Skip to main content

tv   New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman  CNN  February 18, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PST

4:00 am
>> we shouldn't have an executive that tries to get around conkbres with this national emergency. >> unfortunately he's got to do it on his own and i support his decision to go that route. >> i didn't need to do this, but i'd rather do it much faster. >> if we give away the power of the purse, there will be little check and no balance left. >> i believe i was fired because i opened a case against the president of the united states. >> it is alarming that there were folks at the highest levels of our government considering whether or not our president is unfit to serve. >> will you subpoena mccabe and rosenstein? >> how i cannot. >> announcer: this is new day with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> morning, everyone. welcome to a special holiday edition of new day. john ber man is off, john avlon joins me. happy president's day. >> happy president's day to you. my favorite holiday? >> is it? >> no, i'm just kidding. >> but you are going to dress up as one? >> as promised. top white house official says president trump is prepared to issue the first vee testify
4:01 am
to his presidency if congress tried to repeal his national emergency that circumvents congress for border wall money. democrats are planning to introduce a resolution soon disapproving the emergency declaration where it is expected to pass both chambers. if the president vetoes that resolution, will enough republican lawmakers then go against the president to override his veto? >> president trump already facing legal challenges, something he acknowledged would happen. california's attorney general says he's working with officials in several states to sue the white house. we're expecting to see protests across the country today in response to the president's emergency declaration. plus, we have the latest pom shell ref laltions from fired fbi deputy trickettor andrew mccabe's new book and why one prominent republican wants to get him before congress. wee traveling with the president live in west palm beach floo, sara. >> john, good morning. the white house is digging in
4:02 am
and preparing to defend the nation's emergency declaration as california and six other states prepare lawsuits and the aclu among other groups is also preparing for a legal bast well, the trump administration. but beyond these roadblocks in court, house democrats are getting ready to pass that resolution of disapproval to try to stop the president from using his executive power in this way. that could gain some support in the senate where there are some republicans who are uncomfortable with this use of executive authority. the top trump adviser stephen miller said yesterday that the president may be willing to veto that measure if it reaches his desk. take a listen. >> will the president veto that which would be the first veto of his presidency? >> obviously the president is going to protect his national emergency declaration. i know we're out of time but i want to make this point. there's no threat -- >> he will veto? >> he's going to protect his national emergency declaration guaranteed. >> now, around the country today there are protests against the
4:03 am
president's use of a national emergency being planned. those protests come amid uncertainty about where exactly the administration will be getting the roughly $6 billion in federal funds that the president is hoping to unlock with this national emergency declaration. acting defense secretary pat shanahan said over the weekend he's going to start to review what programs at the pentagon he'll cut. keep in mind much of this money, about half, will be coming from military construction funds, so things like family housing, schools, vital facilities on military bases, those could be on the chopping block, alisyn and john. >> that's an pornographic we have on the screen because those are things that people fought for, they voted for, those are things that constituents wanted, that they were expecting, and so, you know, you have to rob peter to pay paul basically. thank you. let's bring in jeffrey toobin, cnn chief legal analyst, corey sellers, and alice stewart, the communications director for ted
4:04 am
cruz. that's where i want to start. explain to us how people like your former boss ted cruz can get on board with this. senator cruze has called it a slippery slope that he's a little concerned with, the fact that the president's doing an end run around congress. but ultimately, will senator cruze g cruz get on board with the fact that he's handing over the power of the purse to the president? >> what we're going to see in my expectation is many republicans here in washington will get on board with this because this president ran and won on building a wall and securing the border and many of them also included that in part of what they ran and won on. so this is an important issue. and now with many things that this president has done, i agree 100% with the policy of it, but the pathway he has used to get there is something that i do have some concern with. >> meaning what? you agree well, the emergency declaration or you don't? >> i agree with his commitment to securing the bordered and keeping america safe and
4:05 am
building a wall is something that he has wanted to do from the very beginning and he has been committed to that. look, i agree declaring an emergency is going to cause some concerns down the road. we're certainly looking at the potential for facing legal challenges. but this is something that he was committed to doing and is following through on. the concern with doing this is the precedent that this sets. what is to stop a future democrat president from declaring national emergency on an issue that they think is important, whether it is climate change, gun control, whether it is abolishing i.c.e. so that's the concern. however, the president does have the authority do so. i think it will ultimately be decided in court but legally he has the authority do so and congress gave him that back during the national emergencies act. >> but, jeff, one the problems is that the president's undercut his own argument. knowing this legal challenge would come after floating this for weeks. let's listen to how he created the problem for himself potentially. >> i could do the wall over a longer period of time.
