tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN February 12, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PST
spending for the department of homeland security. at this hour, we do not know if president trump will support this deal. sean hannity, one of the president's closest allies, calls it a garbage compromise. >> what he says clearly matters. >> remember, they helped push the president towards the shutdown in december. the money for the border fencing is a fraction of the $5.7 billion the president has demanded for this border wall. it was a fascinating scene last night, as the president argued for a wall in el paso, there was a dueling event with beta o'rourke who looked and sounded like a presidential candidate than to date. jeff mcintosh, and charlie dent, a former republican member of congress. let's start with the news here.
the news is they have reached a tentative agreement on a deal. it specifically says it can't be for a wall. 55 miles of new fencing might be something congress can agree on. >> right. good news they got a deal obviously because they had been working toward one. looked like they hit a couple snags. the big question is where is the president on this? is it enough? he's already being chirped by the right on this by sean hannity, and he has influence on the president and those in the republican caucus in the senate. that will be the question. do they ultimately put this on the floor or gage if the president will support it initially or not. he could support it. people i talked to said he may then move money around and make up the gap in what gets allocated towards the barrier. that's what we have to watch in the coming hours. >> charlie dent, you have lived
through this, i assume, working in the late evening hours holding your breath and waiting to see what the backlash is or what jim jordan tweets or what the president has to say or at the moment the freedom caucus don't like this compromise. you heard sean hannity. what do you predict will happen in the white house today. >> news flash, the freedo kaubs and sean hannity -- freedom caucus and sean hannity don't like this. the white house will likely pocket whatever gains they receive, the $1.75 billion. incompetent to think they would get a better deal in the new year than when the republicans controlled congress. that's absurd. he will pocket the gain. and try to move money, reprogram money. good luck with that because the reprogrammed money would require the signature of the chair of
the appropriations committee, nita lowey and debbie wasserman-schultz. i'm not going to say they reclaim the money. i think there's nothing shocking here. they're at 40,500 beds where we are currently at $1.735 billion and essentially, they're not really getting anything. no. the republicans in the senate offered them more last spring. 65 miles of barrier and more money in december. the president, for the art of the deal, is ending up with less than he wanted. i don't care we can dismiss sean hannity and ann coulder becaute they had veto power. >> i'm getting details, $1.3 billion, not even a wall, a
barrier. i will look at this tonight and we will get back into this tomorrow. any republican that supports this garbage compromise, you have to explain. look at this crowd, look at the country, look at cbs news, even they say 72% of american people want the heroin to stop, cartels to stop, gang members to stop. >> don't dismiss that because sean coulter and ann anti-talked the president out of a deal in december. nancy pelosi had said no new money. i don't know if she had a barrier wall, it's a barrier, something to keep the people out of the country. >> at this point, it sounds like this money they allocated in this deal is about the same the senate appropriations already allocated for something they called pedestrian fencing. at this point, donald trump needs to be able to say he has got something because he has walked away from increasingly bad deals for him. last night at the rally he actually stood up, as the crowd is chanting his iconic build the
wall, he says, what you really mean is finish the wall. he's pitifully saying he's getting what he wants. reallocating money for a chunk of pedestrian fencing where experts said it might be helpful and nowhere else, maybe it allows him a little bit of cover to call it a win. the most important thing is we don't shut down friday. >> it will be really interesting this morning. will the president stand up to the freedom caucus, was he so burned or at least affected by the government shutdown that that was a teachable moment and he will try something different. as we know, our history with the president, sometimes the last person in his ear is who he goes with. >> look, i think they're both making important points. we should remember the president did get spooked by the shutdown
and ultimately took a lot of heat from some of the same people we're talking about on the right for caving in. he was spooked for good reason, probably doesn't want to do it again. using a rational calculus that doesn't always hold up. he has to be able to do two things, declare some victory, this evolution of great beautiful wall between mexico and the united states is becoming is funny except it's such a serious issue. he can dumb down his explanation of what is victory but he has to be able to take on his base in some way to say, no, this is the right way to keep things moving forward. democrats are in a similar position, have control of the house, don't want to be seen as giving in and don't want to be seen as a capitulation to him. both sides are trying to thread the needle. >> in december, the president
talked the house into a compromise at that point. if he does this, do you think he has the juice to keep the republicans in the senate in this deal if he decides over the next 35 minutes he doesn't like it. >> at the end of the day, republicans will vote for this deal. the president does get something here. secure fence act authorized 700 miles of barriers, they have 650 built. they will be able to complete the secure fence act. there is something they can hang their hat on. it was government legislative malpractice to shut the government down over this. not much will occur here. bottom line, senate republicans will vote for this. >> we had congresswoman nita on earlier, and asked about if this was in good faith. when asked if this is what the
president is talking about, he could raid the federal pot. if he isn't satisfied with 1.3 dollars, he can take it from a fund for hurricane victims. >> disaster refund. >> yes. disaster refund. she said she thought there would be bipartisan pushback. >> i think there is bipartisan pushback to a number of trump's runs to keep the government open. when the government shuts down, it's because both sides can't agree fund it. this is not what is happening. both sides agree to fund it. donald trump is simply demanding billions of dollars for something they say won't be helpful. he could do a lot of other executive branch gymnastics to get around the fact what he wants is deeply unpopular.
