tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN February 11, 2019 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
chris with cuomo primetime. >> it's all about what that phrase means. we're going to get after it right now. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time". on our watch, you have left and right clashing over the border in texas literally. you have the president on one side in el paso lying about a wall as a remedy for that city. i'll prove that it's not and on the other side, beto orourke saying it's not the same thing. you heard the breaking news. there may be a deal. we have to know the details. it's just the senate. what about the house. it's a big deal. so we'll take it up with the loan mexican-american so far to take on the president in 2020, and also the muslim congresswoman that set off a storm against israel and u.s. politics. she says she's sorry.
with her party accept it? on the other side of that issue, why are house republicans giving the president a pass for his silence on the bigotry of steve king? if it matters. it should all matter. that's our great didn't -- debate. what do you say? it's monday. let's get after it. >> four days to go before the government shutdown. if it actually happens. it shouldn't. it shouldn't be an option but we saw what happened last time. longest in history. but an announcement minutes ago from capitol hill, all four lead negotiators emerged from talks to report they reached an agreement in principle to avoid a second shutdown. no details. pushed about whether or not that means some sort of barrier and funding therefore and the resolution to the detention bed issue, senator richard shelby, republican said, we got an agreement on all of it. and the staff will now work on drafting it into actual legislation.
we have our man up there on capitol hill. help me understand. what does it mean? agreement on of all it. what are your sources telling you. >> the chances of averting a shutdown have significantly increased. it's very unlikely at the moment there will be a shutdown because we expect the congressional leadership to get behind this emerging deal that these four top negotiators have been discussing behind closed doors. you recall yesterday they said they're not talking anymore. they said this was stalled over democratic demands from friday night calling for a limit on the number of detention beds for individuals caught under i.c.e. custody, undocumented immigrants as well as the discussions over how much money to give for new barriers and funding for border security. that had been a sticking point all along. democrats and republicans had stopped talking but today there's been significant
movement. now they say they have a deal in principle and richard shelby said that mitch mcconnell, the majority leader tasked him to get a deal. speaker pelosi also suggesting she could get behind this. but chris, the big question, will the president get behind this? we don't know that answer quite yet. >> well, you have to hope that the negotiators have been in contact with the white house and they're on the same page. ordinarily that would be a foregone conclusion, but not in this reality we're living right now. thank you for the information. appreciate you waiting for my show. appreciate it. so this is big news. let's be hopeful about it. we have to assume that the negotiators on the right know that the president is going to be okay with whatever they're trying to sell and if not, would they even think about trying to go over his veto? it's probably hyperambitious for that party in it's state of playwright now.
this will be a big issue for the president going into 2020. he's in el paso trying to sell this. one of the men that wants to take him on says don't buy what he's saying. it's b.s. he says it's all about creating a circus of fear and paranoia. so tough talk. democratic presidential hopeful. julian castro, welcome to primetime. good to see you. >> good to be with you chris. >> when you have trouble, you put up barriers and keep the trouble out. el paso is proof of this. it was in a hole with immigration and crime. now it's better. what was the difference, the wall they built. the ballard fencing. your response. >> well, let's put this in a little bit of context. the president said there's somehow this crisis at the border, that's a lie. that couldn't be further from the truth. a couple of weeks ago his own national security officers produced a report on the threats
to our country and hardly even mentioned any kind of threat from our southern border. made it clear that we have much more substantial threats. the fact is that this president has drummed up a fake crisis and that if there is any crisis, it's a humanitarian crisis that he has helped to create. so he's out there tonight and he is creating a circus but my hope is that folks will remember what the facts are. the fact is that el paso, the city he's in tonight has been a safe city. one of the safest cities for a community of its size for a long time, both before and after there was a partial wall constructed. so the point that a wall made him safer, that's not true. the year after the wall was put up. crime numbers went up. about 17%. we also know that apprehensions are at the lowest levels since the early 1970s.
