tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN February 15, 2019 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
not to go after individuals. there's no one or two major leaders. people are putting pressure to see can something be done with the currency or subsidizing food prices. there's no one leader. >> in the capital, the pentagon sent ten marines to provide security at the american embassy. the news continues tonight. hand it over to chris. for cuomo "prime time". >> thank you. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." mueller drops another bomb on our watch. actually, two. how long manafort should go away and the proof they have to put stone away. we have the man leading the charge against the president's emergency declaration tonight. the chairman of the house judiciary committee is here. he is giving president trump one week to give him answers justifying the move. will he get them? did the president deliver a death blow to his own case for a border emergency? the six words that may come back to haunt.
why won't he address a real crisis within our borders? we don't have the most illegal migration. we have the most shootings. there was another in illinois today. that's the great debate. it's a big friday night. that begins here. let's get after it. >> i could do the wall over a longer period of time. i didn't need do it. i would rather do it faster. >> i am now the white house counsel. watch my face. that's what that person's face did when he said that. you have to look at the law and politics on this. first, the law. just minutes after declaring a national emergency, the president admitted to the world there isn't one. i didn't need to do this. you will see the words and hear them. in legal challenges. especially from the democrats. we have the man who is the tip of that, jerry nadler. perfect timing. i got lucky with you tonight.
do you believe that those words will weigh heavy? in legal reckoning of the move. >> they will. the lawsuit will say that there is no real emergency. he will say there's an emergency. the defense will be that the president decides whether there's an emergency. the court can't look behind that. here the president is saying there's no real emergency. that's a body blow. to his case. >> the strongest part would be what you are saying, this has never been challenged. it is seen as open ended. emergency isn't defined. if it's not defined, you go with the definition of person in power to make it. he just defined it. >> the court might say it's a political question between the two branchs of government. the court won't object to it. if the president admitted up front it's a political stunt and not a real emergency, i think that's a very difficult -- >> you asked for answers. what do you want to know? what happens if the white house says, we're not answering your
questions? sue us. >> we asked for a list of questions. who advised them, what the -- did they consider certain things and so forth. i don't expect answers. they won't give us answers. i'm sure we will pass a resolution in the house. pursuant to the emergency statutes. that mandates under the emergency statute the senate consider the emergency disapproval within 15 days. without any ability to filibuster. i anticipate a majority vote in both houses to disapprove the resolution. >> you think there are enough republicans to go against this president? something they have never done before. >> i think so. i can't be certain, but i think so. you heard some of the statements. they are terrified of this, and rightly so.
if the president can declare an emergency today on this, democratic president can decide that as you mentioned the gun -- the 40,000 people a year killed in this country is a crisis. why don't we take everybody's guns away or force everybody to register or ban assault rifles or do that without congressional approval? this opens up a dictatorship. it may be something the republicans don't oppose, but tomorrow the democratic president could be something they hate. it's a tremendous shift of power from congress to the president. they can't like this. >> the ultimate thing will be either you win in court -- by any case, you will have layers of delay. you will say it isn't an emergency. fight it out. he appeals it. he has to find land. that's a problem. >> i am confident we will win in court. there's two layers.
layer one is emergency. the court might find it's not for the court to answer. it's up to the president. the second layer is these pots of money are military pots of money. under the emergency act, they can only be used for military purposes. the military is prohibited by law from enforcing domestic law. the military cannot enforce our immigration laws, enforce our drug laws. by definition, there is no military purpose. i don't see how he can use the funds. >> that's why he said the military said the physical barriers would be more important than the money allocated for. the statute that 248. the secretary of defense makes the call. >> important to enforce immigration laws, anti-drug laws? those are laws the military is prohibited from enforcing. >> what a sticky situation. legally, certainly politically.
