character, it's a lack of decency. it's also political malpractice. >> i also think that kelly may be having a difficult problem understanding that the person he

knows, whom he says is integrity and honorable and all the rest and did a great job, could also be an abuser. i mean, those two things happen a lot, right? people who do their jobs and go about it every day and seem to be just perfectly fine can then go home and hit their wives. and so, you know, maybe kelly is trying to get his head around that. i don't want to make excuses for him. >> hold on. it makes me wonder how disconnected from the reality of the moment, especially when you have the "me too" moment, you have women standing up for their rights, women who have been abused, not only sexual abuse, but this is domestic violence, you see a bruise on a woman's face, he is not only tone deaf but ignorant of where the culture is now, he is ignorant of society. remember david johnston, the gold star widow, she lost her husband and the president had this tone deaf conversation and kelly defended the president and

talked about "i remember when women were respected," let's play the sound bite. >> i was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. women were sacred. looked upon with great honor. that's obviously not the case anymore, as we see from recent cases. >> but when we're at home, i hate to say this, barefoot, pregnant, cooking dinner for their husband, women not too long ago got the right to vote. what is wrong with him to think that women were respected in that time? it's just not true, he's living in an alternative reality. what he's saying is just not happening. can he survive this, gloria? should he survive this? >> look, i think this isn't the only knock against him, to be honest. and if i -- i wouldn't be surprised if he is gone pretty quickly. i mean, i don't know.

but i think that, you know, there have been stories, and we've done some of them over the past month, that donald trump has had some problems with the general. and i think that our reporting shows, and i know jim knows this as well, that the president was very upset when he heard about this. and so i'm assuming they're going to have a very tough conversation. i mean, jim, wouldn't you assume that? >> absolutely, yeah. >> and again, there are people inside the white house who don't have kelly's back. and some of the president's closest friends have been kept from talking to the president by general kelly, so they don't like him very much. we'll have to see where this -- you know, where this takes us. >> the bigger point i'm trying to make is women are fighting for equality, i know they've had the right to vote for a hundred years, but fighting for equality, especially in this day

and age, when it comes to abuses of all sorts. jim, when did john kelly find out about this, do we know for sure? >> you know, don, from what we understand, this was not known in the initial months of the administration. i heard that from a senior white house official earlier today, but that this was becoming known, this was becoming common knowledge as john kelly was taking command of the staff inside the west wing. >> was he keeping it from other people? >> and he was aware of these problems -- well, he was aware of these problems with the security background check and others were aware of the problems with the background check. and to not take action on that also raises questions about kelly's judgment that i think he's going to have to answer eventually. whether he knew about all of these allegations, i don't think that has been shown at this

point. he does say in this statement tonight something about "these new allegations," he was shocked by these new allegations. but again, when they put out that statement, when the white house press secretary came into the briefing room earlier today, they put out a statement, from john kelly, from sarah sanders, from orrin hatch, all praising rob porter. and the question is, how could they possibly think that's a good idea when this person was already saying, porter was already saying i'm stepping down, i'm resigning, and oh, by the way, i know about these pictures because i took them. it would seem to me everybody in the white house would have to do a gut check, hit the pause button, and come up with some new statements. and they just didn't do that. and it raises major questions about their competence, i think, in terms of handling a crisis of this magnitude. >> you've got a pained look on your face, matt, why is that? >> look, this is just -- you know, this is a really, really bad story on so many levels. you know, you've got a guy here, you've got not one ex-wife, but two. >> two. >> and then a third -- >> hold on. anyone who says this is some conspiracy by the media, you would have to go back in time, predict that donald trump would become president, and then come up with this story in order to get him out of office.

so none of that makes sense. but go on. >> i believe the women. and then you've got that picture. and you've got a third woman who is coming forward, a girlfriend. and look, john kelly is entrusted to, you know, protect america in terms of the sensitive information that staffers are exposed to. you know, it just boggles the mind. this is a huge, huge problem. and they just compounded it by their statements. i just -- i don't see how anybody could possibly defend this. >> and i don't know -- let me ask, what is the new information that has come out? it seems to me that -- is the new information the picture? because there was a restraining order against him. so does the picture make that much of a difference?