so he's trying to sell us that up is down and left is right and black is white. it's not true and i hope that people will look past the lies and at the facts. >> are you okay with the democrats making a deal, this breaking news that we're getting just as the show was starting that includes funding for physical barriers, ballard fencing, whatever you want to call it, but things put in place to keep people out? >> well, i haven't seen what the details are yet. this is breaking news. it hasn't been reported out. i'm hopeful because we do need to get on serious issues that need our attention in this country. not the manufactured crisis that the president has focused on. i wouldn't say that i'm categorically opposed to any kind of structure. we already have 654 miles out of 1994 miles of the border that are somehow fenced, with fence
or with slats. but i do believe that the vast majority of areas that need any kind of structure already have that. and that his call for a concrete wall or anything that resembles that should never happen. both because it's a waste of money, it will be ineffective and because the minute we do that, we're going to fundamentally change the notion of what america is from the statue of liberty that welcomes immigrants to a country that literally walls itself off from the rest of the world. that's not who we are as americans. >> do you think there's a trick on it to the left. in the democrat parkt. -- democratic party. i hear you. what you're saying. but if you are put into a box, let's say you get the nomination for your party and you run against trump and he says castro didn't want any barriers and pelosi was saying not $1 for the wall.
people are echoing her. is there a little bit of a trap in that, that maybe you don't want to put the kind of money into it that he wants. maybe you don't want the kind of structure and send the kind of message, but that you don't want to be seen as soft either. >> no, i don't think we'll be seen as soft. democrats made it clear that we're willing to address the real issue here. a couple of weeks ago there were 254 pounds of fentanyl that came through one of the ports of entry. in arizona. the biggest bust. that didn't come through the middle of the desert. there's not a single thing that a wall would have done to stop that. if we're talking about drug trafficking or human trafficking, that's coming largely through our ports of entry where these trucks and cars come through all the time. millions every year. so if we want to be serious about addressing those issues, then we need to address in more technology and personnel at our ports of entry. democrats are willing to do that. so i'm not worried about looking weak or like we're not trying to address the issue, we are. we're just trying to do it the smart way and not the dumb way.
>> so right now, you have a blessing, let's call it a plus-minus coming into this race. in a day and age where politicians are carrying tons of baggage all the time, you're not. at the same time, you have two out or three people say castro, maybe i heard the name but i don't know much about him. you're in the phase of teaching people who you are and what you're about. this field is going to be crowded. so that word unsure is certainly and surely going to apply to your party. why should castro stand out from all the others getting into the mix for the democrats? >> during the course of this campaign, folks will get to know who i am. i have a track record of executive experience. i was a mayor. that's all about getting things done. i was a cabinet secretary in the obama administration. i got things done. i have a compelling vision for this country's future to make sure that in this 21st century the kinds of opportunities that were around for me and so many others are there for our
children and grandchildren. that we become the smartest, the healthiest, the fairest and the most prosperous nation on earth. other than that, chris, it's my charming personality. i think they'll respond to that too. >> you know, people in the studio were looking when we put up the first pictures of you and they were like, you're a twin. your brother is a congressman. >> i am. >> he jumped right out. >> i have to make sure that he comports himself well. >> i know what that's like. we're not twins but i know what it's like to have another guy in your family that looks just like you and you have to own what they're about and vice versa. he jumped you on the colbert show and said i'll tell you that my brother is going to run. because you guys are obviously to close, not just about being twins but what you mean to each other in terms of family and politics, is he going to be a big part of your campaign for you or do you want to keep it separate? >> absolutely. my brother is my closest adviser. he has been ever since i first
ran at 26 years old for city council. he and i are very close. we talk all the time. also i'm very proud of him. he's in his fourth term in congress. he's the chair of the congressional hispanic caucus. on the intelligence committee. he's going to play a big role in my campaign and, you know, had he goes around telling people that the way to tell us apart is that i'm a minute uglier than he is, but don't believe that. next time you see him just let him know that he's the only one of us that has ever gotten a perm, not me. >> i don't know if i'm going to say that because i need him on the show. i got to get all the guests that i can. i wish you luck going forward. we will be covering this election like nobody else. this will always be a place to test your ideas before our audience. good luck. >> i look forward to that. >> thank you for being with us tonight. all right. so you heard something in that conversation that really can't be debatable anymore.