let me get in your head on something else. under your jurisdiction. >> before we do that, this is one of the largesthallenges to the constitutional order in american history. if he gets away with this, presidents become more powerful. this destroys the separation of power to a large extent and riddles the constitution. >> why is it different than any other executive action? like daca. or anything else? >> because it is displacing the congressional power of the purse, the chief power of congress. >> instead of making an order that this will be, it's paying for it as well. >> it's paying for it in contravention of the language of the constitution. that says no money should be drawn from the treasury except appropriation by congress. >> we will see how that plays out and stay on it. see if you get respect to your inquiries. not a great track record. whitaker, that hearing was a little bit of a mess. we find out that whitaker will stay in the doj. your reaction? >> we have sent a letter to
whitaker. it was apparently not true. we have witnesses that contradict what he said sot committee. >> he may not have understood that? do you think he made an intentional false statement? >> he may have made intentional false statements to congress. >> that's a crime. we have invited him to meet with us to clarify it. >> we will keep track of that. roger stone, up to this point, it has been about in the mueller pleadings who stone had gone to find out what wikileaks had and to put it out. in this pleading today where they were fighting with some inside point with stone about whether the matters related to the overall investigation or not, they say in our search warrants, which we used in these cases that are relevant to this discussion, we found communications between stone and -- guccifer. >> the russians.
>> and organization one, which we believe is wick i can leak. wikileaks. did you know there is anything that they think is proof of stone directly communicating with wikileaks? >> no. this is -- this may be why the president was upset at the execution of the search warrants. that's where they found this material. it's interesting because in the filings today, apparently, the special prosecutor said that they got this information both from the information they had with respect to the gru, the people they indicted, the russians, but also from the end of documents found in stone's house which tied to stone directly to discussing with the russians how best to release the material, how best, to the greatest damage to hillary's campaign releasing materials. stolen by the russians from the
democrat democratic national committee. >> the legal distinction would be it's one thing if i say -- let's say i'm someone helping a candidate, whether i'm in the campaign or not. i heard you got this stuff. let me have it. and let me help you put it out as part of what you are trying to do through your theft of the same. those are different legally. are they not? >> if you are trying -- >> versus just trying to get them for my own purpose. >> the latter makes you a participant in the crime. >> you have to prove it. >> you would have to prove it. what they are alleging in the allegations is that they have the proof in the form of tapes and other documents that stone on behalf of the campaign was conspireing with the russians to do this. this is a direct -- this is the missing link. if true, it's the direct connection of the campaign conspireing with the russians, the trump campaign conspireing with the russians. >> where do you think we wind up?
after the probe puts out its report. hopefully, we get it. that gets more cloudy. luckily, you are asking questions about it. the report comes out. you have to get it in primary substance. >> we hope. >> what do you think will happen next? >> depends what the evidence shows. we have to get this report out to the american people so they know it. unfortunately, the regulations under which this special prosecutor is operating are not the same. under which ken star operated. this says report to the attorney general. we will get that material out one way or other. if he refuses to get it out, our committee will subpoena it. we can invite mueller to testify. we will get it out. i think that when you start seeing this kind of thing put out here, this mueller getting out the story before that report. >> he has been redacting stuff. if anything -- >> he is showing material.
we will see more of that. we have to get all this material. we have to see. richard nixon said the american people have to know whether their president is a crook. it's true then. it's true now. >> do you believe at the end of the day that this will be a reflection of not just the actions of those around the president but the president himself? >> i do believe that. it's hard to believe that the president sits on top of a pinnacle in which all the top people are conspireing with the russians or seeking to conspire with the russians. almost all are indicted or convicted for among other things lying about contacts with the russians and he knows nothing about it. >> not all but many. >> he knows nothing about it. it's difficult to believe. >> we will know what you can show. >> saying it's difficult to believe is different from saying i can prove it. >> right. that's a meaningful distinction. this was a very fruitful conversation on a friday night.
