Transcripts For CNNW At This Hour With Kate Bolduan 20180116

The convictions as a prosecutor, they would have in the reports how long they have been here and what they were doing. Now, last week, in the oval office, President Trump reportedly said the most vulgar and racist things ive ever heard a president of either party utter. In fact, ive never heard any president , republican or democrat, utter anything even similar. Now he denies using the specific word. And there has been some maybe he used a different word, maybe he didnt. Madam secretary, you were in the room. Youre under oath. Did President Trump use this word or a substantially similar word to describe certain countrys . I did not hear that word used, no, sir. Thats nthe question. Did he use anything similar to that stridescribing certain countrys . The conversation was impassioned. I dont dispute the president was using tough language. Others in the room were also using tough language. If i could, the concept and the context, i believe in which this came up was the concept that the president would like to move to a meritbased system, he would like to not no longer look at quotas and he used what would be considered vulgar language referring to certain countrys . The president used tough language in general, as did other congressmen in the room, yes, sir. The others arent president. You imply the president was articulating support for a meritbased immigration system, like those in australia or canada. But when he denigrated haiti, el salvador, africa, a country where we are trying to have some ability to match china and others in influence, he didnt say this because we needed more ph. D. Students or skilled workers, he said he wanted more people from norway. Being from norway is not a skill. And with the standard of living in norway better than ours, what does he mean when he says he wants more immigrants from norway . I dont believe he said that specifically. What he was saying is he was using norway as an example of a country that is what he was specifically referring to is the Prime Minister telling him that the people of norway work very hard. And so what he was referencing is from a meritbased perspective, we like to have those with skills who can assimilate to the United States, moving away from country quotas and to an individual meritbased system. Norway is a predominantly white country, isnt it . I actually do not know that, sir. But i imagine that is the case. Now, the Obama Administration focuses limited enforcement resources and everybody i have to admit enforcement, the ability for enforcement is limited. You cant hit on every single thing. Thats correct. The Obama Administration focuses on those who pose Public Safety threats. President trump has expanded those. Now he has those who could be charged with the crime or a priority. That means millions of undocumented immigrants are subject to removal. They are a priority for removal. One of the things i learned as a prosecutor, if everyone is a priority, nobody is a priority. Because you cant do it all. In texas, Border Patrol agents detained a 10yearold girl with Cerebral Palsy on her way do a hospital for a surgery. What a hell of a threat she was. A caregiver of a 6yearold paraplegic boy facing deportation, just yesterday in michigan, a man brought to this country at the age of 10 was deported after living here for over 30 years, torn away from his wife and children, u. S. Citizens. Hes never committed a crime. He pays his taxes every year. Now, thats how we use our limited enforcement resources, is that to strike fear in the hearts of everybody, whether they have done something wrong or not . They tell them they could be targeted at anytime . Im sure that 10yearold girl with Cerebral Palsy was scared. Sir, first of all, i am not sure where we would agree on the facts of that texas case. But were happy to submit the facts. Pardon me . Submit the facts. She was not detained. We helped her and escorted her to the hospital and turned her over to hhs. To your larger question, what we focus on in terms of enforcement priorities are those who have committed crimes and those with final orders of removal. Our statistics show that that is in fact what were doing. Last year 92 of those that were arrested and taken into custody by ice were criminals. I understand that there will always be exceptions, there is a lot of misunderstandings in the press. I would be happy to work with you at anytime if there is a case of concern to make sure that we understand on that, we do ask questions of your department. And on occasion, on occasion, we have gotten answers. Lets try to get answers to all of them. You know the president says he wants to build a big, beautiful wall, and mexico pay for it. The president s promise mexico to pay for it. And we open an account that mexico can put the money into to pay for it, what im sure the president wouldnt make that promise if he and not tell the truth. What arrangements do we have with mexico to pay for it . As the secretary of Homeland Security, what im concerned about, is getting the front line do you know whether we have arrangements with mexico to pay for it . I know we have arrangements with mexico to secure our border. Do we have arrangements with them to pay for the wall as President Trump promised the American People they would do . Thats an easy answer. Yes or no . I am not aware. I dont know what you mean by arrangement. We have a lot of agreements with them to increase Border Security. Are any of them to pay for a wall . How do you mean, pay, sir . Through fees . Do you mean through a variety of ways . Well when something is paid for, you pay for it with money. I understand that. But im saying there are many ways to do that and collect that. Are they paying for a wall . My priority is to increase Border Security and to build that wall, that will work. Thats my