tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN February 15, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PST
is it an emergency? is this in any way constitutional? new day continues right now. the plan is now set for the president to declare a national emergency. >> it's hard to imagine a worst case or a national emergency than a problem that's been diminishing. >> what if somebody else thinks the climate change say national emergency, how far will they go? >> people in the justice department were having serious discussions about whether the president had to be removed. >> andy mccabe lied under oath, faces a criminal referral from the inspector general. >> they all pull together and they all want to take the president down. >> amazon is pulling out of long island city. huge blow to the governor and the mayor. >> you want to diversify your economy, we need amazon. >> we should not be giving away our infrastructure to a company that has not shown good faith. >> announcer: this is new day with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning and welcome to your new day. a history making day, a
precedent-setting day, and also according to some, a dangerous day. donald trump, mike pence, mitch mcconnell, scores above the republicans have all expressed horror at the notion of a president going around congress on immigration. but today, president trump is going around congress on immigration. the president expected to declare a national emergency to reallocate billions of dollars to fund his proposed border wall. the constitution gives congress the power to appropriate money, but congress is giving the president only a fraction of the funds he wants for a barrier and it's just a fence, not a wall, so the president is making an end run. democrats are already vowing to challenge the president's declaration. house speaker nancy pelosi is warning the president this move will set a dangerous precedent. >> and it is not only house speaker pelosi who doesn't like it. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell had been warning the white house against it. had said the action is
idealogically opposed by many republicans in his chamber and it faces a real chance of being blocked. but, in a surprising twist, "the washington post" says it was mcconnell who sold the president on the deal promising to support this declaration. plus, u.s. forces in the middle east publicly breaking with president trump over his decision to pull u.s. troops out of syria. join sing us now, mike rogers, susan glasser, a staff writerty new yorker and cnn global affairs analyst and jeffrey toobin, cnn chief legal analyst. jeffrey toobin, why is this a big deal what we are going to see in just a few hours, the president declaring a national emergency? why is this the type of thing that 2014 donald trump -- 2014 mike pence all sorts of republicans for the last 20 years have warned is dangerous? >> in 1952 at the height of the korean war there was a strike in the steel industry and the
president truman tried to get congress to give him the authority to seize the mills and keep them going. and congress said, no. he did it anyway. and in one of the most famous supreme court opinions of all time, in 1952 the steel seizure case, the supreme court said president truman, you can't do that. that unless the president acts with specific authorization under the constitution, a president cannot act in this way. this is one of the profound issues of how america is governed. congress has the power of the purse. the president executes and snaends money. here we have a situation with where congress said we are not spending money on this border barrier. the president's going to do it anyway and now we're going to see whether that is actually allowed to proceed. >> where'd you hear authoritarian, is that an appropriate word here? >> i don't deal in pep theepithe
that. it's a profound issue of american governance, who controls the purse? who decides how money should be spent? if there was a republican party instead of just a trump party, this would be an issue they would be interested in. but it is no longer a republican party and so they are going to fall in line. mitch mcconnell first in line and we'll see what the courts do. >> mike rogers, explain that. explain how republicans very recently used to go ballistic about what they perceived as executive overreach and how they could be on board with this today. >> i can't explain it candidly, and i was one of those that was not happy with the obama administration when he said i have a phone and a pen and i'll go around congress. i thought that was very unhealthy for the democracy of which we enjoy. and i'll say this. as a chairman who used reprogramming, i mean, there's several ways you can get what you need to do in oversight from the administration.