i know jim made this point earlier this evening. i don't see how a picture should make that much of a difference when you have the fbi report that says this man's ex-wife had to get a restraining order against him and he was accused of punching in a glass door. >> i agree, gloria, but the picture is powerful. >> it is, but if there is a domestic abuse report against somebody in the white house, i don't think you need a picture. that's my point. >> the other thing about john kelly's judgment here, this is a guy, he's not a young sort of naive quixotic person. the fact that he wouldn't realize that it's entirely possible for somebody to appear to be good at their job and yet to be a horrible untrustworthy person, that's a huge flaw. this is somebody who has seen a lot of the word. for him not to see that, that's problematic. >> i was just going to say very quickly, if it's possible, to

bounce off what he was just saying, i talked to a general who had served with general kelly, chief of staff kelly, in iraq, who said to me this evening, "i don't recognize this john kelly." >> that was my question. who is this john kelly? is this the person we thought he was? >> exactly. and that is what i think a lot of people are saying right now. they thought john kelly was going to be the adult in the room over here in the white house and they didn't expect this. just yesterday he was in hot water for saying that some dreamers were too lazy to get off their asses to sign up for protections under the daca order. >> i do have to say, gloria, just talking about, yes, you shouldn't have to have a picture. but the picture i think made all the difference when it came to al franken, right? it was right there in our faces. >> yes. yes. >> and now we're looking at this

rob porter story, it's right there in our faces for us to see. i think that makes a huge difference, especially in the court of public opinion. thank you all, i appreciate it. ahead, our sources telling cnn a white house official, even chief of staff john kelly knew about domestic abuse allegations against top aide rob porter for months. what happened to white house hiring? only the best people, remember that? it's time for the 'ultimate sleep number event' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort your sleep number setting. and snoring? does your bed do that? right now during the ultimate sleep number event, our queen c2 mattress with adjustable comfort on both sides is only $699, save $200. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

he gets the best deal on the perfect hotel by using. tripadvisor! that's because tripadvisor lets you start your trip on the right foot... by comparing prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. saving you up to 30%! you'll be bathing in savings! tripadvisor. check the latest reviews and lowest prices.

breaking news tonight, sources tell cnn that top aides to the president including the chief of staff john kelly found out top white house staffer rob porter was hitting roadblocks with his background check months ago, the reason being allegations of domestic abuse. why did no one tell the president, and how did he get hired in spite of that? remember, "only the best people"?

porter resigned today. scott jennings and alice stewart join me. he denies the allegations, he says these allegations are simply false, i took the photos 15 years ago. the reality behind them is nowhere close to what is being described. i have been transparent and truthful about these vile claims. i will not engage with a smear campaign. so he's calling it a smear campaign. scott, respond to that, do you think it's a smear campaign? >> frankly i don't understand the strategy of defending someone who's already decided to resign. rob porter has a version of the story, the ex-wives have a version of the story. the fbi investigated it and brought it to the attention of top white house officials. here's the deal. no matter what the story is, you have to ask yourself, what's best for the president? number one, what's best for the president is to not have people with this background working in the white house. number two, how can you have a

staff secretary who can't get a security clearance when they handle the most sensitive documents, all the documents? number three, at the end of the day you're there to serve the country and the president. if this is going to hurt the president and his agenda, you have to act on it at that point. so right now, there's no defense of this. you can't defend it. you have to let it go and move on. frankly they're going to have to admit a mistake, which is they should have fired him when they found out about it months ago. >> but you're not making an excuse in his defense, saying that this is a smear campaign? i just want to get -- >> to him it probably sounds like a smear campaign. he's got a version that doesn't match the version his ex-wives are telling. but he had a restraining order against him, he knew they were going to make these allegations. clearly he knew they were going to tell the fbi. anybody who gets a background check in this kind of a job knows they're going to interview people like this. >> do they need to admit that they made a mistake?

>> you have to disclose on your forms and frankly to your superiors. this is in my background. >> do they need to admit they made mistakes, scott? if so, does kelly need to own it and should he keep his job? >> yeah, look, i think at the end of the day, they're not going to be able to skirt around the timeline. the timeline is going to have to come out. they'll have to be transparent about this. you can make mistakes in judgment. it does happen. this is a pretty big one, frankly. the job is big. the white house staff secretary handles all the paper flow in and out of the oval office. this isn't somebody in some far-flung agency. they're near the president all the time. i just don't think they're going to be able to not answer questions about the timeline here. i didn't think the second statement, frankly, cleared it up. i understand chief of staff kelly feels personally loyal to mr. porter. but at the end of the day, he's got to decide what's best for the president right here and what's best is not to defend this. >> all right.