4:06 am
i didn't need to do this. but i'd rather do it much faster. >> i didn't need to do this. how does that justify a national emergency? >> what the president was saying is that like past presidents, he could choose to ignore this crisis, choose to ignore this emergency as others have. but that's not what he's going to do. >> that's of course not exactly what he said. and the problem is that while emergency is not defined in this statute, the dictionary definition of emergency certainly doesn't fit this and this weekend he he's at mar-a-lago at the omelette bar. >> nothing says rapid and fast than the omelette bar. >> they cook fast. >> presumably for the president. but nonetheless, did the president create a problem for himself where he was already going to face a serious challenge? >> did he create a problem for himself. but i don't know if it's an insurmountable problem. courts are very cognizant of their own institutional limitations.
4:07 am
they know they don't have the resource dos t resources to do the investigation that the executive branch has. there will certainly be some judges, i don't know how many, this is a novel legal question, but there will certainly be some judges who say, look, it is the executive branch's decision how to define an emergency. they will certainly come with arguments that say this is an emergency. and some judges will say we just are not going to second guess the executive branch in this area. whether that's five supreme court justices, i don't know. my guess is it probably is. i think we are now in a moment, a conservative moment in our courts where there is a lot of deference to the executive branch. so i think, you know, it's -- this is not a slam dunk for either side, this legal case. but if i had to guess, i would say the president is ultimately going to win. >> i was so struck by stephen miller's timeline that he gave this weekend. so he said that he was asked when he thinks that this wall, the barrier, will be built.
4:08 am
now, remember, it was supposed to be 55 miles in the bipartisan deal but now it's 230, i guess. and he said september of 2020. september of 2020 for a national emergency. they can't build a barrier before 19 months from now? because september of 2020 seems like people might be busy thinking about who they're going to vote for and it might be convenient to unveil the wall then. it seemed like a political timeline. >> well, it is. and i think that jeffrey actually has an amazing point because i don't think this is as much of a constitutional issue for this white house as it say political issue. i do think we're in a conservative moment and i do think there will be a lot of deference to the executive branch in this matter. but the fact is, the president created for himself a political problem. the first is not only is he trying to fulfill a campaign promise, but he's trying to fulfill a campaign promise and pull the wool over the people's eyes because he said he was going to build a wall that mexico was going to pay for. we all know that this is now going to come out of the pockets
4:09 am
of american citizens. but even more importantly, the second point is we know that this is going to come out of the pockets of our military men and women because we see where this someone going to come from. real emergency or crisis that we have is on our military base where's they have a shortage of housing and this money or these monies were going to go towards building that housing. the larger question that they have to answer politically is if you have a house and senate majority for two years, how is it an emergency now but it was not an emergency then? i think that's one of the largest and most looming questions they have. i don't think they have a legal question, i think the courts will side with this white house. unfortunately, i think they have a real big political problem that they're trying to solve and i don't think the american public is going to forget who's supposed to pay for this wall. because, to be honest, those of us, the five of us sitting on this show aren't supposed to be paying for this wall, i thought mexico was paying for it. >> alice, bakari just said it's quite possible that the courts may decide in the president's favor, jeffrey conoccurs. as a conservative, if there is
4:10 am
this precedent and republicans long resisted executive overreach and now you have a precedent of emergency powers being able to fund priorities by a democratic president when that is brought to bear by a democratic president, will you and your fellow conservatives support the precedent or will you fight it as political overreach? >> well, john, based on our cnn poll, look at the numbers. >> let's do that. >> republicans more than 60% of republicans say they support the president's emergency declaration. more than 70 -- around 74% of conservative republicans support this idea of emergency declaration. so clearly he has the support of republicans and certainly what he has posted a lot of his emphasis on is the more conservative republicans. that is what will help him continue to fight what he's doing. >> sure. >> and let me just say to bakari's point. yes, ideally we were to build this wall and mexico would have paid for it. when that didn't happen, the
4:11 am
dynamics of how to achieve this changed. but even with republicans in control of the house and senate we still needed democratic support. when we put daca on the table and tps recipients on the table and humanitarian aid on the table and democrats were still in the point of saying no, that right there shows that democrats are not willing to secure the border and that is something that all americans can agree on. so it's time for everyone to come together and since we did not get democrat support on issues that they wanted -- >> two points just for clarity on that. first of all, the president offered a three-year prepreef f reprieve for the daca and dreamers, not what the democrats were asking for. >> he also took it away. >> i want to bear into those numbers a little bit more closely. you see the partisan divide on this issue. independents much lower support for the emergency declaration, democrats not surprising, very little. that would indicate this is about politics, not principle. and if that's the standard we're going to use, can we expect
4:12 am
conservatives to sing a very different tune about executive power when a democratic president tries to pull an emergency order? >> well --. >> will you be fighting a democratic president who tries to do a similar thing? >> there's always going to be a situation where when president obama uses executive powers and using his pen and phone specifically regard to daca there were a lot of republicans, myself included, that had some concern with his end run around congress. but at the end of the day, he was president of the united states, he had the authority to make that decision, and at the end of the day he chose do so and i supported that decision as president. i think when we all look back on this we can recognize the fact that the president does have the authority to do so and he is the president of the united states. he campaigned and won on this issue and as much as it's painful to say, democrats have to accept that. >> can i just ask? i mean, you know, we're talking about the procedure here and what's -- i mean, how many people want this wall at all?