diplomacy, now it's social media whining, the other way do it and effective and the way i used most often was control over reprogramming dollars. so if congress gives up this ability to control that, they will lose an important oversight function. and i'm a big believer in that separate but equal branch of government. not every administration gets it right. republican or democrat. this is a huge federal government. it needs a functioning congress. i argue that they ought to be as angry as anything about the process here. there's another bite at this apple the president will get in the fall and i don't understand why they're going to pick this fight for the sole purposes of picking a fight now. >> susan, you've looked at this and what's going on in the last week and you say the republicans have given up all their power already. they've given up everything, except you say, prayer. well, that's right. i mean, i was really struck yesterday when they were
beginning debate in the senate on this spending bill, compromised, forthed ged in con. and chuck grassley was on the floor of the senate and said let's please all pray, everyone in the senate, that president trump does the right thing and sthiens spending bill. and it's almost as though they've given up any pretense of being able to manage essentially an unmanageable president. and what it really does underscore is in particular republicans who control the senate. they're seeding away institutional powers now in a way that suggests there's going to be a real conflict. i suspect strongly and have talked to the republicans who told me they actually are hoping that the courts and expecting that the courts will step in in fact here and do what republicans on capitol hill were unable to do, which is to provide a constitutional check on the president. and, but to me that's a very potentially dangerous situation where you have one branch of
government advocating and hoping another branch steps? >> and also, by the way, may not step in. >> right. >> it is not -- you know, we don't know how this will be resolved in the courts. and if you look at brett kavanaugh, for example, the core belief that he has expressed as a judge in the d.c. circuit before he was promoted to the supreme court was expansive executive power. and that was not a small reason why he was appointed to the supreme court. so the idea that the courts will step in and restore the constitutional balance may happen, it may not. >> mike rogers, the backstory of how mitch mcconnell has worked his way around in the space of two weeks do this about-face where he was publicly admonishing the president not to do a national emergency that congress would push back that it would be very contentious, it would be very bad to yesterday saying that he supports this idea, the backstory, according to the w"washington post" this morning is that the deal was
unraveling. as yesterday morning president trump wasn't going to sign it. he had decided he'd heard enough criticism about this bipartisan deal that he didn't like it and mitch mcconnell had to call him three times to try to spin it whereby it could -- the narrative could somehow be that democrats lost, that the president won and democrats lost and that's when mitch mcconnell decided that he would encourage the president to try to find $8 billion in some other pot that i guess is lying around somewhere in congress and declare this national emergency. >> yeah, i mean, i think this is, you know, you're watching mitch mcconnell eat a manure sandwich in this whole process. i think what he said is, listen, i'm weighing that the fact that another government shutdown is pretty damaging, you know, to the country and i think he believes that, and also the party. the republican party as it stands today. and i think he probably thought, if i can get past this, i'll deal with the other. and the other being the
president's interest in a national emergency. so i think that's exactly ha happene what happened. and you can tell in the body lang withitself of mitch mcconnell he's where he is because he thought it expedient to make sure that the government didn't shutdown. think that's what you're seeing. i'm hoping that there are folks working on the president now to try to get him to understand that take this as a temporary win, build on it, and there are reprogramming dollars that you could access throughout the year. and reprogramming basically means congress said you can spend a thousand dollars for this cup, they don't need a thousand dollars for the cups come around october, those agencies can come back and say, i don't want to spend that on that cup, i don't need it but i'd like too to spend it on "x." and that gets congress continues to be in the oversight role, but also it spepds more efficiently money that wouldn't necessarily need to be spent. so, listen, i'm hoping that's where mcconnell is. and if you see it, this isn't a full throated support of the
national emergency, it's kind of well, you know, whatever. i think that's what you're seeing happen. and he's not enjoying that manure sandwich right yet this morning, i'm sure. >> i'm not sure one ever does, especially at 7:09:00 a.m., mike rogers. susan, there's also the issue of whether this is in fact an emergency here. as a factual matter the president will declare in less than three hours there's an emergency. i want to show people arrests at the southern border. and this chart is very relevant today as it is every day. arrests. southern border are at or near a historic low. ticked up slightly from last year, but still a fraction of what it was in the year 2000. so at or near a historic low is what he will call an emergency. by the way, the immigrants being arrest order obtained at the border are presenting themselves. they're families asking for asylum. a wall doesn't stop people from saying hey, i'm here. >> you know what? i mean, look there is no more factual national emergency than it's a victory for president trump. you know, it's the exact
opposite of either. and i don't think that the courts are going to be fooled by that record. it is as clear cut a case of a president seeking to bypass a congress where he could not achieve his legislative goals as i've ever seen in public life. you know, i'm talking to you today from munich, the security conference here is brought together world leaders from around the world. you know, they think the national emergency is a president who is destablizing the united states and at the same time unraveling american alliances so there's a real uncertainty about american leadership internationally as well as at home. and i think the idea of just preemptively declaring a national emergency, throwing the world's biggest super power into this kind of disarray and order to get a few billion dollars for a wall that nobody thinks is actually going to happen, you know, it's -- it's an element of