the facts about where a wall has made a difference versus not. they have been perverted to a point that they're almost unrecognizable feeling from fact. we have done the reporting here. physical barriers can make a difference. in places there are more needed so say the people in charge of keeping us safe, but no one says they are what the president says they are and the president made that point for us tonight by picking a place that does just the opposite. we laid out the facts. next.
if only the wall that the president imagines were as high as the mountain surrounding it. maybe then it would be the solution he craves. the president added another layer to that mountain with this mess about el paso, texas. listen to what he said. >> the border city of el paso, texas used to have extremely high rates of violent crime. one of the highest in the entire country and considered one of our nation's most dangerous cities. now, immediately upon it's building, with a powerful barrier in place, el paso is one of the safest cities in our country.
>> el paso is a safe place today. true. the rest of what you just heard from our president is not. it's not a feeling. it's a matter of fact. go back to the 80s. el paso never had one of the highest rates of violent crime. the numbers are the numbers. even in it's worst years, the early 90s it was below the national average for similar size cities and in the mid 90s there was more of a focus on policing and a border initiative. i'll tell you more about that in a moment. the point is that construction of ballard fencing, that's the reality of the wall, that's all there is is ballard fencing. anything else you hear doesn't exist. isn't going to exist. it didn't start until 2008. violent crime actually went up slightly at that time. i'm not saying the wall caused crime, but i'm saying we do know the wall did not decrease it. fact. trump can get those numbers the same way we did. the president can check with his
own fbi. now we hear people saying oh, well, we know where he got his information. >> remarks that the president made in the state of the union were stated originally, almost verbatim by our owner general some weeks ago and that's where the erroneous comments came from that were not correct. >> even if that's true, you realize that doesn't make it okay, right? that the president of the united states, if he decides to own information that he could check and people must be telling him that it's not accurate. it's a lie. because it's an intentional deception of and abuse of truth. the reality is el paso is an example of the real and evolving challenges that border town face. it's not about a flood of killers and gangsters, the brown menace, as i call what the president is panderring. in fact, the number of arrests has dropped almost 80% since 2001. but there's a but. the situation has changed.
i'm talking about the spike in families and children showing up. el paso's history could make the case that we need different strategies in the border. in the 90s they saw a big drop. especially in 1994. that's because they started a new initiative. i want it to make sense in the sequence of this fact check. they had an operation then called hold the line. the idea was to put border patrol agents and vehicles 50 yards apart across the border and that gave them more coverage. later they backed that up with technological advances to give more coverage. more than a decade later 78 miles of fencing was built across the sector in the parts they had the most trouble with coverage. it shows how barriers along with things like technology and manpower can work together. the wall alone has never been a panacea.
only the president seems to believe that and the city is an example of the reality on the border. it is complex like it is in many border cities. it's not a lawless hell hole that the president describes. it shows how we need a real, thought out, detailed plan for the border. and how we're not a wall away from fixing the problem. we're going to hear from a local leader in el paso in a few minutes. they'll tell you what the reality is on the ground and what they need. but before that, i want to deal with the muslim congresswoman in minnesota. she gave an unequivocal apology. is that enough to settle her anti-semitism storm? that's the starting point for the great debate. there's a lot of hypocrisy with is that also. we'll get after it, next. starkist saves the day. sweet and spicy tuna in a pouch!
smart choice, charlie. (charlie) no drain, no pain. just tear, eat... and go! try all of my tuna, salmon and chicken pouches. before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, marie could only imagine enjoying freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin for all-day, all-night protection. by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear.
lobsterfest is on at red lobster. with the most lobster dishes of the year, what'll you choose? how 'bout lobster lover's dream? more like a lobster dream come true. a butter-poached maine tail, roasted rock tail and creamy lobster linguine. or try new lobster in paradise. it's a crispy coconutty, vacation on a plate. new ultimate lobsterfest surf & turf is here, too. 'cause what's better than steak and lobster? steak and lots of lobster. so hurry in and see how you're going to lobsterfest.