so many pressing matters. thank you. >> thank you. the president needs this wall fast. why? to deliver on a promise that he thinks will keep him around for a second term. he is making the worst case possible. undercutting his own arguments at every turn. we need to know the facts. of the situation. we have them laid out for you next. (ala♪m goes off) wake up sweetie. ♪
there was a lot said by the president today that was a lie. he did do the truth a favor. he made the case against his own declaration. here is the first strike out of his own mouth. >> i could do the wall over a longer period of time. i didn't need to do this. >> here is why. it's not as simple as it sounds. they could haunt him. the law doesn't define emergency. ordinarily, a court would say that's a political issue. now the president just told you that it isn't an emergency. makes it easier for a court to reckon. it allows to marshall funds
instead of congress. there's no time for ordinary course. most of the legislation deals with congress' power. his declaring an emergency that congress just dealt with is not so compelling. this is about politics at the end of the day, not law. listen. >> i think that i just want to get it done faster. that's all. >> here is his problem. it was just done. that's what that signing was about. he signed into law what congress did on same matter. it's not about need or speed. it's about preference. another point against declaring an emergency. there's this. >> i have other alternatives if i have to. i will use those if i have to. we want to go through the system. my threshold will be if i can't make a deal with people that are unreasonable. >> it's an emergency. unreasonable. his words. >> making physical barriers the priority when every problem you
want to combat is better addressed in other ways is unreasonable. caravans, asylum rules, drugs, scanning technology for the ports of entry, terror, airport visa overstay. illegal entrance on foot is one of the aspects of the problem that is decreasing at the border. nothing about this wall is all push is reasonable. then there's this constant factless reframe. >> in the meantime, i built a lot of wall. i have a lot of money. i built a lot of wall. >> he is right, they did have a lot of money, $680 million. why was he desperate for a big price tag? he is wrong. zero miles. do you see the number? none has been built. they are repairing parts. they are upgrading barriers.
making taller and better. he hasn't built anything new, not yet. we have been saying that to you. still, it's clear this president isn't listening even when the facts are right in front of him. listen. >> you don't really believe that. do you? i get my numbers from a lot of sources. they say it comes through the port of entries. wrong. it's wrong. it's a lie. it's all a lie. it's all a big lie. it's a big con game. >> he is right, it's about who he is talking about where that becomes accurate. no one has said, not on this show, that all of anything comes through the ports of entry. we said more of it according to the dhs, the bulk comes through there, not on foot, the way he suggests. it's all a google away. the president says he doesn't like to read. you should. all the answers are readily available. i will give them to you with my team nightly. the con is trying to convince you that facts are lies and the truth is a game. at least potus knows about the
legal fight that he is about to face. >> we will have a national emergency. we will then be sued. they will sue us in the ninth circuit, even though it shouldn't be there. we will possibly get a bad ruling. then we will get another bad ruling. and then we will end up in the supreme court. hopefully, we will get a fair shake. >> the ninth circuit ruled against california that was trying to block the wall being built. nobody accuses him of being read up on that. trump knew it was legally questionable before he sat in the oval office. that's why he called obama's executive action on immigration unconstitutional. remember this? >> he has to use executive action. it's a dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the supreme court. >> overruled. trump's trumped up emergency is going to go to the court. the first suits have been announced. if you wonder with the public statements, are they going to hurt him?
they are going to be brought up. remember this, the supreme court just downplayed the importance of his words when it came to the travel ban. the chief justice said they have to consider not only the statements of a particular president but the authority of the presidency itself. we will wait to see what weight his comments carry. they should matter to you, because it is now clear one of the best advocates for why this is not an emergency has been the president himself. we will take this up in our own court ahead. mueller says he has proof that the president's longtime pal roger stone directly communicated with wikileaks. is that collusion? is it a crime? next. feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin and relief from symptoms caused by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity.