priority, sir. Thats what im thats then talk about that. Cbp estimates building a wall will result in taking land from 900 ranchers, other landowners two texas counties, thats two counties. Ill insert that letter if i might into the record. Without objection, so ordered. And what is your estimate of the number of imminent domain cases against ranchers and other american landowners that would be required in order to build a wall . Sir, the initial wall that were building right now, as you know for this year, is a replacement wall. I couldnt possibly give you how many people have will decide in the future to have an issue with imminent domain. If you build a wall on the u. S. Side of the border, you have to create a nomansland between the wall and the rio grande river. How many acres of land of america land do we have to cede to mexico to do that . Well, what well have to do is look at the terrain, the traffic, the accessibility and, youre right, we have to tailor the solutions for each part of the border to make sure that we dont have to do anything that is unnecessary, whether that is additional land acquisition. If we dont have an agreement with mexico to pay for it, and if as many say a wall is last centurys technology, would that 18 billion, how many more cbp agents could you hire or tsa screeners to shorten the lines at airports, which have become ridiculous in some places, or how many coast guard cutters could you build in order to rescue those and see drugs and protect our ports . Sir, i can tell you that walls work. We have examples of that. We have documented data and i dont know about anyone saying it is last generations technology. 2006, as you know, we had a bipartisan agreement and the secure fence act, which senators obama, clinton, and schumer all voted for. So i disagree that it is last generation, last centurys technology. And parts of that wall, what was built parts of it. Were talking about a wall the length of our country. Were not. The president has made that clear. Im not going to play back a lot of this Campaign Speeches about a wall, great big, beautiful wall, the length of our southern border paid for by mexico. Ive heard a lot of prime omise my decade here. Im waiting to see this one fulfilled. Thank you for the extra time. I think since you were at the same meeting i was at on tuesday, the president said 700 miles of additional wall. 722, yes. Initial down payment. Senator cornyn. Thank you, madam secretary, for your willingness to take on what is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the United States government. That is the leadership of the department of Homeland Security, but it is also one of the most important jobs in the u. S. Government. I want to continue the line of questioning for my from my friend from vermont about the Border Security. It is no surprise to you that i come from the state that has 1200 miles of common border with mexico. And what were talking about is what measures are going to be put into place to provide that Border Security, which my constituents all want. They want security. Yes, sir. And so i have been struck by your use of the phrase wall system, and just want to explore with you a little bit what you mean by that. One of the people that i take advice from is the Rio Grande Valley Border Sector chief manny padilla, who i believe you were with recently, who has told me that in his vast experience, and the Border Patrol, that Border Security is composed of three elements. He said infrastructure is important. You can call it a secure fence as we did in 2006, you can call it a wall as the president does from time to time. But it includes not only that infrastructure, but also technology. And, of course, the Border Patrol agents to be able to respond to sensors when they get they go off or radar and the like. Is that what you mean when you talk about a wall system, some configuretion of those three components, infrastructure, technology, and personnel . Yes, sir. The president has asked us as you know to look at operational control of the border. The wall system, therefore, is infrastructure as you described, technology personnel, and i would add it is also closing those loopholes so you can promptly remove those. But in general we look at forming mission sets, we look at impede ens and denial, which is partly granted through that infrastructure. We look at domain awareness, the sensors, the cameras, et cetera, we look at access and mobility, so that the Border Patrol agents can respond to threats. And we look at mission readiness, having that personnel that we need to be able to do the job. Because of the impact to local communities, and in texas and elsewhere along the border, do you have any objection to consulting with local stake holders as they try to come up with perhaps Innovative Solutions to deal with the Border Security challenge . It is an open invitation. The only way that we will be able to protect the border is by working with both state and local officials as well as those landowners and private sectors. So absolutely. I was at the Rio Grande Valley on friday and saturday and sunday, hunting the ever elusive wild texas quail and i did happen to go over to the to a Wildlife Sanctuary on friday, which is a unique tourist attraction and one that is located within several hundred yards of the texas border. What im told there is that the smugglers, the Transnational Criminal Organizations you alluded to before, do see that as a vulnerability and so obviously we need to meet that challenge and i know that chief padilla and others are working hard to do that. We also need to be sensitive to the concerns, i think, that the local community has, about a huge economic element there and something that we entertain a lot of folks from up north. They call it snow birds down there, when it is cold up north, they come down south and it is great for