my name is tanya, i work at the network operations center for comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. all right. what they're working on and supposedly have agreed to regarding another government shutdown by figuring out what to do about immigration and this continuing resolution. here's some of the numbers. 1.675 billion for physical barriers. all right. now you're going to see the word ballad fencing. i have been using it with you for a long time because it's the only thing that exists. forget wall. the president used wall because he didn't know what he was talking about. ab kpa -- about what existed on the border. that's what they use. that's what they like. that's what they say they need and in terms of the biggest barrier. that number matters for two reasons. one, it's a lot more than $1. so nancy pelosi saying not $1
for the wall, the democrats are going to have to articulate what this change means and how they sell it to their base. the second reason it matters is this number doesn't come out of nowhere. in the last budget, the president or whoever figured out the budget for the white house had a number for physical barriers that wasn't that much different than this. so that's what it's going to be seen as a gauge off of. one of the ironies here is the democrats already offered him that amount of money and he walked away from that deal. here's another one we'll have to discuss. the number of overall i.c.e. beds is down. now you would think, wait a minute, isn't this about increasing capacity. this is going to be a political point of discussion and controversy. the left is saying, the democrats are saying we want less beds because we want ice to be able to hold fewer people. at the same time, we need more to hold people because that's our reality is families with parents and children. there's going to be more details
coming out and things may change. i want to give you the latest information. now let's debate. we have the great debate. anna navaro. and mike shields. nancy pelosi said not $1 for the wall. now they're saying 1.375. for physical barriers. trying to reduce the number of beds that ice has to hold people. is this a good deal for the democrats? >> i think it has been a overall good deal for the democrats because nancy pelosi did not budge at all in the first shutdown. also because the shutdown was very costly politically for trump and for republicans and because she has forced trump to budge, but listen, i think honestly, more than asking ourselves whether it's a good deal for republicans or a good deal for democrats, whether it's a good deal for trump or not, the question is, is it a good deal for the country? and i think that's how we have to frame it. because if we turn it into a
game of political chicken, then nobody wants to give an inch and what we cannot have, again, is 800,000 federal workers having to have garage sales and make long lengthy lines at soup kitchens. we cannot have that again, play with people's emotion and distress that way. >> so mike, do you believe that the negotiators on the right are doing so in coordination with the white house so that when they say, yeah, we got a deal at 1.375, we got a deal at this number, that that's something that they know the president will accept? >> i think they do. i honestly don't know why they would stick their neck out and say they have something they can work on if they didn't have at least some kind of back channel to the white house to understand that the president is going to be able to claim that he succeeded in getting more money for a physical barrier on the border which is what his goal has been the whole time. you have to believe that they're communicating with the white house. otherwise they have made a huge mistake, if they haven't been. >> i also think it plays well
for both sides, by the way. because the democrats, tell me if i'm wrong, you're never bashful about that, that's for sure, but i don't think the democrats wanted to be in a position with the president or any republican could say you guys are soft. you wouldn't give us any money for physical barriers and it was just a political standoff for you and you know that they're not of no value. you know that they're of no value but you wouldn't give us any of them just as a point of pride and i think that was a vulnerability that goes away if they put money into it. >> i made this -- >> let me get ana's take -- >> that's okay. go ahead ana. >> it doesn't make substantive sense. both republicans and democrats were in agreement of some sort of physical barrier and doing whatever they had to do in terms of border security. whether it meant more technical surveillance. whether it meant more bodies on the ground to have better border security. both republicans and democrats were willing to fund efforts and fund technology to have better
surveillance of drug entries into the country. so it's really been about the details. now the question i have, when you ask mike a question about the back channel to the white house and do they have the white house stamp of approval. the real question is will trump stick to whatever he may have negotiated? what we have seen from trump on this issue and other issues is that he agrees to something one day and then gets push back from right wing agitators and takes it all back and changes his mind. so i hope they stick to it because there's way too many people whose lives are on the line. >> i don't know how the numbers look but in all of the presentations in the past, even with the superinflated number of $5 plus billion, the physical barriers were still always the biggest price tag. you can argue all day long whether or not that's the right way to prioritize but if the
president is able to say, look, the numbers are lower but i got more money for physical barriers than we got for anything else on the border, it's better than you had before. does that sell to the rightest regions? >> i think a couple of things. i made this point before. i used to work for newt gingrich. we had a shutdown in '95 which was the previous sort of big shutdown that people talk about. at the time everybody would say we lost the battle. we lost the political battle at that time with but we reelected a republican congress and in the end bill clinton had to sign the budget the republicans put forth. so we won the fight with the american people over the long haul. what the president discovered when we reopened government is that the base was still with him. he was able to prove to him that it was the democrats fighting him and he can get something to say i'm continuing down this path but at the same time he's really positioned democrats as being weak on the border and him being strong on the border. so i think he's realized he's in a better position than he was before. >> there's positioning for both.