4:13 am
i mean, that's the thing that is so interesting to me. >> we've got polling on that. >> is that the president has bet his presidency on a project that is, again, popular with his base but not with much of anyone else. and, i mean, look, as i often point out, i was wrong about 2016, i'll probably be wrong about 20. but i don't get why this is such a winning issue for him. >> it goes further than that, in fact. hold on because i want you to comment on this. things that he's promising, the wall can do, are also really questionable. he promised that he was going to tackle the opioid crisis. opioid overdoses have gone up under president trump. he's now claiming in that press conference that the wall will solve the drugs, the heroin, and fentanyl and opioids coming into this country. really? what's going to happen when you seal off those 230 miles and somehow miraculously be we still
4:14 am
have an opioid crisis in this country? >> well, i mean, the cord word of the day should be pa poccracy. i understand alisyn's point, she wasn't quite acc crate on the tps and dabbing because the president took those away and tried to give is it back in negotiation dollars. hypocrisy is the word of the day. when you look at lindsey graham and how he contorts himself as the chairman of judiciary and how he stood in front of a camera and said the presidential overreach and when you talk about daca and you should not use your emergency powers do such things as this and it was a slippery slope and unconness tutional, but to now stand back and allow this to happen, in january of 2021, if there is, and we hope there to be a democratic president, and day one they declare a national emergency or gun violence in this country which is running rampant, on day one if they declare a national mng on climate change, which is destroying this earth that we've inherited, then i think republicans are going to all out have a hissy fit.
4:15 am
and the problem that we're seeing is that no one right now is having any conviction. there's not one republican, there's not one republican who stands on the side of the constitution. that's the biggest problem. >> all right. bakari, jeffrey, alice, thank you very much for all of your varied perspectives on this. >> thanks, alisyn. he's the first trop say repo say he wants to challenge president trump in 2020. we talk to william weld on whether he thinks he has a chance and why now. uh, well, this will be the kitchen. and we'd like to put a fire pit out there, and a dock with a boat, maybe. why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot. but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪
4:16 am
4:17 am
means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ stands on the side of the we talk to william weld on
4:18 am
does your customers connecting to the wifi ever slow down your business? yes, it does slow things down. aggravating. it's a nightmare. so our gig-speed network is fast. and we go beyond fast by making it easy to create separate networks for your business and your customers and even control how much bandwidth each of those gets. so your business won't miss a beat. this is a big game changer.