fantasticalness to our politics that i think we're pretty reckless in accepting. this is just absolutely something that is not normal. but i think that emergency may be mischaracterized right now. >> jeffrey, let's talk quickly about andrew mccabe. he has a big interview with 60 minutes this weekend and one of the things that 60 minutes put out as a tease is that the 25th amendment, the one that says that the president could be removed for being unfit somehow, was actually a real conversation. we've heard this in the past that people had kind of toyed with it or that it came up. but andrew mccabe seems to be spelling out that it was a real conversation that they were having and, i guess the question is was this just about james comey firing or was there something else that made them have that conversation? >> well, i think it was the whole package of facts around james comey's firing, especially related to russia. what mccabe has said is that he was looking at the entire scope of the relationship between the
new president and russia and then seeing how he fired comey over the russia investigation. and this profound worry that the president was a counterintelligence risk, that he was, perhaps, not doing the bidding of the united states but doing the bidding of russia. it is exactly what adam schiff has been saying about why he's doing an investigation in the house intelligence committee. this issue has not gone away which is the stuff of spy fiction which is like which side is the president on? >> jeffrey, susan, chairman, thank you very, very much. we have breaking news right now. first on cnn, the top commander of u.s. forces in the middle east is publicly breaking with president trump. general joseph votel who leads the war against isis tells cnn that he disagreed with the president's decision to pull u.s. troops out of syria and
insists the terror group is not defeated. cnn's barbara starr is life in oman with all of the breaking details. what did he tell you, barbara? >> reporter: well, good morning, alisyn. we've been traveling with general votel through the persian gulf he's meets with allies. and the question that is front and center so much in this region is what happens next in syria. general votel making it very clear this morning with very direct words how and why he disagreed with the president. did you feel as the sitcom commander that it was, in fact, time to start bringing troops home? >> it would not have been my -- my military advice at that particular time. i would not have made that suggestion. capabilities, the pressure, the approach that we've had in place has been working and so we were -- we were keen to kind of stay along that track and make sure that we finish the mission for which we were assigned. >> reporter: now they actually hope that the u.s.-backed
fighters will take back the last isis enclave in southern syria in the coming days. there has been additional progress since the president's december decision was announced to withdraw u.s. troops. but votel, you know, making it clear he disagreed but he is moving ahead. he is a serving four-star general, he obeys the commander and chief, there is no question about that. he is bringing all u.s. troops out of syria. >> barbara starr. >> reporter: alisyn, john. >> a remarkable airing of a public disagreement from an active serving general. up next, we'll speak to a republican member of congress in the freedom caucus who voted against the spending deal to prevent the shutdown. what does he think about the new declaration of a national emergency? ♪'cause this is already bigger ♪'this is already bigger than love♪ dare to be devoted.
for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars... do you guys sell other dogs? ...now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $200 back when you buy and eligible smartphone. click, call, or visit a store today. just hours president trump is expected to declare a national emergency to reallocate billions of dollars for his border wall because the spending bill he will sign today does not include enough money for it. republicans, some, are warning the president against this move.
joining me now is republican congressman chip roy. he's a member of the house freedom caucus and also a hard-working and long-time lawyer who has written, it turns out, extensively on the use of executive power when it comes to immigration. let me read you something you wrote when president obama was accused of going around congress on immigration. you wrote this is not an immigration question, this really is a separation of powers question. it's actually breath taking from our perspective the impact that this can have on the power of the executive going forward if it's not properly checked. there are times when it's important to directly stand up for this core balance of power that's so critical. and yet, you support the president declaring a national emergency today. why? >> well, good morning. thanks for having me on. first of all, let me just focus on the emergency that we have at our border. would he do have an emergency. i've spent some significant time down there. there's about 400,000 people that are going to be flowing through the rio grand valley
this year alone. of whom only 200,000 will be apprehended, the other 200,000, 90% will be caught and released. 54 people found in a stash house in houston who were being held ransom by the car tells, humanitarian crisis, americans at risk. there are real issues at play here. but the balance of power matters. i do think that the president ought to take a long hard look at what's going on. i wouldn't sign this bill. i think this bill undermines the president in making an emergency declaration because he's signing a flawed bill. that's why i voted against it. i don't think the bill does what it needs to do to secure the border feigned were the president i would veto it. with respect to what you just described, i was a part of the litigation effort as part of the attorney general's office in texas to stop president obama's dappa executive action. that was an overreach by the executive. there was no lawful basis for it, the fifth circuit agreed, the supreme court agreed. we showed that the president created benefits where they didn't exist. there was no law backing it up.