there will be pushback on those as well. >> bottom line, we don't know what he will do. we keep looking at twitter to see what proclamation he makes will affect 800,000 workers. >> yesterday, we spoke about a statement that was anti-semitic and said there were people in the united states who did stuff because of money, jewish money. she has since apologized for that. what do you make of the apology? >> i think she did the right thing, apologized unequivocally, and will listen to her colleagues. does she want to be a hater or responsible to congress. i hope there is not a backlash to this. i hope the backlash on social media, there they go again, the powerful lobby and those influenced by the powerful lobby
shut her down and free speech. that's the wrong argument. this is about getting educated. house leaders on the democratic side and on the republican side need to do just that. need to explain what kind of responsible discourse is about taking on israel or lobbyists in general. the congresswoman ought to read a great new book i'm reading about holocaust denial talking about anti-semitism here and now. that's how you get educated about this to have responsible dialogue about this without getting into anti-semitism. >> she's a terrific professor and writer. there is a way to talk about israel and be against policies israel discusses and takes on without saying it's all about jewish money. that's where the line is. >> charlie, in terms of the way congresswoman omar handed it, she pretty quickly succumbed to
the bipartisan pressure to apologize. she said she is in the process of becoming better educated, yet there are still republicans calling for a pound of flesh. they want her stripped from some of her committees. what do you think? >> i think democrats have a problem on their hard fringe left with some folks making anti-semitic comments. that was the case for representative omar. republicans have to deal with it, too, not anti-semitism but making statements like steve king did, that are racially incendiary. both parties have to contain this. for the moment, the apology should suffice. >> i think republicans have to deal with anti-semitism. you heard the president stand up and say the nazis are made up of
some very fine people and all the extremist murders in 2018 were right wing extremism. anti-semitism is on the rise in this country already costing lives. a lot of that is coming from the leader of the republican party and things he is condoning. i think republicans very much need to clean up their own house on this issue. i hope this prompts them to do. they have no room to talk about what congresswoman omar talks about without theirs. >> who gets stripped and punished loses something important, which is that social media and a lot of times on cable news is not the place to hash out these issues, unfortunately. it is about really understanding when it comes to racism, sexism, anti-muslim bigotry and anti-semitism, really getting educated, you talk about anti-zionism and how it overlaps
about anti-semitism. everybody ought to get education in order to talk about it and that's missing on twitter. >> appreciate it for this discussion on cable news where i think it is important to talk about it. >> all i'm saying, it gets super polarized super fast and not necessarily all sides. we are an island of great discussion here. >> a tropical island. i totally agree and i think cable is a great place to start but we will take your reading suggestion. thank you all very much. which 2020 democratic candidate best represents the electorate today and are they still going too far left? next.