4:19 am
this is the new wave, and whoever doesn't get on, i think they would be left behind. just one more way we go beyond at&t. right now get fast, reliable internet and add wifi pro for a low price. comcast business. beyond fast. i have established an exploratory committee to pursue the possibility of my running for the presidency of the united stat states. as a republican we cannot sit passively as our precious democracy slips quietly into darkness. >> that is former massachusetts governor bill weld announcing an exploratory committee to challenge president trump for the republican nomination in 2020. . >> in his speech he said republicans in exhibit -- in washington exhibit all the symptoms of stockholm sin dram and he's doing his part to stand up to the school yard bully, end
4:20 am
quote. joining us now is former governor bill weld. good morning, governor. >> thank you, alisyn, good to be with you. >> what was it for now. >> what was the that you have broke the camel's back that made you think now is time to jump into this? >> i think now's the time because the new hampshire primary is one year away. time's awasting if one's going to make a serious effort to have the actual issues discussed as opposed to a bunch of political slogans and in-fighting in washington, now's the time to do it. >> was there something that president trump did that made you think, yes, i'm going to get in? when you say he's too unstable to carry out duties of higher office, what was it? how so? >> one moment does stick in my mind and that's the time when the president shooed all the u.s. press out of the oval office and brought in
4:21 am
embassikies leei ambassadorkies leeiac. that showed contempt for the american people. >> he shared classified information during that. >> yeah. no, it just gets worse and worse. and the president does not exhibit curiosity about history or even world events. it troubles me that he, you know, abroad he seeks out the company of people who are dictators and people like vladimir putin, like president kim of north korea. he said of president kim, oh, what a great strong kid. he iced his uncle. he even iced his own brother. this is mob talk, which i had some familiarity from my days in the justice department. >> and so was that the moment some when you saw what he did in the oval office with sharing classified information, was that the moment you thought, i think i'm going to primary -- i'm going to try to launch a primary? >> there was not one moment. i do think the president has shown a tendency to associate with autocrats.
4:22 am
think his drams instincts are in the same direction. i recall him saying on television wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to have elections. i'm sure he would say that was a joke. i'm not so sure it was a joke. response to my announcement of an exploratory committee has been for everybody to close ranks among the state republican parties and say we can't have a primary. truth is if the president had his first choice, he wouldn't have a primary and he wouldn't have an election. >> so when you say that some of your fellow republicans have stockholm syndrome, who are you referring to? >> the general reception in congress pretty quiet to some of the president's outrageous conduct and behavior. and by that i mean they identify with their captor, that's what stockholm syndrome means. so they identify with him as the emblem of the republican party. you couldn't have a much morse emblem, if in my view. so it's just everybody going quiet. there's a hush over the republican party in washington,
4:23 am
d.c. and they're content to let the president take the lead and be the spear point. and he's going in all the wrong directions, in my view. this whole thing about the wall say political symbol for him. all the experts will tell you what we need down there near the border is more drones, more people, and i realize the president campaigned on it, but it doesn't make it anymore attractive an issue. it goes right back to the nativism of the no nothing party in the 1850s which was half of the weak party. the other half become the republican party of abraham lincoln. i'm trying to get us back in the republican party of abraham lincoln rather noont nothing, anti-catholic zel lits of the 1850s. >> i don't know if that's where the republican party is right now. here's the latest poll in terms of whether people support the national emergency for a border wall in the is among conservative republicans, which of course is the president's base, 72% say yes, 21% say so no. so when you say that republicans
4:24 am
are sourt rt of in the pray of president, aren't they in the sway of his base and they don't want to alienate them? >> there's a very conservative group, not my base for sure. there are 20 primaries where independents and unenrolled voters can come in and vote in the republican primary. those will have my attention. but beyond that, in states like new hampshire, people like to sit down and talk with the candidates and see them up close and personal. and, you know, think when you have conversations with people, when they break out of this, everybody's got to be a republican or democrat and i'm going to be a republican because we have to kill the democrats or the other way around, people think for themselves and break out of that sort of stranglehold of the two parties, as they present, then i think there is a good chance that people can be reflective and think there's another way to do things than to waste all this time in washington. >> well, last time around you ran as part of a third party
4:25 am
ticket. what do you think of howard schultz's run as an independent? >> i think people are giving howard schultz a bad rap, and they say oh, he's going to hurt the democrats because all his votes will come from the democrats. i don't think so. howard schultz is a business guy. i think his votes would come from trump. the libertarian vote last time when i was on the ticket with former republican governor gary johnson, our votes came 3 to 1 out of trump, not from mrs. clinton. and the democrats howled that we cost them the election. but think about it. a libertarian vote say changed vote or protest vote. those were not going to mrs. clinton last time. >> so why don't you run as an independent? >> i thought about the libertarian party again, but i decided i really wanted to go mono/mono with mr. trump. there's so many things he's doing that i think are undermining our democratic institutions and i think he's
4:26 am
leading the country in the most fundamental way in the wrong direction. and that clearest shot is in the republican primary. >> and so one of your strategies, as you just said have to focus on the states where democrats can vote in the republican primary? >> no, no, democrats can't ever take a republican ballot. it's unenrolled and independent voters who can come in the and that always helped me when i was running. the independents came in and voted formy voted for me six to one, maybe as a centrist but somebody who would work across the aisle to get things done. that's what's not happening in washington, d.c. right now. >> thank you for explaining all of this to us. obviously we will be watching very closely your next moves. >> thanks, alisyn. democratic presidential candidate amy klobuchar will take part in a cnn town hall with don lemon tonight at 10:00 p.m. only an cnn. this is in new hampshire. up next, his story got attention from hollywood to
4:27 am
presidential candidates. now there are serious questions about whether empire actor jess jussie smollett was attacked or it was all a hoax. the latest twist in the case next. they're our parents...