in this case we have a law that congress passed that does give the president some significant authority on top of his constitutional authority to declare an emergency. but i'm going to take a long hard look at what the executive branch does. i'm going to be honest with you. i haven't seen it yet. i have a constitutional duty to review and that make sure whatever they do is within the four corners of the law and i i tend zo that. >> are you uncomcomfortable with the use of executive power here? >> i think we should look at that time carefully. i very much believed that when president obama overreached and i want to look at what the president wants to do here. but let's be clear. congress abandoned its job do what is necessary to secure the border. >> but that's a different issue about whether or not the president has the executive authority do it. and let me ask you about what some republicans have warned against. say in five years, in eight years, if there's a president kamala harris, a president elizabeth warren, they look at
global warming and climate change, they see sea levels rising in florida where there are u.s. military bases. u.s. military personnel at risk because of climate change, what's to keep them from declaring a national emergency on the very same basis that the president is doing it today? >> well, those hypotheticals are usually based in strange facts that you'd have to look at some time in the future. what i look right hie right now what is the emergency -- >> congressman, it's very similar. in that case we're talking apples to apples there. if the emergency is the perception of the president of the united states, which is what is at question here, if the president decides it's an emergency, can he or she invoke these executive powers? >> these are not apples to apples that we're talking about. we're talking about a very specific question about whether or not we have an emergency at our border today and whether the president has the authority under the law given to it by congress and under the contusion constitution to take action. clearly a number of times over the years, 58 times or some very
large number where there's been an effort under the national emergency's act for the president to operate. that does happen and the question here is do we have a critical nexus for car tells that are engaged in reaching up into our communities and moving fentanyl across the border endaith dangering american citizens. does the president able to do it? i think all members of congress regardless of party ought do that. i think we ought to be careful about it but we ought to be cognizant that we do have an emergency situation at the board he and we ought do our job and i'm embarrassed because congress didn't do its job in this case. >> you talked about fentanyl moving over the border which is a huge problem. the vast majority of drugs and fentanyl and other narcotics coming through legal ports of entry, the legal ports of entry, not necessarily over the border where the wall would be. and let me ask you another
question while i have you at the point. you're saying it's an emergency. let me put this up chart which say rests at the border and you will see arrests at the border in 2018 at or near a historic low. you are calling this an emergency. was it more of an emergency in the year 2000 when the arrests at the border were five times what they are now? >> so this data doesn't reflect at all the reality on the ground. have you spoken to the border patrol? have you gone down to the rio grand valley and looked at what's happening with the thousand people a day coming across that are coming into and getting streamed in in buses, put in detention centers and then literally turned around in 43 hours and released out into the united states in a? that's what we're facing on the border. when you talk about the drugs that are trafficked at the ports of entry, yes. but they're also coming through between the ports of entry and car tells are profiting moving those people across the border. >> i'm not arguing the car tells aren't profiting, i'm not arguing that they're coming. what the data that the
government has put ow, the data shows us that there are fewer people being arrested for coming over illegally now, vastly fewer than there were 15, 16 years ago. i'm just asking you by those noubs is the numbers is there less of an emergency now than there was then? >> no. because the nature of who's coming across the border. the data's always played with, by the way. >> this is the very people -- hang on you say that data is being played with. this is the data from the group you're telling me to listen to. >> what it matters to is who's coming across. in the state right across the refer from browns vim, mccaw women, it's a level four state. that's a no travel zone under the state department. why? because the gulf cartel has operational control. they're literally endangering the lives of american citizens and the migrants to seek to come here. i talk to two little boys who slept in a park and had to pay the car tells to get across the river, then all of that group ends up into a stash house in