i still think it's a vulnerability to say you're a wall away. not that you're saying it. but that's the president's argument. the more people learn about the facts you'll see there's a lot of other things you could do that would change the flow. change the flow of drugs and people that a wall cannot do. >> but chris can i just say this, by talking about a wall, we're now talking about all of those things. >> we could have talked about it without this. >> but when you negotiate, you push, you stretch it out as far as you can go to see what you can get. >> that was not his intention. his intention is all wall, mike, and you know it. >> but that's what you do when you want to force the issue. now you have democrats saying we're also for border security. so he moved the entire debate over where they have to say that and we're positioning them as not strong on it because they have a weaker position. >> we see their side playing here as well and that's about the beds. there's a big part of the democratic party that says we have to reduce the amount of enforcement. it's brutal.
we're not dealing with these people the right way. and beds are a metaphor for them. >> the overall number of illegal immigration has gone down. if you're following that logic, it would make sense to have less beds. now you bring up the point that it's now much more families than it was in the past. so that's a different position. you also had the problem of children dying in dhs custody and what that has meant and the message that has sent to the country and why it's become so symbolic. this idea of not funding the beds. they have to come to some sort of middle. donald trump has a lot of wiggle room with his base. if there's one thing he has, its maneuverability. he went out there and shot somebody on 5th avenue he would
still stick with him, he was right. if he doesn't give them a big beautiful cement wall, they will still stick with him. if mexico doesn't pay for it. if the u.s. taxpayers pay for it, they will still stick with him. he has wiggle room that very few politicians have had. so for the love of god, make a deal and don't keep federal workers hostage. >> let me ask you something else about the wiggle room, mike. changing topic but it's very important. i don't want to ignore it. so congresswoman up in minnesota, she says something that's not a trope. as if there was a slight of hand. it was the perception of anti-semitism. that's what she was forwarding by saying people back them because they get paid to. we all get the dots that are connected there. so now she apologized and kevin mccarthy came out and said this is just as bad as steve king. they better do something otherwise i'll do it because it matters that much. this bothers me. one i don't like comparing ugliness. i don't think it's a good thing
to do. you should just call it all out. but he didn't do that. the republicans didn't do that. they came to the steve king game late. the president of the united states never said a thing and mccarthy sat silent. doesn't he need to go back to that and say hey, look, the president never said anything about steve king, that was a mistake. >> well, in full disclosure i do work for kevin mccarthy and he became leader, the steve king thing came up and he took action and stripped him of his committees and that was stripping him of his committees for something that he said that was terrible and should have never been said. >> many things, over many years that you guys ignored. >> okay. so both parties can say that for many, many years. kevin has been leader since november. this thing came up. as a leader himself, he took decisive action. >> yes. >> and yet nancy pelosi is letting this woman stay on the foreign affairs committee which has jurisdiction over the very things that we're talking about.