4:28 am
neighbors... loved ones. living with diseases like cancer, epilepsy, mental health conditions and hiv. maybe you're one of them. but new medicare rules could deny access to the latest, most effective therapies... therapies that keep them healthy. are medicare cuts that save less than one percent worth the risk to millions of patients? president trump promised to protect medicare... we need him to keep his word.
4:29 am
4:30 am
4:31 am
it was a hate crime or a hoax? law enforcement sources tell name the chicago police now believe that empire actor jussie smollett paid two men to orchestrate an attack on him. smollett's attorneys deny that the actor played any role in his own attack. joining us now to talk about off of this is charles blow. he's an opinion columnist "the new york times" and brian stalter. great to have both of you here. brian, i remember in the hours right after this happened that cnn, our bosses, were advising to bump the brakes a little bit because will were things that didn't add up. i was frankly surprised how many people jumped on board to side with jussie smollett before there were photos and before there were police statements, before all that stuff. so how do you think this all -- what was the trajectory of how this went wrong? >> the headline was so sensational and so disturbing. it first came out on tmz not only that he said had he been attacked, but the attacker said
4:32 am
this is maga country. obviously chicago at 2:00 in the morning is not maga country. that doesn't make sense. lots of the story didn't make sense. but act dors, hollywood sbraits celebriti celebrities were all doing the right thing standing up for a victim. there's a need wanting to believe victims and knowing people can take advantage of that. taking advantage of the idea that it's important to believe victims. and that tension has been the story for weeks. there was a rush to judgment, i think it was mostly in the celebrity press and among activists and among twitter people. i think it was a really careful reporting by news organizations. but it gets lumped together any end of the day in the minds of many people who look at this and say what went wrong here? what went wrong is that he may have made it up. ultimately, that's his responsibility. >> ultimately that's right. but, charles, it's understandable in a context to take a victim's word at first,
4:33 am
but there does need to be due dial agains diligence. in 2017 i believe it is over 7,000 hate crimes in the united states. that was up 17% compared to 2016. so it's important to keep that in mind as we confront the possibility that this was a hoax. and it's not the only hoax of this kind of nature we've seen. we saw the uva reporting with rolling stone did, questions with stories out of the air force academy. so this is not undiscovered territory, but it raises the question against the backdrop of this being a real problem in the country. what's the psychology of a hate crime hoax? why would somebody do that? because it diminishes the real instances so much? >> i'm not a psychologist. i'll take a stack at this. i think that if he did this, and people who do this sort of -- i think you do have to find a villain who your target audience would believe. and i think that in this case, if this is true, it was very
4:34 am
believable that a gay man who could be gay bashed, if you take the celebrity out of this and you dig down into your hate crime numbers, it is even more stark among people who are queer in this punt. they acountry. they are more likely to be assaulted sexually and nonsexually and by everybody including authorities. and they don't have the platform. many of them are astranged fres family. they just don't have the voice. and so the big concern for me is whether or not it impacts those genuine victims and their ability or their willingness to come forward and say something happened to me. because very often in cases of assault, sexual and non, there are no witnesses, there is -- there is no evidence to preserve. and it is a question of character. and in this case, people were making a character judgment.
4:35 am
jessjussie is close to the person he plays on television. he tries to save a historically black weapon's college in the south, he does that sort of thing. so if people were making a gut-level decision about this is this a character who i believe? why would he -- the question of motive is still murky. >> yeah, for sure. but also the fact that the surveillance cameras hadn't picked anything up and that place was lined with surveillance cameras. there were things that aroused suspicion right away. >> i think brian made an important point about the collision of healthy skepticism with the historical truth that people are not generally believed on assault. >> and when it becomes cynicism and an excuse to ignore real crimes and real problems, then that's even worse. >> yeah. >> this is a mystery, still. why devote this? what is the motive? that remains a mystery.