so alice, this photograph is really damning, we talked about this last segment. there it is. porter is saying "i took the photograph" or whatever, but there you go. his ex-wife told "the washington post," "i thought by sharing my story with the fbi, he wouldn't be put in that post. i'm telling the fbi this is what he's done. and jenny willoughby is telling them. and the white house says, sure, this is okay? i was let down by that." what do you say about this, what do you think about what the white house has done? >> i think they clearly dropped the ball here. look, rob says that this didn't happen. he says he's innocent. he says it's a smear campaign. but the fact that he can't categorically deny this leaves questions. look, i don't care if this guy

has the ivy league parchment on the wall and has great character at work. if he's facing mounting allegations of spousal abuse, that raises a question. to scott's point, what's in the best interests for the president? obviously to get rid of him. but what's in the best interests of the american people if we allow someone like this to be in such a high level of importance in the white house? and look, i think everyone can agree that, look, there is a special place in hell for people who abuse their spouse. if we don't take this as an opportunity to stand up against domestic violence, i think this is a tremendous statement on where we are as a country. and look, i think it's really important for the white house to push back even further. the fact that they let him go without shoving him out the door is unfortunate. and i hope that we hear much more about this from the white house as to why he was allowed to stay as long as he was. >> alice, wasn't this a concern with, pardon my language, the

"grab them by the pussy" tape, people who would make an excuse for that or still support someone who would use language like that and would admit to doing it, that they may not take allegations like this seriously, and that is in fact a reality that's happening now? >> from what it sounds like, the president didn't know the gravity of this until late today. >> well, it's the people around him, some of the same people who defended him on this tape, who supported him after that tape came out, are still in the white house, and some of his top advisers. >> yes, and shame on them. i think as soon as the president understood the gravity of this, he made sure swift and decisive action was taken. i think they need to continue to do so. i would like to hear more from the president on this. i think we need to make more of a statement on standing up for these women and making sure that there is a better vetting system for people that have this close access to the president of the united states.

>> thank you all. thank you both, i appreciate it. when we come back, white house officials are saying they expect the president to release the democratic rebuttal memo by friday unless it risks national security. they didn't say that about the republican one.

having mplaque psoriasise is not always easy. it's a long-distance run. and you have the determination to keep going. humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for over 10 years. humira works inside the body to target and help block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to symptoms. in clinical trials, most adults taking humira were clear or almost clear and many saw 75% and even 90% clearance in just four months. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal, infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections,

or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. join over 250,000 people who have chosen humira. ask about the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. humira & go.

cnn has learned that president trump will most likely authorize the release of that democratic house intelligence memo by friday, unless, officials say, there is a grave threat to national security. the ten-page document is expected to directly undercut allegations of abuse by the fbi and justice department which were leveled in the nunes memo. i want to bring in now illinois congressman mike quigley, a democrat who is a member of the house intel committee. thank you for joining us, sir, we appreciate it. >> thank you. glad to be here. >> let's talk about this democratic memo, okay? we don't know what if anything will be redacted in there. is anything less than a full release acceptable to you and to democrats? >> look, i have real suspicions that the white house will attempt to neuter the memo. i will be surprised if they release it.

they will use their efforts to redact as an excuse to take out the most meaningful parts. it's easy to be suspicious of this white house who has done nothing at this point in time to suppress and make this investigation as difficult as possible. >> how big an impact will this memo have on countering the nunes memo? >> i think it effectively counters point by point the nunes memo. i think it will do a lot to restore the integrity of the investigation. i don't know that it can restore the damage that's been done between the relationship between the intelligence community and congress, or to restore the faith that people have in how this process works. i think there's still going to be real damage to how we keep our country safe. >> congressman, i want to talk to you about the trump campaign chiefs, corey lewandowski, steve

bannon, refusing to appear before your committee. are you going to subpoena them if they continue to refuse? >> look, there is an existing subpoena on mr. bannon, apparently they don't like him either. he was asked questions, but when he said there was a gag order from the white house, they didn't press him. that remains to be seen. mr. lewandowski simply said he's not going to answer questions with this extraordinary expansion of a privilege that the white house has yet to exert. so we don't have the power to subpoena. this is clearly mr. nunes' power. so that's a great concern. it should be noted, when we talk about the midnight ride, there's much more that he's done to suppress the investigation.