them, great for the economy, great for jobs. So that would be one example of a need to work collaboratively with the local community and local stake holders as well as state and local officials to come up with the right solution. I remember a few years back, in hidalgo, texas, using that same local stake holder input approach we were able to come up with a winwin proposition. Youre familiar with the levee wall . Yes, sir. There was a need to improve the levee system down there and protect Property Values and make Flood Insurance affordable. But in consultation, i remember jd salina, the county judge in hidalgo, texas, they put a bond election on the ballot and came up with a dual use system which actually provided that levee improvement and also provided a wall in critical areas that the Border Patrol that they said they needed in order to slow down the flow of illegal immigration and Drug Trafficking and the like th. That is one example of what i call a winwin proposition and where one size does not fit all. Chief padilla told me the majority of people coming across the border and detained in the Rio Grande Valley sector is from Central America. I cant remember the exact percentage, but a High Percentage as you know. And what these traffickers are doing is exploiting as you point out a vulnerability in our system. We passed the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act years ago in order to protect children from human trafficking. Thats a highly worthy cause. Agree. But the traffickers are now figuring out that since children have come from Central America are treated differently than other people who entered the country illegally, they found a way to exploit it. I believe you mentioned 90 of them who are notified of a future Court Hearing on their claim for asylum, for example, never show up. And thats a real glitch. But i know there has been some attention paid, not enough attention paid in my view, to the threat of criminal gangs that exploit this vulnerability as well. I was told by chief padilla again that they have ms13 gang members as young as 12 years old and, of course, from 12 to 17, still qualify as a minor. And let me ask, if Border Patrol identifies by the tattoos or other signs on somebody under 18, that theyre likely a member of a criminal gang, are they permitted to detain them or required to treat them the same way they would every other minor child and place them with a sponsor ultimately and only to have them never show back up for their Court Hearing in the future. Criminal gang members who happen to be minors treated any differently . Unfortunately, no. We have to treat them the same. We do if we have that information provided to hhs when of course they have them, once we turn them over to hhs. No, sir. It is a problem. We need to look at removeability in general to make sure we can address this gang problem. We see gangs all the way up to new york, recruiting Illegal Immigrants and children to come across the border for the purposes of joining ms13. I know when we talk about unaccompanied children, people think about very young children, children of a tender age they dont think about a 17yearold member of a criminal gang like ms13, which is exploiting this very same vulnerability. I have every confidence that you and the Trump Administration is going to do what you say youre going to do when it comes to Border Security and i believe it is our responsibility as members of congress to provide you the resources and tools and to make the appropriate changes in the law. So that you can do what needs to be done. I know there have been requirements for border assessments in the past. But do you have any objection to Congress Perhaps as part of this negotiated Border Security part of the daca fix, socalled, mandating that the Department Come up with a plan that would provide for 100 Situational Awareness and operational control of the border . No, sir. I dont. I would encourage if you havent had the opportunity to look at the Border Security Investment Plan that we recently provided there is some detail in there. Under domain awareness, one of the four missions i mentioned, absolutely. I think it would be important to put that in the law because, of course, when administrations change, different administrations have different priorities in terms of Border Security and the like. I would like to make sure that the focus of this Administration Remains part of the congressional mandate in the law. And so would look forward to working with you on that. I know there has been some discussion of the daca population and certainly i, together with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, want to find a solution for these young adults who came here as minor children and through no fault of their own find themselves in a dead end. I do know that there was a Court Decision which created some confusion the other day. And what strikes me as wildly wrong to say that president obama can create a program and that President Trump cannot end it because of certain executive authority would seem to be the same. But can you tell us about the plans of the administration to appeal that or otherwise how you plan to address it . Yes, sir. Of course, the as the department of Homeland Security, we defer to the department of justice who is looking at a variety of ways in which to respond to that. But i can tell you is that dhs is complying with the court order. We have begun to accept renewals for daca. Were treating the program as preseptember of last year. So if you are a current daca recipient, you can currently reapply while were pending this court action. Senator durbin . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i ask questions of the secretary, i would like to ask the indulgence of the committee to introduce two guests ive brought here today. Alejandro duran areola at Loyola University school of medicine in chicago. Would you please stand . Alejandro grew up in savannah, georgia. She volunteers at a clinic educating uninsured patients about disease prevention. Her dream is to become an obgyn, working in underserve the communities. Shes protected by daca. Thank you very much for being here. Her future is in doubt. Without the protection of daca, she does not have a legal permission to work in america. Cannot become a doctor without a residency. A residency is a job. If daca is eliminated, and her protection is eliminated and a right to work is eliminated, her future as a doctor is in doubt. John magdaleno, please stand. John came from venezuela at the age of 9. In high school, commander of the air Honor Society and junior rotc, he graduated from georgia tech, one of the best engineering schools in america, with a degree in chemical and biomolecular engineering with the highest honors. He works as a chemical engineer. His dream is to serve in the United States military. John, thank you for being here. Thats what this debate is all about. Thats what daca is all about. There has been a lot of talk about terrorists and threats to america. We stand as one. Not as democrats or republicans, but as one in saying lets keep america safe. For goodness sakes, not at the expense of young people like the two i just introduced. That is what this conversation and debate is all about. Madam secretary, i hope you remember me. We were together at two meetings last week. I would like to ask you about one of those meetings. It occurred about noon on january 11th, you were a few minutes late, i know, and asked forgiveness, but recall at the last minute to come and attend. Some things were said at that meeting which i believe we have to address today. People across the United States and around the world want to know what this presidnt believes should be our priorities when it comes to immigration. Im going to ask you, as best you can, to recall what you heard the president say when it came to those priorities. What do you remember the president saying about immigration from african countries to the United States . What i heard him saying was that he would like to move away from a countrybased quota system to a meritbased system. So it shouldnt matter where youre from, it should matter what you can contribute to the United States. How did he characterize those countries in africa . I dont i dont specifically remember categorization of kun feliz africa. I think what he was saying is as far as best i could tell and as you know there were about a dozen people in the room, there were a lot of cross conversations, there was a lot of rough talk by a lot of people in the room, but what i understood him to be saying is lets move away from the countries and lets look at the individual and make sure that those we bring here can contribute to our society. Do you remember the president saying expressly i want more europeans, why cant we have more immigrants from norway . I do remember what he i do remember him asking about the concept of underrepresented countries as a fix. This was in the conversation about removing the diversity lottery and how we could reallocate that. And i do remember him asking if we do that, and we then assign those to countries that are unrepresented, arent we just continuing nonmeritbased immigration. From that perspective, i think he did ask would that cover European Countries or by its nature would that mean that we are further establishing immigration to purposefully exclude europeans . What did the president say about immigrants from norway . I heard him repeating what he had learned in a meeting before, that they are indust russ, hard working country, they dont have much crime there, they dont have much debt, i think in general i just heard him giving compliments to norway . You said on fox news, the president used Strong Language. What was that Strong Language . Lets see, Strong Language, there was apologies. I dont remember specific word. What i was struck with, frankly, im sure you were as well, the general profanity used in the room by almost everyone. Did you hear me use profanity . No. Did you hear senator graham use profanity . I heard tough language from senator graham, yes, sir. What did he say . He used tough language. He was impassioned. I think he was feeling very strongly about the issue as was everyone in the room. And to underscore a point, i think he was using some Strong Language. Do you recall that the Strong Language he used repeated exactly what the president had said prior to that . I remember specific cuss words being used by a variety of members. Im not going to ask you to say those words here. But i will just say for the record, senator graham spoke up in a way that i respect very much, countering what the president had said about countries in africa, reminding the president that his family did not come to america with great skills or wealth but came here as most families do, looking for a chance to prove themselves and make this a better nation. And in defense of senator graham, his strong words repeated exactly the words used by the president , which you cannot remember. Let me ask you another question if i could, sir, i do want to say i greatly appreciate not only senator grahams leadership, but yours as well. I know youre both very passionate about this as you know afterwards i approached you and asked that im happy to come talk to you anytime to tri to work on this deal. I do think that senator graham passionately described what he believes america is about, and what we should move towards, yes, i agree with that. Do you suppor a path to citizenship for Daca Recipients and those who are in the dream act . I think we have to find a permanent solution, yes, sir. I hate that phrase permanent solution. Do you support a path to citizenship . I believe that is part of the discussion