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. you tell me. can you have an optional emergency? is it enough for the president to go around congress' constitutional role? it looks like that's what he did. take it up in cuomo's court. case for emergency assigned to schultz. case against to mariotti. schultz, go. >> let's talk about what the president said today. he said that he didn't have to do this but he wanted to do it faster. the part of saying he wanted do
it faster is the emergent portion. i don't think that hurts him when they end up in court on this thing. in terms of the national emergencies act, it was something passed by congress. they gave this power away in 1976. they did away with the emergency declarations and started them anew. we are up to 31 at this point, maybe 32 including the one today. the point here is that congress gave up this power. then they passed other statutes that enabled the president to shift funds around based upon an emergency he declared. to the extent this is -- to the extent this -- the president has declared a national emergency today, emergency is defined by the president of the united states. there is no constitutional problem here. this is statutory. it has nothing do with the constitution or the separation of power. >> the problem is that he declared an emergency, defined it not as one and the same day he signed a law that congress
was acting on the same thing. how do you counter? go ahead. >> first of all, he has to make a showing that the armed forces are necessary for the use of this money. i don't think he is going to do that. the armed forces are providing logistical support. driving people around. doing things like that. our security is handled by customs and border patrol. and other agencies not handled by the military. the other point is, from a constitutional perspective, this is a problem. it lets a simple majority of congress give away their authority. then essentially they need a two-thirds majority to override trump. in this situation. congress by a majority has the authority to appropriate money. it should be overturned by a majority.
i suspect when this gets into the weeds, the fact that a super majority is necessary to overturn, trump moving around money, i suspect the law will be found unconstitutional. >> what i don't get is why take it on this way when if he wanted to do it fast, this is going to assure him delay because he will be hung up in the courts. then he will have to allocate land. and a new bunch of lawsuits on that. he got allocated enough money that they can't spend in one year. as he points out, i have a lot of money to build wall. that's why i'm building. it's not true he is building any. he does have $680 million sitting there because building takes time. even when they appropriate money, it doesn't get spent in that year. why do this? >> i want to go back to the point and i will answer your question. there are three ways they have moved the money. one has to do with the department of defense. let's talk about the military portion of this.
to support the troops is in the statute. supporting the troops means we have thousands of troops along the wall. the argument will be building a wall will make it less necessary to have troops there. they are not making arrests. they are not policing drug dealers. what the troops are doing are supporting the civilian operations there and law enforcement operations. that's their job to do. to the extent with less than a necessity for the troops or make their job easier. there's a good argument to be made there. the treasury department money. forfeited as part of criminal proceedings. he can tap into that money very easily. there's a third place it comes from, that's from the drug and anti and counterintelligence funds. that's easy to get to. the question is -- you are talking about narcotics coming across the border. >> they don't come in the areas where he wants to build the
fence. the argument -- >> to say they don't come -- >> is to protect the military. they don't need a fence to protect the military. that's what the law says. >> military has the job of protecting our borders. that's not to say they are arresting criminals. the military is charged with protecting our borders. to the extent we don't need military at the border anymore. that will help the situation. going back, saying there are no drug -- >> i didn't say no. i said the bulk of the drugs are coming through the ports of entry. to say the main corridor -- >> there are some. >> it's about six times the number goes through the ports of entry that goes through on foot. of course, that's only what is captured. what you like to argue is what about the drugs that aren't captured? the real data we have is that you only process about 2.5% of the vehicles that come because you don't have enough x-ray equipment. if you lean on some understanding of what the unknown tells you, focus on the ports of entry. you are trying to do the