houston, they're in danger. >> and that's horrible and we do listen to the trump administration and the customs and border patrol about who is coming over now and how it's different than 15 years ago. the major way it's different is that it's people presenting themselves at the border. presenting themselves in a way that i don't understand how a wall would stop. they're showing up and saying, i'm here. they're not trying to sneak over. >> well, because that -- that ignores the reality that if you have the fencing, the structures and the fis of physical as snets place for the border to be able to do their job, then they're estimates of 200,000 people coming through the rio grand valley sector and not being apprehended, they would help them stop that. and it would put more resources and focus at the ports offent drip becau of entry because they wouldn't have to play wham a mole. people don't know they can't drive parallel to the river. they see thousand of people come across the river they never apprehend because they can't get to it. and all the drones and technology in the world will not stop that because they literally can't go get to the port of --
to the place where people are crossing. we've got a real issue at the border and fentanyl and cocaine, we stop buses all the time coming between the ports of entry. so this is what's at stake. and i just don't understand why this is such a hard debate. we've got a real issue at the border if you talk to the people who are down there and we ought to just do our sorvereign duty s a nation to secure the boarder. >> thank you so much. come back on newspaper day. >> thanks for having me on. >> you've been working on this for a long time. it's fascinating. alisyn. a former democratic senator says the president's national emergency declaration is going nowhere. well, three hours from now it's going somewhere so we're going to ask her what she thinks the democrats should do next. ♪
a lot will happen in your life. wrinkles just won't. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair's derm-proven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. neutrogena® what if you had fewer headaches and migraines a month? botox® prevents headaches and migraines before they even start. botox® is for adults with chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more. botox® injections take about 15 mins. in your doctor's office and are covered by most insurance. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing,
speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. with the botox® savings program, most people with commercial insurance pay nothing out of pocket. talk to your doctor and visit botoxchronicmigraine.com to enroll. whei just put in the namey, of my parents and my grandparents. and as soon as i did that, literally it was like you're getting 7, 9, 10, 15 leaves that are just popping up all over the place. yeah, it was amazing. just with a little bit of information, you can take leaps and bounds. it's an awesome experience.
well, this morning president trump will declare a national emergency to reallocate 8 billion federal dollars to pay for his proposed border wall. what should democrats do now? joining us is former u.s. senator heidi heitkamp of north dakota. great to have you here with us. it's always fun to talk to
lawmakers who are now outside of the beltway and you can be as unplugged as you would like to be, senator. so great to have you. this is happening. >> well, thanks, alisyn. >> great to have you. >> i know. and -- >> i mean it's happening in less than three hours. >> i just have to say -- right. and i just have to say, good luck. because in three hours he'll make the announcement and in about 12 hours there will be a lawsuit filed asking for an injunction, asking a court to basically take a look at it and take a look at the legality of doing it. and then there will be the inevitable what is -- from the dollars that he's taking what isn't getting funded? and what's interesting is that the proposal to take money out of military construction or as we call milcon. these are many, many dollars to make sure that facilities get upgraded in their districts.