(thunderclap) if your day doesn't unfold as predicted. unfold this. new neutrogena® makeup remover single. and remove 99% of makeup. 100% rain or shine. neutrogena®. cancer, epilepsy, mental health, hiv. patients with serious diseases are being targeted for cuts to their medicare drug coverage. new government restrictions would allow insurance companies to come between doctor and patient. and deny access to individualized therapies millions depend on. call the white house today. help stop cuts to part d drug coverage that put medicare patients at risk.
head-to-head in texas at the border. so, was beto o'rourke's rally a mile away from the president, the official start of a presidential run? well, we asked him. >> before the end of the month i'll make a decision. >> do you submit when he said, we'll see, he was nodding yes? >> i saw him nodding yes. the body language says yes to me. he said, we will see. >> amy klobuchar has already said yes. but she's taking on reports she has been too tough on her own staff. >> i know i can be too tough sometimes and push too hard, that's obvious. a lot of it is because i have high expectations for myself and i have high expectations for the people that work with me. >> where is every democratic
candidate along the ideological spectrum. something about harry. he joins us now. >> hi. how are you? >> you have ideological spectrum for us. >> we do. there was someone in our 9:00 a.m. meeting, we keep saying the democratic field is farther to the left. why are we saying that? i basically looked at the last three congresses senators or members of the house are involved in, from vetview.com, how far to the left are they? generally speaking people running in the past three cycles where disis most liberal and 100 is most moderate, they tended to con come ra con glomer rate in the 60 range. and now they are to the left of where those in the past have been. >> more left than hillary clinton and barack obama and
john kerry. >> look at the candidates farth tore the left tend to be the front runners. those further to the right, tuland those like elizabeth harris and cory booker are -- kamala harris and cory booker are well to the lowest of those in the 60s and these are to the left in the 30s and 40s. >> interesting to me how far to the left elizabeth warren is. >> that's right. elaborate warren's folks say we want a real liberal that will create an ideology call contrast with donald trump and elizabeth warren could make these numbers and amy klobuchar says, i'm more
moderate and can sell myself as the candidate and she is more moderate than al gore. >> this is based on how they voted? >> this is based on how they voted. this is one way of looking at it, right. how they speak their positions on the campaign trail may be different than so far. >> and some things may be hankie, kirsten gillibrand and cory booker. some people say she changes with the wind. there is some support of that. she's at 35, pretty far to the left. look where she was when she first came to the congress representing upstate new york. she was at an 81, even more moderate than amy klobuchar is. she has very much so run to the left excuse me over the last few congresses. if you look at the last one, she's even further left than this. her score is around 20. >> wow.
>> she is very much to the left, she has the most anti-trump record than any senator. she's truly trying to gear herself up for a democratic party moving to the left. >> that's an interesting distinction. cory booker. cory booker we view with suspension. we could look at ideological scores in different ways. one way to look at it based on the prior contributions they have received. this is through 2014. he was at 55. he was considerably more moderate than he was in the last three congresses. he was getting a lot of political contributions from people connected with wall street and why those on the left view him with suspicion. that shows up on the numbers. if you were to look at the last few congresses, not last three but last two, his score would be closer to 30, not 46. he is another candidate moving to the left.
>> even as his support comes from the middle or right in some cases with financial dollars. >> exactly. let's talk about where do we think the democratic parties are going and why moving to the left. this is research looking through the years how liberal the candidates have been saying -- how liberal the voters say they are. 30% said they were liberal in 2004. 44% said they were liberal in 2018. >> is this voters or democrats? >> democratic voters. >> how democratic voters identify themselves along the spectrum. >> that's exactly right. they say they're moving to the left. if you were to ask democrats who they want this time around, they say they want a more moderate party than liberal party because democratic voters are moving to the left. >> because of electability? >> they want someone to beat donald trump. i want to say something about westminster dog show, this is who has won the last few years,
i'm voting for the toy group. that one looks like something out of "star wars." isn't there an ewok that looks like this dog? >> i think there is. >> nothing upsets me more than the westminster dog show because a lab or retriever has never won. usually what you get are these which are cats that win. a dog has never won. >> my dog, cody, who represents me on twitter has never won either. i'm very very hurt. >> another word for lapdog, cat. >> cats are not me. i'm a dog person. >> thank you. be sure to watch a special cnn town hall tonight, poppy harlow will talk to former starbucks ceo, howard shultz considering an independent run. >> and the best dogs are not eligible. i had to cover it way too many
times. >> i can see there are residual issues. 20 years ago, the impeachment trial of president bill clinton is ended with an acquittal. two historic moments in history, i'm not sure they appeared together at the same time, mostly because they were on way different sides. in the time it takes to brew a cup... here's the story of green mountain coffee roasters costa rica paraíso. first, we go to san marcos, costa rica. and meet sergio. that's his daughter, maria. sergio's coffee tastes spectacular. because costa rica's land is spectacular. so we support farmers like sergio.