opposite. >> i would say, you said it. you -- they will make an argument that the money charged with dealing with narcotics to support the wall, i think courts will rule favorably upon that. the question is going to come what about the defense money? i think he has a strong argument there as well. >> chris, you know, instead of mexico paying for the wall, now the united states military is paying for it. if you listen to what jim said carefully, what he said was this is needed so the military doesn't have to be at the border. the military at the border is discretionary. it's part of a trumped up effort by the president to try to make this sound like there's some sort of crisis. the fact of the matter is that what the statute says is that the armed forces have to be necessary for the operation. i don't think anyone, particularly the trial judge that's ultimately going to make
findings of fact, is going to conclude you absolutely need military for this operation. the military is ancillary to the people actually defending our border. >> i don't think judges are going to get into the decision making process of the executive branch as to when military is necessary. i don't think that's the job -- >> they would say they are political decisions. that's where the words of the president will be an interesting play. we know chief roberts said look at the power of the presidency. because emergency is not defined, it's not, so you would rely on the decision maker. the president told you today, it didn't have to be done now and it didn't have to be done this way. >> it needed to be done faster. that helps his case. that's how he is making the case that this is emergent. that's the case that he has to make under the statute. >> emergent means dangerous and has to be dealt with right away. congress passed a law that you sign the same day that you declare the emergency. where is the inaction that
implies imminence that you must act on in an extra constitutional way? >> in 2006, congress appropriated money to build physical barriers. this year, congress appropriates money to build physical barriers. they have approved barriers. this is something said yes to. >> that cuts against an emergency. >> the president gets to make the determination as to whether this is an emergency. >> you laid the framework for why it isn't an emergency. this is a good first blow. see what the lawsuits say. we will take it up at that point. thank you. be well. did the president just create an emergency? that's what we're talking about here. you will have the law and how the law looks at that. then you will have a look at the politics. what this means not just to you and me or even to democrats,
republicans. what kind of door is the president opening up for opposition down the road? that's a great start for a great debate. look at these two heavyweights. [kno♪king] ♪ memories. what we deliver by delivering. so why haven't youul started building? tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade.
♪ (ala♪m goes off) wake up sweetie. ♪ doctor dave. see ya. ♪ here's your order. ♪ hey. applebee's to go. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.
you have to understand that this president is not like other presidents. i don't mean that as a compliment or criticism, but it's just a fact. with him, it is often about the sell and not the substance. fiction or farce and not fact. that was apparent today when he continued to spin the fight over this week's funding bill as a win. >> i went through congress. i made a deal. i got almost $1.4 billion when i wasn't supposed to get $1. not $1. he is not going to get $1. i got $1.4 billion. >> he didn't make a deal. he was kept out of the dealing process so a deal could get made. we should congratulate the left and right. i know this was an ugly process. it was good they did something reasonable.
he wants to brag about that number. he declared a national emergency because he doesn't like the number. it's far less than what he wanted. of it the least he had been offered by the democrats. remember that. two previous offers, both for more money than he got. here is the big deal about the declaration. the politics, his party was begging him, don't do this. please, you will open a door for the future that we won't be able to close. he didn't care. because he cares about his own politics. did he make the right move? that is the great start for a great debate. guess who we have. howard dean and niger ennis. can't ask for better on a friday night. this was a move to please the base. it doesn't embrace the law. it doesn't embrace the constitution. i would argue it doesn't embrace the reality. it should help the base. then ann coulter says this. >> the only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.
this is the worst open borders the country has ever had under the president who ran against open borders. >> the point is, you should not have done any of this. we told you get all of it or get none of it. you did half measures, including the emergency. the base isn't happy. do you accept that? >> no, i don't accept that. ann is a good buddy of mine. has been for years. she's done a magnificent job pushing and nudging the president, which is what her job is to do. the base is going to look at the fact that the president renegotiated nafta, which he said he was going to do. promise kept. he has a booming economy in large part due to reduction of regulations and the tax cut. promise kept. they will look at him getting tough on china. on trade. they will be very excited about that. the one missing component was his biggest campaign rally, which was the wall. >> mexico would pay for it.