what isn't going to get built and assigned? and once that's discovered, i think there will be a whole secondary fallout from this. what aren't we going to fund out of the drug interdiction funds? will those dollars not be allocated to victim services groups? never mind the legality of it, where was this money supposed to go and why are we using it now? and one of the things that i just keep saying is what about the maritime borders? i heard the congressman earlier talking about drugs. well, you remember in the '70s and '80s drugs flew into this country. >> yeah. >> we need a good coast guard. we need a good northern border. this is all about a project that the president promised, he's made this security issue his chief issue in his reelect and his election, and he can't walk away from it now. >> by the way, fentanyl from china is still flying into this country. i'm not sure what 55 miles across the rio grand valley is going to do to stop the fentanyl that is flying in from china, as
you -- >> the rarlargest fentanyl interdiction has been actually out of waterport. >> and so the president promised that mexico would pay for the wall. obviously that was always illogical. but do you understand, and i know you're on the other side as a democrat. but do you understand how in such a short period of time republicans like mitch mcconnell in the space of two of weeks went from really warning against a national emergency to today saying that they support it? >> i think this is one of the most interesting issues of the whole debate, how basically, you know, i said earlier that mitch mcconnell is winning the conflict between the president and the senate. and by saying, look, i can't do any better than this, you have to sign this bill, you saw what happened to your poll numbers when we shut down the government. you're going to get blamed. the president must then have come back threatening to not silent bill and said, look, mitch, if i do this for you so
that you can keep the government open, you have to basically be on my side on the national emergency. and so this -- this 180 degree whipsaw that you saw that the majority leader engaged in yesterday was really quite remarkable. and i think it speaks more to the current relationship between the president and the majority leader of the senate. >> up until very recently, about a month ago you were a moderate democrat in congress. and it seems like the democratic party has shifted just in that short time its identity a bit. i'm wondering how yore cot gore rise the democratic party in congress today. >> i don't think that the democratic party has shifted. i think that the people who are the most visible spokes people right now who are democrats have ideas that are not always consistent with mainstream democratic ideals. and i think once we see some additional people get in this
presidential race, once we see some more moderate people get in this presidential race, i think it will open up the debate on the range of issues that represent the democratic party. >> like who? i mean, who do you expect -- what moderate do you expect to get in that would shift the debate? >> well, i think, you know, you have to look at bloomberg, governor bullock, you have to look at governor hickenlooper, potentially michael bennett getting in the race with a different idea. he hasn't been somebody who's said medicare for all. he's been talking about a public option, which is another alternative that is less extreme. and so, you know, we don't have the range of issue debate right now and i think that it is -- it is causing some concern among moderate democrats. i will tell you that. but i think eventually there will be a range of issues on how we solve america's problems. the consistent view is that we have problems, we have problems in healthcare, we have problems in border security, and we
should all recognize that. we have problems in climate, we have problems in the environment, and we need to address those. but the question is, how do you do that? and i think right now most of the ideas are coming from what people will perceive, i think, rightfully, the far left. and i think there will be democrats who get in these races who talk about a different way to solve those problems. >> we're out of time but do you expect vice president biden to get in? >> i do, actually. and i think, you know, he's going -- he's going to bring a balance last ballast to this that is significant and important. >> senator heidi heitkamp, great to talk to you and thank you. >> thank you. >> think she has the inside scoop in that was pretty confident, he's getting in. >> she said i do. the results are in. the white house doctor says the president is obese. we'll discuss next.
12 hours? 20 dogs? where's your belly rubs? after a day of chasing dogs you shouldn't have to chase down payments. (vo) send invoices and accept payments to get paid twice as fast. (danny) it's time to get yours! (vo) quickbooks. backing you. has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company,
hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. ♪ 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. ♪'cause this is already bigger ♪'this is already bigger than love♪ dare to be devoted. jared. ♪ give the gift of devotion
gup gupta joins us now. what do you see? >> that was the big headline because he was borderline obese last year and the recommendation was he needed to lose 10 to 15 pounds. he gained weight, his height didn't change. so now when you do the math he's clinically obese. these are the results, and as you look at these results you got height, the weight, a few things here, remember this was four hours of examines, 11 different consultants, took six days to release, this is what we got, basically. so i think the report is sort of pretty sunny for what's not in it. compared to last year, you know, we did get more tests last year and had that sort of remarkable press conference as you'll remember as well. but let me show you some of the tests done last year. i think we have that. but basically they looked at his heart. there you go. echocardiogram, they did a stress test, they did that cognitive examine whi cognitive exam which the president asked for and had a perfect score on and had that calcium scan as well which had some concerning results.