he's refused to issue subpoenas. he's gone along with this gag order. he is not really the only one to blame. none of these things could happen, including this latest escapade with rogue investigations and the memo that came with it. none of these things could happen without the speaker of the house involvement. before we get to a constitutional crisis, i think we're just at constitutional clashes now, he has to step up. the only republicans i've seen who have spoken out about this memo and what should be done with it on the minority and majority side are members who are planning to leave congress. where are the profiles in courage? >> you're talking about paul ryan, speaker of the house. can you really count on him? to many people's estimation, so far when it comes to this administration, he has no backbone. >> he hasn't shown a willingness to step up.

i was talking to a group earlier today, indivisible. and i said, at some point we have to get past the talking points we've had so far. let's talk about what the speaker and chairman nunes are doing. they are not only facilitating the suppression of this investigation. by doing that, they're putting the president above the law. we are a co-equal, separate branch of government. in effect, what they're really doing is they're advocating and allowing the president to rise to an autocracy. >> president trump tweeted today, "new fbi texts are bombshells." a bombshell, really? >> look, the president is in somewhat of a desperation mode. the mueller investigation is getting closer and closer. it's found its way inside the white house. they must be especially concerned about general flynn's cooperation. after all, he had a lot of exposure, he was only indicted and pled on one count, his son wasn't pled at all. this is his reaction, a desperate move.

what we're seeing from the chairman, the speaker of the house, is they're more interested in protecting the president from the legal challenges he faces than they are in protecting this country and moving toward a very real threat of an autocratic president. >> congressman quigley, late at the capital for us, we do appreciate it, thank you, sir. >> thank you. when we come back, what's behind steve bannon's and corey lewandowski's refusals to testify before the house intelligence committee? could they be forced to do so?

♪ ♪ i'm jimmy, this is my definition of fresh since 1983. ♪

you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

introducing the pork from jack in the box. two strips of pork belly, green leaf lettuce, juicy tomatoes and tangy honey aioli even you'll love it, martha security! get him! wow, do you guys workout? try my new pork belly blt, part of my food truck series.

introducing the prime rib from jack in the box. with strips of prime rib grilled with peppers and onions and smothered in provolone cheese and i'm challenging you to try it, martha it's on, jack. why are we whispering? try my new prime rib cheesesteak, part of my food truck series. house intelligence committee says two of the president's former top advisers are refusing to go before the committee and answer questions about the transition. is the white house telling them to stop cooperating? let's discuss now with michael zeldin, a cnn analyst and robert mueller's former special assistant at the department of justice, and kim wale, former attorney in the whitewater investigation. michael, former trump

confidantes corey lewandowski and steve bannon are refusing to answer questions before the committee. adam schiff says, over the past several weeks we have seen a developing pattern, some witnesses postpone, others cancel, and two specifically have refused to answer questions about the events following the election of donald trump as president. it will therefore are necessary for our committee to enforce the subpoena on bannon and move to compel lewandowski's testimony. do you think, michael, they are doing this at least in part in coordination with the white house? >> well, it's hard to know. with respect to each, they in their earlier rounds of testimony, or lewandowski i think didn't remember much during his earlier rounds of testimony, but bannon specifically said that he wasn't going to answer questions because the white house had instructed him not to. chief of staff kelly said there weren't any communications of

that sort. mcgahn and his lawyers seem to say there were conversations of that sort. but the reality is of course that the president seems, if they are coordinating, to be asserting privilege that does not contemplate what the privilege provides for, that is policy making between the president and his chief officers. bannon, they want to talk about a whole host of things that took place before the election, and then after he left the white house. there is no executive privilege to be asserted there. so if it is a coordinated effort between the white house and bannon or lewandowski, it's obstructionist behavior as far as i'm concerned. >> kim, i think i mispronounced your name, it's kim walie. do you think they are intentionally stonewalling the committee, and if they are, what can be done about that? >> they're obviously not cooperating very easily.