>> of course, he argues nafta is going to pay for it. that's neither here nor there. >> my son argues that crayons take like their colors. >> his base wanted the wall and they are going to get the beginnings of the wall. by the way, i disagree. the president's primary responsibility constitutionally is preserve and protect and defend the constitution and the people of the united states. this is about security. this is about our nation's sovereignty. israel builds walls to protect its sovereignty. they are right to do so. we should do the same. nancy pelosi is wrong when she says border security or walls are immoral. >> howard dean, rebuttal. >> there is no rebuttal. this is trump's fantasy. nobody believes this stuff. the only people who believe this who trump said during the campaign he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and his base wouldn't leave him. that's true. his base is only between 35 and 40%. i don't know why he is doing this.
nobody believes him. nobody takes him seriously. i don't know where he cares what ann coulter thinks. nobody else does. this is a ridiculous argument by a ridiculous person who is pretending he is the president of the united states. >> what does this mean in terms of going forward? should the democrats fight this declaration of emergency? >> of course. here is why they should fight it. we actually would gain more if we didn't fight it. then we would -- >> that's why i ask. >> if we didn't fight it, we would then eventually get the presidency and we would declare emergency for climate change and an emergency for a lot of the other things, guns, for example, as they were five more people murdered today by a nut case with a gun. this is a bad idea to overturn the constitution. i don't believe that justice roberts, who is a very conservative guy, but does believe what the constitution says, i don't believe he will allow this to happen.
i don't. the long-term implications, which trump never thinks about, the long-term implications are bad for the country. congress was set up to control the purse. there's a good reason for that. the founding fathers wrote the constitution in case somebody like trump came along. 250 years later, here we. here we are. >> republicans who go full gumby to state on the side of this president did not want him to do this. if you open this door, it smacks of when mcconnell said to harry reid and the democrats, if you do this with the filibuster, it will come back to haunt you. if you declare an emergency that isn't one, it's going to come back. should that be something you are concerned about? >> look, what i prefer that the democrats within congress came to their senses and offered again in terms of a negotiation what they had offered before? yes. i would have preferred it done that way.
it was not done that way. >> let me ask you something. i want to say something. my audience asks me. it's a good question. it's interesting. trump wants a big price tag, $5 billion. what do we know about the difference between appropriation and spending of money in congress? we know it by the fact that there's right now $680 million sitting in the account for money that was allocated or appropriated two years ago. they are building fencing with money from two years ago. what is the question about a big price tag? why not do it year by year? they don't even spend the money. he just wants the price tag because it looks good, not because there's more wall built. >> no. first of all, the amount of monies that we're talking about when you talk about a budget -- i don't know the exact amount. probably approaching a $1 trillion budget is pennies. >> they don't spend it. >> the full $8 billion. you know, that's going to be the president's job to execute it.
you can guarantee that the american people -- >> he hasn't built a foot of new wall in two years. >> that money has been allocated for new border fencing. he is going to use it. trust me, he is going to execute and he is going to spend it. it's going to be another promise that he made on the campaign trail and promise kept. i pray the democrats go after him. i want to contrast a president that believes he is preserving the sovereignty of our country and protecting the american people versus the democrats and nancy pelosi's radical angels, i call them the taliban wing of the democratic party, that not doesn't want to put up a wall and wants to have open borders, but they want to defang i.c.e. i love this battle. >> i.c.e. and what they want to do, that's fairgrounds. will bounce that to howard. the idea of an open border is absurd.
there are hundreds of miles of fencing. it's only the president who didn't know. he was saying there's nothing there. we need to put something. you know there's a ton there. >> i said there are -- i didn't say there's an open border. there are many within the democratic party. unfortunately, even some republicans that believe in open border. >> the final point here, which is the democrats do have this balancing act of pushing back on the president with what he wants and at the same time not being painted with being soft on crime. >> i think that debate is over. about 60% of the american people are with us and about 35% are with trump. that's in spite of the nonsense about democrats want an open border. the republicans will have a come to jesus meeting here if they keep doing this stuff. we will beat the daylights out of them in 2020. losing 40 seats was nothing.
the american people do not -- they are sick of this. they are sick of the corruption, sick of the lies, what they would like is a serious policy worked on by both democrats and republicans. we send a bill over. he signed it. then he started weeping because he didn't get everything he wants. he can't have everything he wants. he is not in touch with reality. the vast majority of the american people believe that, even though he has people who will go through walls for him. it's not enough to win an election. >> walls. i see what i did there. leave it there. i'm short on time. thank you for coming on a friday night. coming up, listen to this story. you may have heard about it. we just heard from the guy involved. what would you do -- you are jogging down a trail. you look to the side. it's a mountain lion. then you try to run away. the worst thing happens. this guy didn't just survive, he did something i have never heard of before.