and to make sure that we dont continue temporary populations that continue to exist. We should talk about that. Im not here to get in front of the president or any final decisions on that particular issue, but, yes, im happy to discuss it. Do you recall the president saying that he wanted 20 billion now and he would build this wall within one year . I do remember him saying that, he was concerned that given the appropriations cycle, that any deal that we made now would be limited to this years appropriation. I remember him asking is there a way to authorize the full down payment of the law, such that we could have assurances that we could in fact build it. So lets take a look at what your department has done when it comes to building walls. As of december 6th, 2017, less than 1 of the 341 million appropriated for 40 miles of replacement funding had been expended. Actual construction has yet to be begin on money appropriated in the last fiscal year. So is the president realistic when he says he wants 20 billion so he can build the wall in one year . I think the president is encouraging us to go as quickly as we can. As you know, it is a very complicated issue building the wall for a whole variety of the whole variety of reasons. What were doing right now is we are testing and evaluating the prototypes, and will continue t design, but what is best per some of the other senators comments for any particular part of the border because it will be different. We need a full tool kit. Madam secretary, the president made it clear in that meeting that one of the conditions for his assent or agreement to protect daca was 20 billion so he could build this wall in one year. A fate of john and alejandro lies in the balance here. The president is insisting on something that is illegally possible as a condition to give them a chance to be here. Youve seen, you xhentd on comm it, fox news, the agreement and you rejected it. You said at one point, i believe, that let me see the quote here, there is nothing in there that would prevent us from getting here again. Are you aware of the fact that included in this proposal is the entire request of the administration for Border Security in this fiscal year, 1. 6 billion for walls and barriers and fences and another billion dollars for technology, exactly what you asked for. If you dont believe this will solve the problem, which is what you said on fox news, why did the administration request it in first place . Sir, thats not all we requested as you know. We also requested to close the loopholes that serve as the poll factors that exacerbate the problem. I cannot apprehend if i cannot remove. Thats not Border Security. Let me add, the first meeting we had last week, we agreed and the president agreed there will be two phases to this conversation. The first immediately to deal with the daca challenge, and the three other elements the president including Border Security, sir. Including Border Security, every penny that you ask for, and then the president said, phase two, goes into comprehensive Immigration Reform, many of the issues which you described as must haves. We understand that. To put the entire burden of Immigration Reform on the shoulders of these Daca Recipients is fundamentally unfair, not practical, and jeopardizes the future and their lives. What were trying to do is an honest bipartisan approach to deal with the first phase of this and you have rejected it. I thank you for your passion. I hope you understand mine. I cannot agree to a deal that does not give the tools and resources to the men and women of department of Homeland Security to do the job you have asked them to do. We gave you every penny you asked for. It is not the pennies. It is closing the loopholes. Can we cut back on the money. The wall works. It is part of Border Security. Thank you. Madam secretary, thank you for being here. Im glad i missed that meeting. Youve been watching the Senate Judiciary committee, the Homeland Security grill the Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. She was at the meeting on immigration that senator durbin was as well, the immigration where President Trump allegedly referred to african nations as shithole countries and talked instead about wanting immigrants from norway instead. She said she does not recall what words were used. She said here in this testimony that she did not hear that word used. She certainly seemed to recall the gist of the conversations, but not the specifics of the conversations. She avoided repeating all of the specifics and instead saying there have been tough language that was used by the president and also added by other people in the room, something that senator durbin took offense to or certainly felt differently about, having been present in that same meeting as the secretary. I want to discuss this now, cnn politics reporter, and editor at large chris cilizza. This is pretty interesting to watch. Senator durbin clearly came ready to blame a lot of the questions democrats had are about whether the immigration proposals, policies of the administration, are motivated by racism. And that was also part of what he was trying to get at as he was talking to the secretary. I actually think the secretary has proved the point here that many of us have been saying over the last couple of days. It doesnt matter what the word was. What it clearly agreed upon, we learned what happened here, is whether he said shithouse or shithole and Lindsey Graham repeated the work bad back to h it is completely beside the point of what was enraging certain people in the room. The president s approach of how he was thinking about these countries of origin for people that want to immigrate to the United States and that the derogatory way that he was treating them was not what the president of the United States should be thinking of the nations as an ideal in this