so stonewalling, i'm not so sure. i think this comes down to the schoolyard question of "can you make me?" at what point is congress actually going to pull some levers of power to get some of these witnesses to actually testify? and it's not that clear what congress can do. i mean, it has implied power to investigate in order to legislate. so in theory, the sergeant at arms of the house could actually physically bring a witness before the chamber and hold them in contempt and put them in jail. but that hasn't happened in a long time, if they don't cooperate. there's a criminal route that can be taken. but in order to do that we need cooperation from donald trump's department of justice. then there's a civil route for the senate. but that only works if you have a resolution of the senate. so this really ideally would be resolved with some kind of negotiation. my guess is, it's more likely they're trying to work out the kinks, hopefully in a negotiation, rather than flat out stonewalling and then we

would be in some kind of drama again. >> don, may i add something, and kim is exactly right on the three ways that congress can assert its power here. but what congressman schiff is saying is, we went round one with bannon and he wouldn't cooperate, and so the full committee voted to bring him in by subpoena. and now he's dishonoring that subpoena. so schiff is saying, it's time to hold him in contempt. and i think that is the right course of conduct. lewandowski is in another place in the timeline because he hasn't been subpoenaed. so i think what the committee needs to do to show it's serious about this investigation is hold bannon in contempt and subpoena lewandowski for a future appearance and see whether he also resists. >> so kim, a source tells cnn that the president thinks he can handle an interview with robert

mueller because of his experience in prior lawsuits. that source tells cnn he thinks he can work this out. he doesn't realize how high the stakes are. do you think this is part of a negotiation tactic or does he think he can really prevail with this strategy? >> i think your question "does he think" is an important one. probably for a psychologist more than for an attorney, in that to the extent to which he believes that he is innocent and that he's even perhaps in a victim posture, you might want to win the battle by telling what his truth is. i think most defense lawyers would say that's a bad idea for him personally. but maybe there's a silver lining to that strategy for the american public, in that we can actually just get to some kind of resolution and have the president actually participate in this process in a way that brings some transparency and closure, ultimately. >> if the president thinks he can or tries to smooth talk robert mueller, michael, and his team, how do you think that's going to go? >> if he's truthful, it will go just fine. if it's not truthful, it won't go quite as well for him.

mueller is not going to take lightly lying about material matters that he is investigating. so the president has to be sure that he can tell a coherent, truthful narrative. but with respect to whether or not he should or he shouldn't, this is an interesting situation, because i don't think legally there's any way he can in the end not testify. i think the power of the grand jury subpoena under the facts of this case would necessitate his testifying. so if he forces the issue and says i am not going to testify, and mueller issues him a grand jury subpoena and takes him to court, and the court forces him to testify because that's what the law requires, it makes it look much worse than if the president just goes in as bill clinton did, you know, sort of not happily, but purposefully, so that he could try to, you know, put an end to this in the same way that kim said would bring closure to the matter. >> thank you, michael, thank you, kim, i appreciate your time.

the president says i want a parade. so the pentagon is now trying to figure out the logistics from that. will the pushback even from his own party stop it from becoming a reality? ♪ last night took a l, but tonight i bounce back. ♪ what's an l? the rap singer took a loss and now he's ok again. right. yeah you can get a mortgage that avoids pmi, but there's no way to avoid mip on... . hey! this'll help. rocket mortgage by quicken loans makes the complex simple. so, origination fees... this takes care of it, thank you. understand the details and get approved in as few as 8 minutes. by america's largest mortgage lender. bounce back, right right right, i get it now. ♪ i woke up in beast mode, with my girl that's... ♪ i'm in the kitchen. i need my blood sugar to stay in control. i need to shave my a1c i'm always on call. an insulin that fits my schedule is key. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis,

during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, swtiting, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue, orhrhroat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪

the white house grappling tonight with news about a top aide facing domestic abuse allegations. sources saying senior officials knew about it and didn't do anything. i want to bring in max boot, a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations and the author of "the the road not taken." max good to have you on. i first want to get your take on the disturbing allegations of dmakz against rob porter, chief of staff john kelly coming to his defense. at one point kelly called porter a man of true integrity. what are your thoughts. >> well this is appalling. but it's part of a pattern with the trump white house which had a lot of questionable characters like steve bannon, sebastian gorka, michael flynn, now rob porter. people who would not pass any kind of muster in any kind of ordinary white house have nevertheless been allowed very close to the center of power in the united states government.