we can go back through history and look at democrats in the 60s fighting against civil rights. we can go back forever on that. >> but if he cares about it why did he let the leader of your party, the president of the united states say nothing. if he wants to be brave, then he should be brave with the big dogs and not just the small dogs. >> i can tell you, as the leader of the republicans in the house, for him to strip a member of his committee assignments is a brave thing to do. it is something that he risked being criticized for. >> the man is trying to convince people that we should only have white babies and that you can't mix and keep our society. this wasn't a stretch. the stretch was to wait this long. >> here is a column that has written a column on a website that praised hitler. this isn't a stretch either. i'd like to know what she is apologizing for? her first tweet? second tweet? or column she wrote or her general anti-israel views that doesn't believe the state of israel should exist.
she should not be on the foreign affairs committee. >> we have to see what the democrats do. but criticizing israel and being anti-semitic doesn't always go hand in hand. you can criticize policy. what she did here was different. she made this tie between money and being for israel. which was certainly inaccurate and also had an ugliness to it. but what's the right move for democrats? should they give her the political death penalty of taking her off the committees? >> look, i think the democrats -- first of all, let me just tell you that i met her a few weeks ago. i thought that the picture that she posted when she first came to congress with her father through the airport was very touching. i have been very disturbed by her statements and her tweets on venezuela and by her statements and her tweets regarding israel. and i have told her so. i have told her they are disturbing. i have told her that her tweets
regarding venezuela where she, you know, is against the economic sanctions and claims the united states is starving venezuela are misinformed. i have urged her to speak with her colleagues that know the issues very well. people like bob menendez. those are all democrats from south florida who, you know, know the jewish issue. who know the israel issue, who know the venezuela issue. she has been in congress one month. >> right. >> she has made some mistakes. and look, she has a lot -- she has a big platform. she is one of the first two women, she is the first hijab wearing woman in history. in the u.s. congress. there is much more scrutiny. and more platform. what she says is more significant. she has to learn that or not. she has now had to apologize
twice on issues related to israel and i think she has learned that people will be watching and hearing very carefully what she does and what she says and, you know, i want her to be the first of many so i hope she learns these lessons. >> we'll see what the party does and how each side police themselves going forward. it has to be straight and consistent. mike, ana, thank you both. a potential breakdown that could avoid a shutdown. they do seem to be fairly confident. negotiators on both sides. will it pass congress? if it does, do we know that the president will sign it? we haven't seen that in the past. we have more on this, next.
cement. all of that stuff. mexico will pay for it. now he's already had half of that go bye bye and we can say, well, everybody knew it wasn't going to happen. half of it is still gone. so the price tag meant everything to him and that's why the democrats have become increasingly strident when it comes to giving him money for the wall. they always funded physical barriers. why the reluctance now? how much it means to him. you can say more politics. this is why i hate the process. fine but that's where the thinking is. that's why the thinking is what it is. so these numbers, we now have new reporting and better context. caitlyn collins at the rally with the president. and on capital hill. so let's set the table. with caitlyn, and hear what the president has been saying about a wall at the rally. no mention of a potential deal. any kind of change. what's his sell? >> well, right now the president has not referenced this new deal
yet. this agreement that these principles have come to and the white house is not signaling whether or not president trump would support this. they're still digesting the deal and get some of the specifics themselves and find out what it would come to because hours ago they were being told the talks had stalled and were on the verge of collapse. so right now they're not ruling anything out. that he would accept the deal and declare a national or accept the deal and sign a national emergency. they're waiting to see what it is the president is going to say, but they're not saying right now that the president would agree to this. we're still waiting to see. >> you hear what those thousands of people were chanting. first it was usa and then it was build the wall. build the wall. he has made this into a monster. and now he is going to have to see how he delivers. caitlyn, thank you very much. let's put some meat on the bones of this. there was something that i was waiting to see which is wall where?