4:36 am
and the police say we just need to talk to him. >> he sat down with robin roberts, i don't remember if it was last week -- >> yeah, last week. >> and she pressed him on some of this. watch this now. >> who thought [ bleep ] would make something like this up or add something to it or whatever it may be? i can't -- i can't even -- i'm an advocate. i'm pissed off. >> what is it that has you so angry? is it the attackers? >> it's the attackers but it's also the attacks. it feels like if i had said it was a muslim or a mexican or someone black, i feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot much more, a lot more. and that says a lot about the place that we are in our country right now. >> it's more uncomfortable to
4:37 am
watch it now knowing all the questions that the chicago police have gone public with now. >> i watched that last week viewing him as an activist. i view it now vooeg viewing him as an actor and wondering about whether acting is a part of this. because it is if he did orchestrate this hoax, you know, these two men who were in custody last week, they've cooperate and provided evidence to the police. so it's now in his court. and we do need to hear more of his side of the story. as of saturday night his lawyers were saying he's the victim of a hate crime so he was not changing his tune. >> that's important to note. but charles, he very quickly even in that interview is elevating to a national conversation, saying this is about the ugliness of the national conversation and i'm the victim of that. and that first performance back i believe in west hollywood saying i'm going to come back from this. so by elevating it, making it a national metaphor, what is he trying to communicate if it's all at the bottom of a hoax? not that you can get inside his head, but he's the one raising this to a national element, which elevating it to a national
4:38 am
conversation, which makes the possibility of it being a hoax that much more devastating. >> listen, if jussie has done what the chicago police say he's done, it's not just that he's an actor there are san insane person. it's a psychopath. and there's nog in his history that suggests he's a psychopath. that's why it's so hard for everybody to -- that's why people are wait trying to figure out, please go back and interview him, chicago pd. but we need to understand what's the motive? because nothing -- i met him one time. he was the sweetest -- it was in passion and i was with a girl that went to college with him, she's a big fan and had his picture. he was the most gracious person. that's the kind of feeling people have. so if you did this, we need to know are you crazy? did you literally lose it? because nothing is adding up about why he would do this. >> one thing's for certain, this story is not over pet yet. >> brian, charles, thank you
4:39 am
both very much. all right. a potential break through in relations between the u.s. and north korea. we have exclusive details for you next.
4:40 am
4:41 am
4:42 am
a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast. new this morning, cnn has exclusive details of a potential break-through in relations between the u.s. and north korea, ahead of the troubl
4:43 am
second trump-kim summit next week. michelle is live with more. what have ju learned? >> reporter: this has been a lig question leading up to the summit. what is going to come out of it, because north korea has made no moves towards real denuclearization other than saying that it wanted to. and there's so little confidence out there that north korea will denuclearize anytime so soon. so where we are now is a stalemate. there's been lots of talking going on, especially since the last summit in malaysia, but north korea has been wanting the u.s. to make some kind of significant move before it did anything towards denuclearization. so now we're hearing from senior diplomatic sources that there are serious discussions going on to exchange diplomats between the two countries. this would be very, very preliminary. it wouldn't be a formal reestablishing of relations as we would normally expect it see between two countries that get
4:44 am
along. this would be an exchange of what's called liaison officers. so it would be several from each side going over and establishing an office in each other's countries. it could be several people on the u.s. side, it would be led for example by a senior foreign service officer who would be fluent in korean. the so establishment of a liaison office would be a very preliminary first step towards reestablishing relations. but this would be a big deal. this was last discussed back in 1994 when there was another big attempt at getting north korea to denuclearize. i mean, it went to the point that the u.s. actually signed a lease to rent space in the german mission in north korea. this looked like it was going to happen, but the following year north korea completely pulled the plug on it. so this is something that is now being seriously discussed as an option to move something forward and could be announced at the
4:45 am