conversation moving forward. I think that overall was the point and it derailed this entire negotiation over daca and the dreamers. I think, look, what you saw senator durbin doing was very calculated. As you noted, it was very planned. Two fold. First to get on the record, in public, by two actual participants on either side. Senator durbin trying to defend his remarks, something he wanted to do, and he wanted to have the fight on policy, have a very clear discussion about what his proposal on the daca issue would do, where the administration stood and why according to his questions the administration rejected that proposal when he feels it addresses many of the things they asked for in the beginning. You can make the argument he was effective in the first part. Also clear if you want to look at the long game here and the negotiations ongoing right now, that where he sits and where secretary nielsen sits and the Trump Administration sits on this daca issue specifically, theyre still very, very far apart and have a very compressed time window to figure out some resolution right now. To phils point, i think really what were talking about now is are they going to pass a government funding a shortterm government funding measure, not pass an immigration measure. That seems as though i think that a little bit of that got lost in last thursdays meeting because of the folks on what word he used. The fact was that that was the moment, that moment has now passed and you dont dick durbin said earlier today, it took us four months to get here. These things take time. You cant do it in 2 1 2 day period. The proposal was never going to be the final deal, right. Just a launching point. Once trump went down that road, it became a first step that just got cut out from under them. Another thing, im with david, ive written about this, that the word, this specific word doesnt matter. The one thunging i do want to address, were still at the point where we have two United States senators, Lindsey Graham and dick durbin saying he said this. Bipartisan agreement. And we have tom cotton, and david purdue in various ways, but on the sunday talk shows yesterday two days ago saying, well, he didnt say this. It is not the most important part of the debate, but i just think that purdue and the cotton position is increasingly untenable. The white house essentially again admitting he did this. I dont know where you go, maybe it disappears. But in terms of not that there is that much comedy in the senate, you have tom cotton, david purdue, calling dick durbin a liar. It helps you decide where certain people are in banningbap President Trump on this. Minutes just before this hearing, jake tapper sat down with senator dick durbin to talk about that Oval Office Meeting. Here is his exclusive interview. Leader durbin, thank you for doing this. Happy to join you. A lot of back and forth about what was exactly said. Can you clear it up for us . What did the president say . What did you hear him say . He said many things. Went on for probably half an hour. The most outrageous comment obviously is in reference to countries overseas that might send immigrants to the United States and the president used the vulgar term repeated over and over again. But it was a long, far ranging meeting about immigration in general. Negative things said about haitians coming to the United States, the president was talking i think this is a tell, if you will, we need more people from norway, he said, norway, they dont even take refugees in norway, he said. And i just met with a norwegian Prime Minister. We need more europeans. We need it was pretty clear to me what the president s message was in that meeting. Just to clear it up, when he said shole countries, referring to africa . Yes. Now, senators cotton and purdue have challenged the notion he said shole and i believe there is some reporting out there that the white house Officials Say that purdue and cotton think he said shouse countries as opposed to shole countries. Let me say theyre wrong. I can tell you explicitly they are wrong. And let me also say is that their defense . That shouse is acceptable, shole he would never say . Come on. To think that the president of the United States would refer to any country on earth as an shouse country, for goodness sakes, what does that say . So those senators had some things to say about you and your memory. I want to read them to you, give you an opportunity to respond. Purdue said im telling you he did not use that word and it is a gross misrepresentation. And senator cotton said, i certainly didnt hear what senator durbin said repeatedly, senator durbin has a history of misrepresenting what happens in white house meetings. So perhaps we shouldnt be surprised by that. I was sitting further away from donald trump than dick durbin was and i know what was said was incorrect. I dont know what hes referring to. As i said in chicago, yesterday, politics aint beanbag. I expect harsh critics on both sides. It is fine. Comes with the territory. I stand by every word i said. Senator cotton and senator purdue should remember a word as gross as that in the course of the conversation with the president of the United States. What do you think of the notion they are, as you say, defending what the president said by leaning on the fact that he that they heard him say shouse as opposed to shole. This is the defense . The defense that instead of shole, it was shouse, that is best they can come up with. It tells the story. This was a horrible moment in the history of our country, in the history of the oval office and the white house. And they should, i think, honor that responsibility they have as Public Officials to tell the truth. There were other people in the room that day, and they have either not commented, such as congressman diazbalart and some others, and or they have said that they dont