who use natural compost. made from coffee pulp. it helps keeps the soil healthy. and the coffee delicious. for the future of his community. that's sergio's neighbor, leo. sergio wants grandkids. which is making this very interesting. all for a smoother tasting cup. green mountain coffee roasters. packed with goodness. makeup now optional. new aveeno® maxglow™ infusion drops with kiwi to lock moisture. and soy to even skin tone. unleash dewy, glowing skin from within. new aveeno® maxglow™. wit looks like george having are busy day.? ♪ the beat goes on george has entresto, a heart failure medicine that helps his heart...
so he can keep on doing what he loves. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. it helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪ the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. that was great! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪ the beat goes on
where were you 20 years ago today? that was the day that bill clinton became the second president in u.s. history to be acquitted in an impeachment trial. we will now bring together two key figures that have never appeared together before on television, it will be obvious why. cnn political commentator, joe lockhart, what he said about that moment in history when he was the white house secretary 20 years ago today. >> i think the president expressed to you the responsibility he takes for his actions. we looked for a process that was fair, bipartisan, constitutional, and i think by
and large the process has been that. this needs to be and must be a time of reconciliation and renewal. we can be relieved it's over. >> that is joe 20 years ago, i think he looks better today. and the author of "contempt, a memoir of the clinton investigation. i say it again, these two men have never appeared together before in television. i'm glad i could make it happen. we just heard what joe lockhart was doing 20 years ago today. what were you doing 20 years ago today. your work was mostly done at this point. >> i was watching with interest. good morning, joe. nice to meet you across the way. we were actually focusing on another -- just winding up the investigation, working to make sure that we had done all that needed to be done. there were loose ends, et
cetera, other matters. so it was essentially moving towards the end. >> was acquittal a disappointment to you at that time, ken? >> not at all. my job -- i think we need to take a step back and look at the historical context, that is, the statute itself, which has gone away, an it's a very good thing. there were a lot of democrats who had reservations about the statute. the statute under which i was created had this tort impeachment and used the impeachment word. we're under a better structurally. impeachment is a terrible process for the country, bottom line. >> joe, when the president was acquitted, it was a big deal. you weren't particularly surprised when it happened. no one was. >> no. i think we had a very good sense where the votes were. if anything, we were surprised
how many republicans, particularly on the perjury charge, voted to acquit. i think there were 10 of them, five on the obstruction of justice. i think we had a real bittersweet sense there. there was relief it was over. there was some measure of vindication. there was no one in the white house that celebrated that day because we had all been through a year of political hell. the president that morning took responsibility for his part of it. i don't know that others did the same. but it wasn't -- you know, there were no champagne corks popping. there was a sense that now we can fully focus on the people's business and get back to why we were all in the white house in the first place. >> as we are in this moment in our history with the mueller investigation, what are the big differences you see about what
your white house went through and now? >> i think there's two main differences. one is how the president acted. president tru president clinton made the decision early on the way he would get through it not talking about the impeachment process mr. starr was working on and putting the people first focusing on their business. this president tweets about it five times a day. >> and ken starr, you think that is a big difference and bad one, too, correct? >> i do. let's face it. the president did attack the investigation regularly through surrogates. a more skillful set of attacks with terms like "witch hunt" and james carville and sidney bloom and all that. politically, it was a wise move on the part of president clinton to say i'm focused on the work of the people and rise above it. >> the second difference? >> the second difference is mr.
mueller has conducted his investigation very close to the vest. we don't know what he knows. there haven't been leaks. i, as the white house press secretary, everyday dealt with leaks coming out of this investigation. i know mr. starr has denied his office was responsible for it. i would recommend everyone listen to the slate podcast and you will find some of his prosecutors deeply uncomfortable with the amount of information coming out, how the investigation was prosecuted. in fact, by the time the report was issued, most of the information was already out in the press. it was my view at the time, mueller is trying to investigate to get to the bottom of this. it was my view and others at the time the investigation of the president was about trying to, through a series of strategic leaks, try to force him to resign.