♪ ♪ t-mobile will do the math for you. join t-mobile and get two phones plus two unlimited plans for just one hundred bucks a month. 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! listen to this story. this guy, 31 years old, is jogging. he is in colorado. he hears something in the woods. he doesn't know what it is. there's a mountain lion. he does this thing with his hands they tell you to do. get away. be big. the thing pounces on him. what ensues is a death match against a mountain lion. you never heard about this. when you do, we know how it ends. listen to this kid. >> it kind of kept running and lunged at me.
it was going toward my face. i threw up my hands to block my face. at which point it grabbed on my hand and wrist. that's when kind of my fear response turned into more of a fight response. >> fight or flight. here is what i gotta tell you that is impressive if you take the guy at his word. they go rolling down the side of a mountain. he has his arm stuck in the cat's mouth. he is trying to pin down its back legs which can do damage. can do some damage. he is picking up sticks and rocks. he wants to hurt it, not kill it. he realizes, he says, when he hits it in the head and it doesn't let go, he has to do something worse. he takes his foot and suffocates the cat. i'm not celebrating the killing of a mountain lion. it was him or the lion. the thing had his arm. he thought about how to do it least aggressively before he had to make the decision to kill it. the cat suffocates, releases the arm.
he runs another three miles all beat up like that and gets help. d. lemon. would you do the same? >> you took the words out of my mouth. fight or fright. >> fright is right. >> it's friday. no, no, the fright will make you fight. number one, i'm glad he is okay. you are not celebrating the killing of a mountain lion. i am. that mountain lion was trying to kill him. >> he had to do it. gl. >> no question. >> you know -- it's not like he is a hunter or something like that. >> no, no. he said, i fought back. they rolled halfway down the mountain. he said, i hit his head on a rock. when it didn't release me, i knew i had to take drastic measures. so he started strangling the thing. >> used his foot. >> yeah. i don't know if you said this.
19 stitches in his cheek. six along the bridge of his nose. three in the wrist. >> i can't believe three in the wrist. it must have been in front of the big teeth. i have done training and stuff. i don't know i'd make it out out of there. you like to hope, to think you get back to your kids, your loved ones. but a mountain lion pounces on you, and you go tumbling down the side of a ridge, that's bad news. that man gets my respect, not some stupid, macho way because he killed an animal. i'm not impressed by that. i'm impressed he saved his own life. >> two things. number one, this is why i do urban runs in the city where there are no -- one night, one night i was running in central park, there was the biggest -- >> rat? >> no. raccoon. that thing was the size of a tank. it went running by, and i was like, whoa! and this other guy was running opposite of me. i said, i just saw the biggest raccoon i've ever seen in my life.
yorn i don't know if you want to go that way. >> i got to go. i'll take it out of closing. >> the guy goes by and says, you're right. >> i had a raccoon attack me in my garage when we first moved in. i ran out of the garage, and i said, that's it. i'm going to teach this raccoon a lesson. i go back in there with a tennis racket. the raccoon jumps on a couch, where he was hanging out in the garage. and i'm holding the racket like this. it jumps towards me. i freeze. the raccoon lands, runs right across my feet and out. i never moved. i was frozen stiff with fear. and i hated myself even more. >> let that be a lesson to you. i always tell you i'm smaller than you, but i'm scrappy, and i can take you. >> i know what you say. >> i know we're over time. mark mckinnon, showtime's "the circus," talking about the right-wing media being the president of the united states or his closest adviser. >> another great get on a friday. i'll be with you in a second. it's a true story. that's why it's so pathetic for me.