recall, like, secretary nielsen, the department of Homeland Security. Lindsey graham was there. And my understanding from reporting, he was upset as well he said in a statement, i said my peace to the president after his comment. Did he Say Something to President Trump . It was an extraordinary moment. After the president made these outrageous statements, with these vulgarities, i was sitting to the left of lindsey, lindsey was sitting closer to the president than were sitting, he turned to him and addressed that directly. Directly. And what i thought was one of the best statements about immigration policy in america that ive ever heard. He explicitly repeated that vulgarity so that there was clear why he was making this statement, and told him since i want to say it again publicly, i respect him so much for speaking out. I think it had added importance that the member of the president s own party would be that explicit in standing up for what i think is a value that most americans have to share. What did he say . Well, he basically went through it and said, let me tell you, mr. President , this america is not about where you came from, it is an idea. It is an ideal. People come here, aspiring to be part of americas future. And he said my family was from one of those shole countries. He used the word himself. He said they came here with limited training, limited experience, they made a life, started a business, and they gave me a chance. Thats what america is all about. It was really an extraordinary moment and i was so heartened that a president , among the president s own political party, would be that explicit in his face, right there, at that moment. You and i have talked about. I know the memory of when the irish and Irish Catholics were considered lesser, that that is something that you feel in your bones when you think about modern immigrants. I do. Ill add, my mother is an immigrant. She passed away now when i was first elected to the senate. She was brought to the United States from lithuania at the age of 2. I dont know if she would have fit the president s european category because she was a white girl, being brought to the United States, but for goodness sakes, i mean, we came here with nothing, our family had nothing. My grandmother didnt speak eng li lirb. And they came to the country and struggled to make a life. Here i sit today, the son of an immigrant, in those circumstances, as senator from the state of illinois, thats my story, thats my familys story, thats americas story. So president had a lot to say in response. He said he didnt make the comment. He isnt a racist. I wonder based on what the president said in that oval office, and based on other things he has said, about judge not being able to do his job because of his heritage, he called him a mexican and pointed out hes from indiana, about the he called him a mexican, based on the assertion there are fine people on both sides of the riots in charlottesville, do you think the president is a racist . I wont say that. Ill tell you the comments he made when i was in the white house i thought were vile, hatefilled, and they were racial in tone. No question about it. You cant talk about shole countries in africa and why dont we get more norwegians and europeans in the United States without the inescapable conclusion that the president is raising race as an issue for immigration. That was jake tappers exclusive interview with democratic senator dick durbin. We have a lot to discuss. Well get in a quick break. Stay with us. Well be right back. Julie is living with Metastatic Breast Cancer which is Breast Cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. Shes also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive her2 Metastatic Breast Cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. Ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. Patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. Before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. Common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. Julie calls it her new normal. Because a lot has changed, but a lot hasnt. Ibrance, the 1 prescribed fdaapproved oral Combination Treatment for hr her2 mbc. And welcome back. We just heard jake tappers exclusive interview with democratic senator dick durbin. They discussed that infamous Oval Office Meeting where President Trump referred to african countries in vulgar terms and said he wanted more immigrants from norway. Senator durbin also aapplauded his republican senator Lindsey Graham for speaking out at that meeting and joining me now to discuss, were back with chris cilizza. He made the point, he also made in the hearing, with secretary niels nielsen, that Lindsey Graham repeated the eventual girt, whi vulgarity, which makes it somewhat implausible that she wouldnt have heard it. I think thats the new piece of information we learned today about what how did this unfold, what really took place in that room. I think what we learned today and why perhaps different people heard Different Things is because it wasnt just the president using the word, using the vulgarity. It was also Lindsey Graham. As you heard dick durbin tell jake tapper, Lindsey Graham was close to the president and got right back at him and repeated the vulgarity. So now what Lindsey Graham heard and repeated might be different than what other people heard initially come out of the president s mouth. Maybe that was the confusion. Again, i think all of that belies the point in graham was trying to make to the press. It doesnt matter whether he said shouse or shole, as senator durbin said. As they said when the republicans were trying to split hairs on that. Also about senator nielsens take on the words that were used that we heard senator durbin pretty incredibly describe with backup from senator graham. She seems to really emphasize what the president