i think that was wrong. it didn't work and i think it was wrong. >> this is where i have to disagree. joe is very able and i respect his opinion. i did have a different view than bob mueller. i did believe we need to provide public information. here's the line. most prosecutors would agree with what i'm about to say. you should provide public information. you should also try to guide the press away from that, which is absolutely wrong. we see bob mueller did that. you can't reveal confidential information, especially grand jury information. we were accused of that and we were vindicated. the report of the special master said, you did not do that. i think we need to draw a line between what a prosecutor reveals is appropriate. you can criticize a prosecutor, that's absolutely fine. but has the prosecutor crossed the line to cross the law and we were vindicated.
>> you admit we knew a lot more about your investigation at that time than we know about this mueller investigation? >> oh, i don't deny that at all, for reasons i just said. there are times when the press has it absolutely wrong. why did the press get it absolutely wrong if they check with you. joe knows this happens. in every prosecutor's office, we say, we will guide you away from that information or that approach to it. these are judgment calls. do you criticize the judgment? totally fair or say, hey, this was inappropriate or illegal. bob mueller has taken a very clamped down approach. i frankly applaud that approach, and i hope he can continue to do that. i think it is better. there is no question it is better to maintain as much confidentiality as possible. >> 20 years later, joe, i will
ask this to mr. starr as well. any regrets you have? >> i think the president had things he needed to take responsibility for and he regrets, very open about that. for our purposes, there's really nothing. remember, we were fighting everyday during the investigative part with all of these leaks, everyday, a new one. i will take judge starr at his word it wasn't him. i will refer you to the podcast where people work for him were more open about that and more open about being deeply uncomfortable about the tactics in the independent counsel's office. we did the best we could answering questions, guiding people where we could that things were wrong and not talking what we couldn't talk about and try to focus on the rest of governing. >> judge starr, regret?
>> my biggest regret is i didn't do to attorney general janet reno and say, look, there are all these allegations. if in fact there is something awry, send me off to pepperdine university. don't just leave us out there hanging. i hate to speak ill of attorney general reno. she had a very distinguished record. let me say this. it was part of the evil, structural evil of the independent counsel statute that left the independent counsel statute out there all alone opposed to bob mueller is being defended, and rightly so, by the justice department, huge structural difference. makes all the difference in the world in terms of a practical matter. >> we have a few seconds left. it's been 20 years and you haven't talked at all. anything you want to get off your chest? >> no. what i want to get off my chest, impeachment is hell for the country. there should be some other kind of resolution. i write in my book, a resolution
of censure would have been appropriate and garnered virtually unanimity. >>i >> joe? >> i think impeachment was hell and everyone has the responsibility to the then president of the united states. the one thing that has stuck with me, and i don't know how it's been addressed is, the pesident was a big boy, he can handle it. but the re-opening of the vince foster suicide case i think was unconscionable and i think those responsible for that owe that family an apology. >> quickly, judge starr, i want to give you time. >> there were so many things about this report, we were determined to prove this was a great tragedy but not a crime. there were all kinds of crazy allegations, murder and so forth. we wanted to put an end to it and we did put an end to the
conspiracy. i respectfully disagree with joe. >> i'm not surprised, even 20 years later. thank you for helping us make this moment of history. >> thanks. >> fascinating to watch that play out, john. the publisher of the "national enquirer" put out this glitzy magazine promoting saudi arabia. what happened after that magazine went to print? next. liberty mutual accident forgiveness means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
the "wall street journal" reports the publisher of the "national enquirer," the american media asked the enquirer if it should be an on for agent after they promoted a glossy article on the saudi crown prince. they are hinting at a saudi angle after accusing the fbi of blackmailing him. >> less than a year ago, jeff bezos and the saudi's crown prince appeared on good terms. mohammad salman promoting his agenda and jeff bezos. fast forward, the columnist khashoggi murdered by saudi agents. bezos is silent, "the post" is not. the editor steps up her