and i think that's ultimately on donald trump and also on the people who work for him, including general kelly. i think that's a disturbing pattern. >> several things i want to talk to you about tonight. on a different topic, and i know you heard about the president -- president trump now wants a military parade, according to the "washington post". the president was inspired by the bastille day parade in france. what do you make of in request, and what's behind it do you think. >> what i make of it is i think we have a president with the mental age of about 8. and he thinks that military gear is really neat. we could save a lot of money because a parade would cost $20 million which the military doesn't want to throw away, truly a waste of money. somebody could save money just buy the president some neat toys and field marshal uniform that he could parade around the white house in. this is like a little boy love of military gear with no idea of

what real war is like, what troops actually do. this is also utterly divorced from american traditions. we certainly celebrate the military and we have parades when soldiers come momi like from the gulf war. but we're not north korea, not the the soviet union. we don't glory in displays of military hardware. our twloer is our constitution, rule of law, free and open society. and unfortunately donald trump is doing great damage to all of those even as he claims to celebrate what makes america great. >> if he really wanted to pay tribute and honor to men and women in uniform fighting for freedoms overseas couldn't he visit a war zone, afghanistan or iraq? >> that would be a great idea. he could also make good on his pledges that he made during the campaign to greatly expand the size of the active duty army, of the navy, air force, because they're too small for the missions they face. i was at ft. benning, georgia,

giving a talk there and meeting with army leaders there. and their viewpoint is the army is vastly overstretched having to deal with in growing russian threat in eastern europe. having to prepare for contingency in the north korean peninsula. they have real issues and not money to throw away on the parade. they could use more support from the president rather than tasked with trifl missions like a parade. >> you wrote an op-ed in the "washington post" which i fine interesting. you said trump is no adolph hit letter and it does a disservice to naziism to make the comparison. he was a more of hugo chavez. not uniquely evil process if he ruled in italy in the 50s or venezuela in the twouss he would undoubtedly be a dictator by now. those are strong words. do you think the president wants to be seen as authoritiarian to flex muscles on the global stage?

>> i think this military parade is part of it. remember a few days ago he was saying democrats were treasonous for not applauding. there is a consistent pattern where he calls the press the enemy of the american people. he calls the judiciary a laughing stock. he makes war on all the norms of american democracy and all the checks and balances on his power, including of course the fbi and justice department. so i think the parade is part and parcel with that. the good news is that trump does not rule in an earlier italy or venezuela or argentina, that he rules in a constitutional republic with a strong tradition of checks and balances. and those balances are keeping him in line to some extent at least. but it's a constant struggle. and you kind of see him wanting to break out and imitate some of the dictators he greatly dmirs lib like putin and xi jinping and erdogan. they have these cheesy military parades.

he wants one of his own. >> that's what senator graham said it's cheesy and shows weakness. thanks max. >> thanks, don. >> when we come back, the resignation of a trump top aide. senior white house officials knew about domestic abuse allegations against rob porter. the white house is pushing back saying porter misled everyone in the west wing. sfx: muffled whistle text alert.

i'm your phone, stuck down here between your seat and your console, playing a little hide-n-seek. cold... warmer... warmer... ah boiling. jackpot. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, you could be picking up these charges yourself. so get allstate, where agents help keep you protected from mayhem... ...like me. mayhem is everywhere. are you in good hands? searching for answers may feel overwhelming. so start your search with our teams of specialists at cancer treatment centers of america. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts

we have one to two fires a day and when you respond together and you put your lives on the line, you do have to surround yourself with experts. and for us the expert in gas and electric is pg&e. we run about 2,500/2,800 fire calls a year and on almost every one of those calls pg&e is responding to that call as well. and so when we show up to a fire and pg&e shows up with us it makes a tremendous team during a moment of crisis. i rely on them, the firefighters in this department rely on them, and so we have to practice safety everyday. utilizing pg&e's talent and expertise in that area trains our firefighters on the gas or electric aspect of a fire and when we have an emergency situation we are going to be much more skilled and prepared to mitigate that emergency for all concerned.

the things we do every single day that puts ourselves in harm's way, and to have a partner that is so skilled at what they do is indispensable, and i couldn't ask for a better partner. s in cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. a little past. 11:00 on the east coast. we have breaking news rocking the white house ton. a top aide to president trump, rob porter, resigning amid allegations by two exwives. sourcing telling cnn that senior white house officials knew about the ails for months. scrambled to protect porter once they became public. but the white house pushes back claiming porter misled everyone in the west wing. and president trump tweeting support for the massive bipartisan two-year senate deal in the senate.