summit in just a few days. of course a big question that remains is, is the u.s. requiring north korea to show something or do something before this would happen. john. >> but still a potentially small but significant step forward. thank you, michelle. a government officials in haiti are calling for return to normal after a week and a half of deadly riots put the country on the brink of a political crisis. we're live with more. >> reporter: john, it's first thing in the morning, there are no signs yet that the -- certainly the pupil population of this country have answered the government's calls to go to school as normal in the is a city here in port of prince, but right across the country we're torn apart by nine days of very violent demonstrations calling for the ressing i sation of both the president and the prime minister. the prime minister here has moved in the last 48 hours to
4:46 am
try to draw the sting from that pro stos try to s process to say they will move against corrupt officials and they will set up a government body to investigate and name those that they say are behind corruption. and that in large part was what was behind these demonstrations. but the opposition is beginning to lose the momentum to some extent. yesterday they called for widespread demonstration, that call wasn't answered. so there is after the moment the government deployed pretty much the whole police force, 16,000 people across the country, and they recently announced in a very weird element in the story that we're chasing down which is that they've claimed to arrested seven foreign nationals, among them five americans who they allege this is the government, may be part of some kind of conspiracy. very strange aspect to that story, but, again, something of a distraction from the real politics here. >> thank you for those developments. come back to us when you hear
4:47 am
anymore. in just hours, president trump will address the ongoing turmoil in venezuela in a speech he gives in miami. u.s. has made it clear it recognizes juan guaido as interim president as pressure intensifies on embattled strongman nicolas maduro. 1 million people in venezuela have made their way to columbia. on saturday a wave of u.s. aid arrived at the border but maduro resisted the international help. republican senator marco rubio visited the border on sunday and he said the supplies will get in with or without maduro's approval. british lawmakers are accusing facebook of violating data privacy and competition laws. in a new report, the uk committee says facebook said it was willing to override its user's privacy settings in order to transfer data to app developers. it rips into ceo mark zuckerberg for not appearing before parliament. facebook says it does not breach data protection or competition
4:48 am
laws. company released a statement saying it, quote, supports effective privacy legislation and suspect open to meaningful ladies and gentlemen slation. accusations of church sexual abuse go beyond the catholic church. the allegations of the head of baptist church apologizing for, quote, pure evil. your new boss seems cool, but she might not be sweatpants cool. not quite ready to face the day? that's why we're here with free hot breakfast. book at for our price match guarantee. hampton by hilton. book at for our price match guarantee. 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!
4:49 am
(vo) quickbooks. backing you.
4:50 am
♪ 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
4:51 am
in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. -meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding. -we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands. -you're not gonna make it, you're not gonna make it! ask her if we can do her next wedding too! -so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. -on second thought, don't...ask that. that fits your business. at, we can't guarantee you'll good at that water jet thingy... but we can guarantee the best price on this hotel. or any accommodation, from homes to yurts. booking.yeah
4:52 am
new revelation on the catholic church's sexual abuse epidemic. the vatd can announced one of the highest officials, theodore mccarrick has been defrocked. there were 108 credibly named living and deceased clergy members. pope francis is preparing for an unprecedented summit in rome to address the abuse crisis. this problem extend wells beyond the catholic church. earlier this month, two texas newspapers revealed more than 700 victims have accused more than 380 southern baptist
4:53 am
leaders and volunteers of sexual misconduct since 1998. it's the largest protestant denomination in the united states. joining me exclusively in his first interview since the scandal broke is pastor j.d. grier, president of the southern baptist convention. thank you for joiningous "new day." >> thank you for having me. >> when you first read these stories in the "houston chronicle" what was your immediate visceral reaction? >> one of absolute horror to think this was happening in churches around the country. we've known that this has been an issue for decades. in fact, this past summer, the southern baptist convention passed a resolution condemning abuse and calling churches to take this very seriously and take the precautions. i appointed a study group back in july of last year that was really going to study this issue from top to bottom to analyze like what are the -- where are the best practices? what are the places that we are missing the mark? how can we do better?