all right, so, horrible day for the country today, right? these mass shootings, they just never stop. now we have this crisis around the wall. the crisis isn't what it's really about. it's about something else. national emergency. what should it have meant? what will it mean? closing argument, next. allergies with sinus congestion and pressure? you won't find relief here. go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more.
the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.
we have never seen a president declare an emergency the same day that he and congress passed a law addressing the same issue. it makes no sense, and at the same time, it makes perfect sense. if you look at the list of existing emergencies, it goes back many years. they're mostly about blocking assets of people connected to terror, so this one stands out. it's calculated only to help this president's political fortunes. you have no one but this president say that a physical barrier would immediately avert any kind of crisis. what does that tell you? it's a move that may qualify as an emergency in that it creates a danger that is imminent. this party will be haunted by this. that could be an emergency for them. he was begged not to do this by many of them, and yet today when confronted with this reality, he did what he most often does. >> mr. president, what do you say to those including some of your republican allies who say that are you violating the
constitution with this move and setting a bad precedent that will be abused by possibly democratic presidents in the future, marco rubio -- >> well, not too many people -- yeah. not too many people have said that. >> wrong. mcconnell reportedly begged him not to do this. rubio said a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose a green new deal. senator rand paul tweeted this. extra-constitutional executive actions are wrong no matter which party does them. the real problem is that our politics are tit for tat. one side does use whatever leverage is used against it, and speaker pelosi sounded like then senator of the minority mitch mcconnell when he said to the democrats he'd change his filibuster rule. oh, listen to her. >> you want to talk about a national emergency? let's talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in america. that's a national emergency. >> hey, national emergency is
anything the president says it is if congress can't stop him. that was yesterday. she was talking about parkland in florida. we had another one today. an illinois manufacturing business. five civilians dead, five police officers injured. no rush to action by the president about that. just a tweet sending condolences, thanking law enforcement, the folks that are constantly outgunned in these situations, taking on a problem no one seems to want to discuss, let alone confront. but if you dare try to walk 100 miles with your kids and sneak into this country for a better life -- and that is what the overwhelming majority of illegal entrants do -- well, they're you're equal to an emergency like 9/11 terrorists, african strongmen, iranian scammers, and other major crime organizations because that's who has emergencies declared against them. look at the list. i got it there. i know it's small, but you can look it up yourself as well. the ugly ironies here. an emergency declared the same day the president signs a law from congress acting on the same
situation. him declaring it as urgent when he knows there's a legal battle that may delay it many months or years. he did this to show a bigger price tag when he knows the amount appropriated by congress already will last a year or two given the pace of construction. and the worst irony, that he says this is about stopping unnecessary crime and bloodshed when he does nothing about 11,000 homicides by firearm in 2017 alone. just a tweet about a mass shooting the same day he declares border crossers an emergency. and yet in all of this negativity, as it is in often bad situations, we see something of value. left and right came together in that place today. they did a deal. they kept government open. and now in the face of this emergency, they're more united against this kind of political stunt by this president than we've seen them ever be about anything in the last two years. maybe his party will find its
spine because now we know something crystal clear. this president will clearly do only what he thinks is best for him. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. >> i hope his party finds their spine because isn't this supposed to be the party of strict constitutionalists? >> mm-hmm. >> what happened to that and all the criticism for -- i just remember during -- the last president, president obama, towards the end of office, he was trying to get a whole lot of things done and no one was working with him. he said, i've got the power of the pen. and just about every republican came out, you can't do that. you're subverting the authority -- >> you're a king! >> you're not a monarch. you're not royalty. what are you doing? and now crickets. well, some of them are. i shouldn't say -- >> well, a lot of them. there's enough that you hear the crickets. there's enough for