security. >> when we talked about extremists, i had to be worried about my own security. >> reporter: the smaller dotcom videos remain targets for a pro saudi social media take-down beginning early october. many calling for a boycott off amazon. this video posted seven weeks after khashoggi's killing, saying the owner of amazon and suke attacking saudi, and the newspaper being used to attack us on a daily basis. the question is, will we allow him to do that. a local pro-government journalist explains who bezos is. the owner of "washington post," jeff bezos, is leading the biggest media campaign against saudi, claims he is a spiceful racist person against our country and trying to
destabilize us, concluding boycotting amazon is the best solution to take. he is a spiteful -- bezos didn't react. then, last week, he took aim at ami over what he calls blackmail of lurid pictures of him with his girlfriend, lauren sanchez, sharing this insight on the heat that he takes. it's unavoidable certain powerful people who experience "washington post" news coverage will wrongly conclude that i'm their enemy. not clear if bezos is talking about his one time possible business partner, mbs, or today's foe, ami owner, david techer, w pecker, who outed his marriage ending affair or both of them. cnn, london. time for cnn business now. new york governor, andrew cuomo,
heads to washington to appeal for relief in the provision of the 2017 tax law that will hit high tax states like new york. >> tax season is here and so is the reckoning for high tax states. the reduction capped by a law at $10,000, strongly opposed by democrat and republican lawmakers alike from states like new york, new jersey, california, where it means a bigger tax bill for their constituents. governor cuomo says the law hurts blue states. >> what it does, it has created two different tax structures in this country. it has created a preferential tax structure in republican states. >> the architects of tax law cap the salt deductions to help pay for lower tax rates to pay for individuals and companies.
they say salt deductions unfairly subsidize those high tax states. the high taxes in new york. the real estate data shows a growing number of big earners are packing up and moving south to low tax states, buying property in miami to escape the salt taxes now. and last week, seemed open for a minute to revisit the salt deduction cap. governor cuomo will make his case. >> i bet he does. this week marks one year since the massacre in parkland, florida. now, an author, who sworn off covering any more mass shootings, is back with a book about that attack and what he saw during "new day"'s coverage that made him change his mind. when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales.
build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com. and got them alright, let's get going! track. and you want to make sure to aim it. i'm aiming it. ohhhhhhh! i ordered it for everyone. [laughing] (dad vo) we got the biggest subaru to help bring our family together. i'm just resting my eyes. (dad vo) even though we're generations apart. what a day. i just love those kids. (avo) presenting the all-new three-row subaru ascent. wave to grandma, everybody. (avo) love is now bigger than ever. it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during the ultimate sleep number event. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to hit the ground running.
to put on our website? i mean i would have but i'm a commercial vehicle so i don't have hands... or a camera...or a website. should we franchise? is the market ready for that? can we franchise? how do you do that? meg! oh meg! we should do that thing where you put the business cards in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. -meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding. -we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands. -you're not gonna make it, you're not gonna make it! ask her if we can do her next wedding too! -so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. -on second thought, don't...ask that.
this thursday will mark one year since a gunman murdered 17 people at stoneman douglas high school in parkland, florida. also one year since the survivors of the mass shooting began a movement to combat gun violence, organizing the march for our lives and the never again battle cry. joining us is dave cullen. his new book is "parkland, birth of a movement" and it is out today. great to have you in studio. >> thanks, alisyn. >> this book is not your first, sadly, about a school shooting. you wrote the definitive book on columbine. you were steeped in this horror after that for a decade. there are always school shootings and people would call you as an expert. you had almost sworn it off. then what happened to make you want to write "parkland"? >> i was the mass murder guy unfortunately after these horrors. it was the morning after.
i was on this set with crishris chris cuomo. i talked to him and said i think i'm done. i gave this depressed interview about this never changes, it's horrible, what's the point. on the elevator down i saw your interview with david hogg where he called out and said, you have failed us, what have you done? you have done nothing and you are letting your children die. i was shocked. first of all, i know and you know first day survivors and that's not how they act. >> never. >> they are not in that place yet. what is this? i went home, turned on the tv and saw one kid after another. i was like, wow, this is different. i started writing a piece for politico about is this time different and why is this different? >> i was so struck by that as well. we flew down. i was there at parkland before the sun came up.