i think this may be a good little window for us, because the number, 1.375, we know it's a hair cutoff of what he asked for in the budget. it's a huge hair off of the $5 billion, but this new information that you have, the idea of some of this being in the rio grande, is that true? >> yeah, we're learning about 55 miles or so will be in the rio grande valley. the question is exactly where this $1.375 billion will be spent along the border. we do expect some of that to happen in the rio grande valley. one of the things that we're also learning is that there's apparently some prohibition in this agreement that the money will not be spent on concrete walls. the president has walked back from calling for concrete walls which he has done in the past. saying well we can do a steel barrier instead. existing technologies to be used
to build the wall and chris, and the big sticking point is how to deal with the undocumented immigrants. immigrants were in i.c.e. custody, the detention beds. democrats wanted to limit that to maybe 35,000 or so. we're hearing that there's going to be no cap on the number of beds, but expected to be in line with current funding levels, about 40,000 or so. that's the give that the democrats have done but they have not given enough in terms of the border wall so what will he do? will he accept this agreement? and republicans are hopeful that he will but of course as caitlyn says, no signs that he will. >> ordinary l as i said, it needs to be repeated, that would be a foregone conclusion. if the president's party were negotiating, you would assume this president is okay with it. you can't have that guarantee here. but two pieces of insight. that cap on the beds and the number of beds, that's an interior democratic issue.
they have people within their party that believes i.c.e.'s enforcement has to be reduced. but there's a slip side because dhs and cdp will say they need more beds if you want to do it humanely. that will be an interesting issue. but those 55 miles coming on the rio grande are a good sign. i know people on the president's side prioritized the rio grande area because they don't believe we have the imminent domain issues and that's a high priority zone for cdp and dhs. they wanted it there most of all. hopefully that's a sign that the president's side is getting something that it wants so we can get a deal before friday. we want this valentine's day to be about love and not more shutdowns. thank you for the new information. >> thanks, chris. >> busy night. breaking news. hopefully this takes us to a better place but it doesn't have all to be heavy. i have something sure to
lighten your mood. a picture that is truly everything. next. heyi'm craving somethingkin! we're missing. the ceramides in cerave. they help restore my natural barrier, so i can lock in moisture... and keep us protected. we've got to have each other's backs... and fronts. cerave. what your skin craves. uh, well, this will be the kitchen. and we'd like to put a fire pit out there, and a dock with a boat, maybe.
why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot. but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪ chicken! that's right, chicken?! candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken! -jamie, this is your house? -i know, it's not much, but it's home. right, kids? -kids? -papa, papa! -[ laughs ] -you didn't tell me your friends were coming. -oh, yeah. -this one is tiny like a child. -yeah, she is. oh, but seriously, it's good to be surrounded by what matters most -- a home and auto bundle from progressive. -oh, sweetie, please, play for us.
-oh, no, i couldn't. -please. -okay. [ singing in spanish ] all right. i'm not a big fan of awards shows, but the grammys had a lot going on last night, not the least of which was, boom, this. did you see this picture? >> oh, my god. >> of d. lemon. this picture was everything. i wanted to talk about diana ross and alicia keys, but that picture -- tell me, my brother,
what possessed you to go the full blacula? >> i knew you were going to talk about me, and i knew -- you remember blacula, blaxploitation from the '70s? i had been wanting an opera cloak forever because i think they're so cool. and i actually saw one. suit supply had one. i got it, and i had nothing to wear it to. then i said if i'm going to -- i went to clive davis' pre-grammy party. if i'm going to go to that party, the grammys is the only time i can wear that. i busted that sucker out, and everybody loved it. i was getting called blacula and -- >> nobody loved it more than i did, d. lemon. >> people on social media were saying, i can't wait for the handoff on monday. chris is going to rip you a new one. >> no, not at all. all love. >> did you like it? come on, honestly. >> of course i like it.