4:54 am
this study group has been working for six or seven months on -- in fact, getting ready to issue a report on their findings tonight at a meeting of the executive committee of the southern baptist convention when this story came out a week or so ago. it made the urgency all the more pressing on us to be able to deal with this terrible and horrific problem in our churches. >> pastor grier, you described this as pure evil and reading through the specific instances, there's really no other word for it. but because of the structure of your church, some predecessors have taken a more hands-off approach. i want to read something from dr. edwin young who said i do not have an opinion as to the proper handling any of claims of sexual abuse by church members. but you have an opinion, correct? so what are you going to do about it? >> yeah, so the baptist -- southern baptist convention is different than a lot of
4:55 am
denominations in that it's not run from the top down. there's not an authority structure where a convention of churches that come together voluntarily. that affects how we approach a situation like this but that cannot be used as a cover for a lack of accountability. churches that show a wanton disregard of -- that allows abuse, allows it to happen, that protects the abuser, they have no place in our convention. so we definitely have an opinion on this. and that is that our churches, because of the god that we believe in and that we worship ought to be safe places for the vulnerable and predators ought to have no place in our midst. if that means we're going to disfellowship churches that show this want one disregard or criminal negligence when it comes to these issues, then that's what we're going to do. our goal is not simply to meet the minimum requirements of what ethics and the law require. our goal is to put on display what we believe about god. that our god is a god who gave
4:56 am
his life to protect the vulnerable, to save them. certainly not to put them in a place where they can go into harm's way. jesus said that it would be better for one of us to have a millstone tied around our neck and cast into the sea than for us to allow a little one who believed in him to stumble. what would make them stumble than the ones they are hearing about god from to be people that also are allowing them to be in situations where they can begin to experience some of the worst kinds of abuse ever known to mankind. >> some of the testimony people say their faith was murdered by these predators. i want to press you on this point. you have some powers. kicking church out of the larger convention. there are ten charges according to the report that welcomed pastors, ministers and volunteers since '98 who previously faced charges of sexual misconduct. some were registered sex offenders. and 35 offenders have been able to find jobs at churches over the past 20 years. not just to explain how that happened but what your going to
4:57 am
do about it in the specific cases of those individuals still working in churches and the churches that have welcomed them in. >> i'm not the one who can kick them out. the members are the ones that can disfellowship churches. what i'm going to do this evening is call for enhanced language that show that this is something that is out of step with what we call the baptist faith and message. already, you know, it is clear in our governing documents that this kind of thing is reason for disfellowship but i'm just going to say that, listen, this is not an excuse or something we can hide behind. this has absolutely no place in our convention. and i'm going to call on churches to take those steps and to say that we cannot allow a place for predators to move from church to church and churches that will not -- will not respect that. churches that will not go along with what we believe on this have to be removed as a part of who we purpose and that's what i'll be calling for. >> do you have confidence if you
4:58 am
call for it, it will occur? should those individuals with child sex abuse charges and convictions against them be removed by these churches? do you have the power to do that? >> so i have confidence because of the conversations i'm having. the conversations i've had with the study group that's comprised of -- people like rachel hollander and andrea munford that i believe you'd be aware of with -- the lead detective on the larry nassar case. they have just been dialoguing with southern baptist pastors and churches. the readiness of southern baptist to deal with this issue. we know it's so out of character with the message that we have and with the god that we worship. so there is certainly a willingness that this cannot happen because it is evil. and it is something that should break our hearts and something that should make us wonder why we weren't paying more attention when these reports of abuse were coming through.
4:59 am
you know, why we allowed things to happen that created, intentionally or unintentionally, safe spaces for abusers. >> we're living in a time when trust in all institutions are being eroded. the church, our government. and with president trump being very popular among many of your members, exhibiting behavior that is contrary to many teachings, do you think that's become a thin edge of the wedge where there's a disconnect between the actions of leadership and the professions of faith of the faithful? >> yeah, i mean, certainly we have to ask, is the life we're living and message we're preaching line up? that's what i'm driving for here. there's a temptation to blame this problem, john, on certain other things besides really where it ought to be. and that is that any time you have places where predators can hide, predators count on a sense of invulnerability. and they like for groups to assume it can never happen to me
5:00 am
and a temitation to look out at some of the group and say i don't believe what they believe and, therefore, that's their problem not ours. honestly, that's what southern baptist, how they got a little into this problem. we said this is a roman catholic problem or harvey weinstein problem, not something that can happen to us. predators count on that to assume it can't happen. anywhere there are people -- this is a people problem. whether we're talking zen buddhist or fundamentalist, anywhere there are people, this can be an issue and we have to be vigilant to say we'll not allow it to take place and this will not be a safe place for impunity. >> we're certainly realizing this is not an isolated problem. and pastor greear, thank you for coming on "new day" to address this. >> good morning, everyone. we're resetting. >> let's reset. >> great talk. welcome to a special holiday edition of "new day." it's monday, presidents' day, february 18th. it's 8:00 in the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on