>> and you bring up the coronary calcium examine a calcium exam and i remember you questioning the doctor about that test. was that done this year? >> we don't know if that was done. and remember as well that test and the score was not part of his official release, not part of his official record. dr. ronny jackson, he mentioned lots of things, he didn't mention that until i questioned him about that. let me just show you what this test is. it's important people who worry about their hearts are all -- may know about this test. you're measuring the amount of calcium in the blood vessels. his numbers have steady gone up. 133 last year. when you get to the range of 100-300 that means you have an increased risk of having a heart attack over the next three to five years. that's why doctors pay attention to this and that's high they try to control risk factors. then did increase the dose of his colester roll medicatiholes his weight remains. >> and what about the tip into
obesity? how concerning should that be? >> well, it's concerning. and one thing about bmi, body mass index is what we're talking about here, once it gets over 30 it's considered obese. it's not a perfect score because there are people who are very muscular, for example, who are going to be at high weight and their bmi may be up, they're not carrying as much fat. chris cuomo always like to brag about that. but for -- >> because his weight would suggest he's obese. >> that's the least -- that's the least breaking news sanjay ever said. chris cuomo likes to brag about that. >> he's not obese. >> everybody knows that. state the obvious, doctor. but when you put it all in aggregate and say along with his cholesterol, along with these other risk factors, then it becomes even more concerning. again, the concern that they'll stratify and say over the next three to five years, relatively high risk of a heart attack. that can be prevented but you have to control the risk factors. >> when you look at these
numbers and take the obesity into account, the idea that the white house doctor is saying the president is this good health, do you agree with that? >> it's tough to condra tra dict somebody directly but he said not only is he in good health, he expects he'll remain so for the future. i think trying to apply a crystal ball to a situation like this is hard for anybody, no matter how much testing you have. and in this case we know what some of these tests show and clinically obese, high cholesterol, evidence of coronary artery disease, i don't think that equates with very good health. >> if you had a patient like that you wouldn't send them out the door and say keep doing exactly what you're doing? >> i would be on them because this is a totally preventible potential problem, you know, in the future. totally preventible. but, you know, things have to be done now. >> sanjay gupta, thank you very much for analyzing all of that for us. all right. big news happening here in new york city. amazon is not opening new
headquarters here after it announced it would. why did the company make this decision and what does it say about the democratic party in 2019? 1: this is my body of proo. woman 1: proof of less joint pain... woman 2: ...and clearer skin. woman 3: this is my body of proof. man 2: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 4: ...with humira. woman 5: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the #1 prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection.
woman 6: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. when your flight gets in late, it's never too early for coffee. oh no no no. your new boss seems cool, but she might not be sweatpants cool. who is that ready this early? it's only 7 am. somebody help me. close call. not quite ready to face the day?
that's why we're here with free hot breakfast and a warm welcome. book at hampton.com for our price match guarantee. hampton by hilton. 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. 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.
to help manage blood sugar, and start making everyday progress. glucerna. amazon is abandoning plans to build a new headquarters in new york city. this exposes a big divide among democrats. the new york governor andrew cuomo and bill de blasio supported the projects but some progressives like new member of congress alexandria ocasio-cortezcelebrated the decision to take the new jobs somewhere else. >> we should not give away our infrastructure, schools, teacher salaries, firefighter budgets to a company that has not shown good faith to new yorkers. >> joining me now, errol lewis from spectrum news and alex burns, national political correspondent for the "new york times" and a cnn political
analyst. errol, you have been living and breathing this amazon deal for a long time. what happened here? what caused amazon to get scared off by some, by no means all democrats complaining about this? >> some, by no means all. what happened was the political class was doing what they usually do. there is always somebody who will complain about a disposition of land or dollars of significant size in new york city. at a minimum, probably some of the amazon folks weren't accustomed to the level of vitriol they were going to hear. people did what they usually do. they start complaining, saying things like you showed the congresswoman saying that are simply not true. flat out -- it's not money that was going to be used for the deal could have been used to pay teacher salaries or fix the subways. but people said it over and over again. in new york, you are used to hearing that. okay, they always say that. it's always not enough union
jobs and spend the money on firehouses or something. they say it all the time whether it makes sense or not. in this case, the company said they were affected by it, didn't like it, didn't want to argue, go through the process and the inevitable lawsuits they would have had to. somebody should have prepared them for what they were coming into. they decided to walk away. >> watch a yankees or a mets game and you will know new york city isn't all rainbows and unicorns getting things done but there is a rift in the democratic party. let me read you the statement on this from cuomo. a small group of politicians put their own narrow political interests above the community. he's talking about some local and city politicians and state politicians i don't think people around the country know but also the person on the screen behind us, alexandria ocasio-cortez, the new member of congress.