what's not to like? >> it's really, chris. it's beautiful. i got to see it. and it's velvet. it's got the cutouts for the arms. and i said, if i'm going to do it, i'm going to do it. i had on the white dinner jacket. i went all out. i don't like -- i'm like you. i don't like awards shows. i don't actually like going. you've been there. you've got to go. there's seat fillers if you have to go to the bathroom. you got to hold it. >> yeah, you seemed like you were hating it. >> no. this wasn't the awards show. this was the parties, the pre-grammys. >> yeah, but i'm saying you made event. a man who wants to wear a cape like that wants to be at an awards show. >> opera cloak. opera cloak, chris. >> more like opera man. >> you want to borrow it? are you jelly? >> no, i'm good. i've got my own? >> did my team send you a picture? >> it's been all over the place. i can't get away from it. >> no. i had a picture of me because i thought we were going to talk about diana ross. >> no. i'm doing it in the closing. i'll hit you with it on the top of the show. >> don't hate on my cape -- on my cloak. >> not at all. it suits you to a tee. >> i'll let you borrow it.
we've got some folks from down on the border. we're going to discuss. >> right time to do it, count. i'll be right back with you. i was surprised last night watching the grammys. i mean after i got over my coughing fit watching don in that cape. but there was something that seemed so clear to me watching the grammys that didn't get as much love as i thought it should today, and that neglect is evidence of something that we need to fix and quick. so i have an argument for you about it next. it's a good one. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro.
you know the expression, don't be a pollyanna. it suggests someone is being unrealistically optimistic, so you want to avoid that. it makes you miss problems and get taken advantage of, and there's something to that semper vigilantum, the always be on the lookout. don't get soft. especially in journalism, especially covering politics. calling out wrongs, testing power, pointed criticism. that's what let's get after it and this show are all about. but just as i caution about going at every potus pop on
twitter, sometimes picking on things and at things that are more about political gotchas than stoking progress, it can be counterproductive by flooding the zone with negatives. so i believe in pollyanna and her belief in the positive. and in a time when we are in a culture struggle about respecting women and what equality means, for all the negatives in that pursuit, there's progress that warrants attention. you see the grammys? my argument in one event. diana ross, 75, on fire. she celebrated her birthday by sending a message to the world that we can all be better. we can all live dreams if we work together. owned the grammys. if she had competition in that regard, it was from other women. women cleaned up in a world where they were excluded for a long time and marginalized after that. but not last night. 31 awards. felt like more. cardi b, first woman to win rap album of the year. gaga won a bunch.
kacey musgraves won a bunch, album of the year. and tell you what. i think that since bob hope, no one has mastered fronting an awards show like alicia keys did. her performances, the two pianos. her sense of history, purpose, style, overwhelmingly organic coolness. forget about being a woman. i've never seen it done better, period. then you look at politics. the water seems poison there when it comes to sustaining positive signs of life in politics. but women are filling the glass with crystal-clear passion and purpose. more in congress than ever. more running for president than ever. five women now hoping to be the democratic nominee, more than in any presidential primary election ever. we as a country are only getting more diverse, not less. am i being pollyanna? i am. that's a good thing. she was a breakthrough for women as well. the book was written about a
female character and written by a woman, eleanor porter, back in 1913. a breakthrough that was a surprise hit. so be a pollyanna. we saw cause for optimism last night. we will see it in the days ahead in 2020 run. and the more we see it, the more comfortable a reality it becomes, engendering acceptance by society. and the more of a motivator for other women to follow suit. imagine what this country can be if its men and women are all fully activated. someday maybe women will get paid the same as men, and the idea of someone saying on tv that the idea of women being paid equally causes problems will be as asinine as it is antiquated. if sex, color, and creed can be replaced by savvy, competence, and character, we won't be merely great again. we will achieve the greatness that was imagined for us when
america first came to be. you know, that's back when all the great men wore capes. now we only have one, and his name is the don, don lemon. and i give you him now. >> thank you for that. i do have to say i was watching -- i couldn't have been prouder of alicia keys. i don't know if you knew that she was doing that to pay tribute to the late, great, hazel scott. >> yes. >> that was her thing. she invented that, playing two piano. >> and she laid it beautifully for the entire audience. >> i'm so glad she did that because i like to look at these things just because i'm weird, right, and i like to go on the internet and search things. but hazel scott was the first woman -- black woman to have her own television show. it was called the hazel scott show, and it was on the dumont network years ago. that was before my time, even before your time. but then she got -- she fought for civil rights, but then she got caught up with the whole, you know, red scare.