was saying about norway. Oh, their Prime Minister had relayed to the president that they are hardworking, that they have low crime. She is purposely deemphasizing the point of this, which dick got to in that interview, which was the idea of african countries being discussed and aspiring to what should be coming into the u. S. Shes serving as the public translator in a sense. When she explained how the meeting actually came together, i was reminded of a republican aide shortly after the remarks came out, i guarantee you this had more to do with the fact he just met with the norway leader yesterday and it was top of mind than anything else, and it just came out appearing to be very racist or something democrats seized on and called very racist. I think what that kind of undersells here is the reality right now on capitol hill and reality in general. Thats how democrats are viewing this, based on history. Thats how a lot of people are are viewing those remarks. Based on whats going on on capitol hill right now, based on what you heard from senator durbin about the policy issues. Where there was limited trust to begin with, there is no trust now in terms of a path forward. Im not certain one exists at this point. Yeah. I defer to phil and im with phil on that. Im very skeptical. Lets say they kick it another month. The same well poisoning still exists. This doesnt just go away. It was semipainful awkward to watch the department of Homeland Security head Kirstjen Nielsen try to talk her way around that under questioning from senator durbin. I understand why shes doing it, but its just it strikes me the selective memory issue and politicians of both stripes exert this. But it feels to me like you would remember that. Convenient memory is what it seems to me. I actually think one of the reasons that there might be a little bit of confusion, just to add to davids theory here, is if the president said Something Like that, i think there would be a little like a little taken aback moment. The part where she said that rough language was being used all around and senator durbin said basically, did you hear me curse . And she said no. She was able to definitively say that durbin did not and that graham did, to which durbin pointed out that he was recounting what the president had said. Her recollections actually sounded pretty specific. Well, i just having been in some meetings, certainly not at this level, but in meetings where there were harsh words exchanged. Maybe not these words but i remember meetings like that that happened ten years ago and it was nowhere near this level of stakes of players involved. Not meetings here at cnn. No, this was decades ago. The always contentious washington post. I would say strange credulity that you would not recall it. Thats human nature to me. It seems unlikely that would be the case. I think one of the bigger issues here, david, might be that there is clearly a pressure that has been made so clear from this president , whether its secretary nielsen or senators who want to ally themselves with him, whether its the attorney general, that they have to kowtow to what he wants to hear. This goes to what you were saying about how she proved her recollection of certain things or what was said between durbin and graham seems Crystal Clear. Where her recollection seems so broad and not Crystal Clear is she uses the euphimism of tough language. Thats exactly what the president put in his tweet that he used tough language, tough words, rough language. Shes just repeating the president s words here because of exactly what youre saying, which is that she understands she needs to remain firmly with no daylight between her and her boss, the president. What do you think . Its strategic. Its strategic in the sense that people have watched for 12 months in this administration what works and what doesnt work when youre trying to push a specific policy goal. Whether its rand paul on health associations, whether its senator graham on his Health Care Bill the president ended up getting behind. When people stick close to the president , do not attack the president , compliment the president , often their issues become top of mind and might actually move to the front of his agenda. I think thats the case with senators. You see it on capitol hill where republicans in both chambers have made the calculated decision that it makes more sense to me, even though privately its offputting that something was said or done to be able to move something forward. Its especially the case when youre a cabinet member in the administration. Well have to leave it there. I appreciate it. Tune in to wolf at 1 00 for the second part of jake tappers exclusive interview with senator dick durbin. Inside politics begins in a minute. We know life can be hectic. Thats why, at xfinity, weve been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. Now, with instant text and email updates, youll always be up to date. You can easily add premium channels, so you dont miss your favorite show. And with just a single word, find all the answers youre looking for because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. Download the xfinity my account app or go online today. I have to tell you something. Dad, one second i was driving and then the next. They just didnt stop and then. Im really sorry. I wrecked the subaru. I wrecked it. Youre ok. Thats all that matters. vo a lifetime commitment to getting them home safely. Love. Its what makes a subaru, a subaru. Welcome to inside politics. Im john king. Thank you for sharing your day with us. Another day in court for pru President Trumps Campaign Chairman and steve bannon, too, in his case on capitol hill. The dow cracks 26,000 for the first time as investors shrug off washingtons discord and dysfunction. And 84 hours and counting. The government runs out of money at midnight friday, and the de