>> he's angry at the democratic-led state senate. he's been able to be governor with a free hand for eight, nine years based on having a divided legislature. he's the man that makes everything happen. you have total democratic control of government and the left is emboldened in new york state and new york city politics. aoc is part of that though she's not a state politician. there is a big divide among democrats. the governor is clearly on the right ideological side of that. he doesn't want to raise taxes on millionaires. he's not convinced the trade-offs involved in bringing a big company to the city are at all worth balking at. the folks on the left are offended by the idea of sort of giving a special deal to a corporation, even if the nature of the deal isn't exactly the way they make it sound. they are more preoccupied with economic inequality than job creation and economic opportunity as we would
conventionally think about it. so you have this total mismatch in the debate. you had the mayor and governor lecturing the skeptics about 25,000 jobs, 25,000 jobs. when the nature of the pushback had nothing to do with the job creation. it was about a different set of issues that are more central on the left. >> it's a mistake to give alexandria ocasio-cortez too much credit. she was a supporting player rather than a central figure. however, when you look at this and look at her introduction into the national political stage and she's been a big player in the green new deal, a central part of the presidential primary debate. she's involved with this amazon decision which is on the front page of every paper and every business section around the country right now. she's in the middle of so many of the ideological debates in congress. she seems to be at the center and putting herself at the center of democratic politics around the country. >> yep. it's going to be a noisy place
for the next couple of years. cory booker is running for president and is another national figure. he ran a city. he tried to offer incentives. she's talking about a green new deal that involves massive subsidies to private companies. if we are going to talk the talk we have to get into the details. who gets subsidized and why, should the government do it, where do the taxpayers come in? for this amazon deal it was 60, 70% support. does that go away because a handful of people don't like the deal? who gets to pick and choose? if those will be the terms of the debate, it will be a really, really interesting and noisy debate. on the other hand, i think most people in the country, in new york understand that it's like, look, you have to have a government that's going to work with the companies and have them
do the things that are going to benefit the community and how that gets done, you know, will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 's got to get done. >> what do you think she's been able to command so much attention in the early stages of her job in washington? >> part of it is just she's masterful with social media and communication. she has this really personal bond with voters on the left, especially young voters on the left. her competitors or ideological rivals in the democratic party don't. she's capturing a moment and a mood and a set of ideas that were underrepresented in the democratic party's national debate. the amazon debate is a perfect case study. you have not had anybody wanting to take her on within the party since she won her primary, right? you didn't have in the course of the amazon debate the governor or the mayor or other proponents of the amazon deal saying, listen, i will debate you anywhere, any time. there is a fear of her and of
the support she can command. when you have one side making a forceful and daring argument, even if it's a little factually suspect, and the other side is essentially saying, this deal is so good, how could you turn it down? >> the debate is going to happen. organized labor won't be happy with where this conversation goes. there were potentially thousands of union jobs that vanished with the amazon deal. those folks won't stand on the sidelines and they don't care how many twitter followers you have. >> just a colossal failure. if you were a supporter of the project you blew it. >> it could be a campaign issue. they'll say these are democrats against jobs in new york city. that will be an argument you hear. alex, errol, thank you very much. the president will soon declare a national emergency to get money for a border wall. "new day" continues now. >> he's prepared to sign the
bill. he will issue an national emergency declaration. >> i'm disappointed the president has chosen to go this route. >> we will prepare to respond appropriately to it. >> i was very concerned that where are i were i removed the case would be closed. >> i have never heard any discussion of the 25th amendment. i would never expect to. >> it just kept running and lunged at me. it was going toward my face. i threw up my hands. >> i must have asked him how he got away. he said he killed it. >> he did everything he needed to do to get out of the situation alive. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day." it is friday, february 15. 8:00 in the east. in about two hours, president trump will announce he's declaring a national emergency to reallocate $8 billion to fund
his border wall bypassing congress. under article i of the constitution only congress has the power to appropriate funs. the bipartisan spending deal passed last night by congress gives the president a fraction of the money he wanted for border security but it is for fencing and barriers, not the so-called wall. democrats vow to challenge this emergency declaration. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell warned the white house that many republicans oppose the move and it faces a challenge of being blocked. "the washington post" said mcconnell ultimately sold the president on the deal and fixed. he now vows to support the emergency declaration he once opposed. this morning on "new day" former republican house member mike rogers summed it up this way. >> you're watching mitch mcconnell eat