we were there. david hogg rode up on his bike. i agreed there was something to striking and unusual because he was already in action mode. as you say, the first day after having survived a shooting. i had never heard it before. let's remind people of what david hogg told me the first early morning hours. >> people are going to keep saying, oh, this is just another shooting, it's never going to happen to me. what happens is when you don't take action things like this eventually will happen to you. that's not acceptable. that's why i call on people to stand up, talk to your congressman, talk to people. don't stop fighting. children will continue to die if we don't take a stand now. >> like you, i had never heard a call to action before that early from a survivor. so what did that motivate you to do in which way? >> so i had ptsd twice seven years apart. >> from covering columbine it
took an emotional toll on you. >> yeah. i was nearly in a mental hospital. then i had suicidal ideation problems after that. >> because it got so into your system. >> i spent so much time with the kids. i feel like it's plutonium never getting out of me, spending that time with them. it's horrible. columbine, i was there the first day and no one saw it coming. the first day, it was pandemonium, people hugging, sobbing. it was exactly what you expect. the morning after is what shocked me. none of that. there were blank stares. nobody was crying. there were thousands of kids and not a tear because they had gone to the vacant place. i worked with a lot of ptsd e experts. somewhere around a 10% of a population that's normal, near 100%, that never happens.
these kids, no one expected columbine. i never saw it at parkland. these kids expected it. the closest i saw was lauren hogg. her progression over the year -- i met her every three or four weeks. her progression over the year was kind of amazing. >> what happened? >> she got better each time i saw her. three months after, i talked to her and her mom and david what do you think about lauren. she'd say, i'm doing much better. then mom would say, she's still having nightmares. >> there is a lesson here that action does heal. somehow they fastened on that themselves or we could have never known that. listen to what the kids have done in a year. immediately they marched on their state capitol. they immediately swung into action mode. >> in a week. >> we were there covering it. they managed to get florida to change their gun laws. they raised the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to
21. they banned the sale of bump stocks. they gave law enforcement greater power to seize weapons and ammo from the mentally unfit which this shooter obviously was. it goes on and on what they were able to do. now from where you sit, i know i personally stopped saying the names of mass shooters a long time ago, many years ago. they want notoriety. >> you were one of the first. >> you recommended that. have things gotten better from where you sit after writing parkland? has the country turned a corner? >> so much. we are on the way out. i didn't plan it this way. i think and i hope when we look back on the school shooter era and the mass shooter era, columbine wasn't the first and parkland wasn't the last. those will be hopefully the book ends where columbine set it into overdrive and the perpetrators model themselves after. that was the opening. i think this will be the
beginning of the end. and the way out. we are trapped in this rat maze, where we didn't know what to do. the kids punched a hole in the maze and said, it's this way, follow us. by the way, it wasn't that hard. it's right here. think they are leading us out. >> from your lips to god's ears. the book is "parkland." it's a wonderful book. thank you very much for bringing it to us. >> thank you. >> dave cullen has helped us understand how to cover these events. such an important body of work. >> and the emotional toll it takes as he's been so honest about. we have breaking news on the budget negotiations in washington. let's get straight to it. good morning and welcome to your "new day." it is tuesday, february 12, 8:00 in the east. breaking overnight, a tentative deal to prevent a new government shutdown. a bipartisan group of lawmakers reached an agreement in principle. the huge looming issue this morning is will the president sign on? we don't know.
he hasn't said anything. he hasn't tweeted yet. some 800,000 federal workers who could go without pay again don't know. they want to know. these are the details of the tentative deal. $1.375 billion for 55 miles of new barrier in the rio grande valley. it's not a wall. it specifically can't be a wall but it can be fencing. there is funding for more than 41,000 detention beds and nearly $2 billion increase in spending for the department of homeland security. the money for a barrier is a fraction of the $5.7 billion the president demanded for his border wall. >> we do know how sean hannity feels about it. he often has the president's ear. he doesn't like the deal. he calls it a garbage compromise. members of the freedom caucus are slamming the deal. they pushed the president toward the shutdown in december. what will he do now when he hears them? this morning on "new day" we speak about the conservative opposition with