tv Amanpour Company PBS December 11, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PST
hello everyone and welcome to "amanpour and company. federal prosecutors crank up the pressure on president trump saying for the first time that he is implicated in campaign violations. i hear from the federal election commission and a former federal prosecutor. then from chaos in the white house to a melt down in the british government. the prime minister delays a brexit vote that she was going to lose. latino evangelical, the
government crisis and dysfunction is coming to a boil on all sides of the atlantic in the united states, in france and right here in the united kingdom where the negotiating skills of the british prime minister teresa may have been under severe scrutiny. she has been staring defeat for her brexit deal in the face. at the 11th hour may delayed the crucial parliamentary vote. she repeated her mantra, her deal is the only deal on the table. >> if we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow the deal would be rejected by a significant margin. we will therefore defer the vote scheduled for tomorrow and not proceed to divide the house at this time. but mr. speaker, if you take a step back, it is clear that this house faces a much more fundamental question. does this house want to deliver
brexit? >> and the leader of the opposition, jeremy corbin, said the government has now lost total control. >> we are in extremely serious and unprecedented situation. the government has lost control of events and is in complete disarray. this is a bad deal for britain, a bad deal for our economy and a bad deal for our democracy. our country deserves better than this. >> so here to discuss is peter hague he believes the u.k. should remain in the eu. thank you for joining us to try to explain what on earth is going on. can you tell us how chaotic and how much of a problem it is here in the u.k. >> it is extremely chaotic and it is going to get worse. i have predicted for a while now that this situation will continue to develop in a haphazard unpredictable way. because if you start with the
reir remits that the prime minister was given, it was an impossible straight jacket that she was bound in. she was asked to square an impossible circle, to try to keep all the benefits of european union membership without any of the obligations because we were leaving. that especially came to pass and came to head over the northern island border. for a long time government ministers when i was raising this matter were in denial saying it is going to be all right on the night we are determined to keep an open border? when we try to square the impossible circle of satisfying the grass roots and conservative with the reality on the irish border they can't satisfy
anybody. >> let me ask you because this issue of ireland and northern ireland is so-called the back stop issue that is meant to be kind of a compromise to keep the border open and to ensure all sorts of smooth running while also delivering brexit. can you explain what back stop means and why it is so impossible to get it over the hurdle in parliament? >> it means a kind of insurance policy because you see teresa may's so-called deal actually doesn't sort anything out for the longer term. it gets britain through the brexit barrier that she is absolutely determined to do in line with the referendum results of two years ago. but it doesn't deal with future trading relationships. it leaves a completely uncertain future and an unstable future because the trading relationship between britain and the european union where half our trade
depends on it. it is crucial to try to have a future trading at the same time as staying outside the customs union which is what she wants to do and outside the single markets which her party wants to do, both of which are crucial to the open trade we have enjoyed for 40 years or more. you know, that is all up in the air. so the back stop was an insurance policy to say what matters above all is to maintain peace and stability on the island in a way that was delivered by the good friday agreement. for that you need -- they have the same trading relationship to simplify matters. that is where it is common stock.
h her -- they sought maybe the insurance policy being a permanent insurance policy because they can never reconcile the irreconcilable. >> they are right. just to point out that there is a lot of demonstrating and chanting and protesting behind you, there have been a huge number of protests for and against brexit over the weekend. as it gets to crunch time, people's voices are being heard. so if this is so impossible, i mean, and as you rightly say, the prime minister is being forced to square an impossible circle, that seems to have been obvious, the longer the process goes ahead. but let me ask you this. you are firmly in the remaining camp. i assume you would be behind the sort of procedures trying to get a second vote. is that correct? >> i am in favor of the people's
vote. i think this is such a miss. i do not believe that even those who are most strongly voted to leave in the referendum two years ago voted for this mess. and i don't see any way out of this mess except a vote to the people to say surely it is better to remain after all of this. let me just qualify one point. we needn't have been here. if the prime minister had been allowed by her party and if she had chose toon discuss with the opposition party not just labor but the other opposition parties a deal if you like to bring both sides of the referendum together where britain is still brexited, but stayed in the single market in the customs union, that essential protection where our jobs and trade and economy and prosperity, i think she would have gotten a deal through. the problem for her is her party and large members of the cabinet are absolutely fanatical
brexiteers would not allow her to do it. that is why i think all roads now lead to a people's vote and a referendum at some point in the future to rescue britain from this absolutely shamable. >> i put that to one of the prime minister's backers and a member of her government, justice minister rory stewart about a week ago in the runup to this now postponed vote. he told me that another vote would tear this country apart. just listen to what he said. >> if you try to ignore that and just stay in the european union you would have very toxic policies. you would have the british nationalist party taking off, immediate push for third referendum even if the campaign narrowly won. we cannot undo the fact the referendum happened. i think people are underestimating what would happen if for the first time in british history we chose to
overhaul a major herd. >> that is a conservative party member. he is a government minister. how do you respond to that? >> what is going on behind me? the country is split down the middle. it was in the referendum. it wasn't as if there was a run away victory for the lead decision. it was 52-48. what has happened is that the brexiteers have taken the decision and stuck it in the pockets and driven the prime minister in front of them as if there was no divisions. the country is already split. i do not see how giving the people a chance for a second thought, an opportunity to say is this really what we wanted,
is this miss, this loss of jobs, this loss of prosperity, this damage to our own future and that of our families, none of which was spelled out by the lead campaign, they promised a new kind of future which was there were no problems with it, it would all be sunny on the upside and greener on the other side. all of that stuff. now we are facing reality. i think a lot of people are saying i really would like the opportunity to consider this a game. and i agree to this extent. you cannot simply ignore the last referendum. the people have their say in it. i think the people should have the opportunity to have another say given the mess which i see no end to given the mess we are in. i don't see an end to it otherwise. >> can i just press you on what kind of a vote it would be? what would the question be?
is it the same question stay in or out of the european union or is it teresa may's deal versus no deal? what would the essential question be? >> at the moment it would be between teresa may's deal and remaining. and for people to decide what they want because that is the only choices available to us. parliament will not vote for no de deal. just in time supply chain supplying them and keeping the jobs and the cars coming off the production line. all of that would be thrown up into the air through a no deal, just literally going off the cliff edge. i don't think parliament would vote for that. it would probably have to be between teresa may's deal.
one of the things that are most important here is that people be given the opportunity of rescuing parliament from the mess it finds itself in. >> we see the eu looking on aghast as they are the principle negotiators. the brexit coordinator tweeted i can't follow anymore after two years of negotiations the government wants to delay the vote. just keep in mind that we will never let the irish down. this delay will further aggravate the uncertainty for people in business. it's time they make up their mind. very, very quickly because i want to get on to france, does she have any chance of getting european wiggle room? she is about to go off to
brussels again this week. >> she might get warm words. this is a treaty that has been agreed between the british government and the 27 nations of the european union. you can't just aggravate a decision like that. she might get warm words. i'm not sure that will change any minds in the fanatics who are sticking out against any sensible way forward, i'm afraid, which is why i come back to the referendum and the need for the people to have their say. >> i just want to ask you because for our american viewers, you talk about fanatics, would one of those be boris johnson? he is the former foreign secretary and a major hard line brexiter. would you call him a fanatic? >> i'm afraid i would on this issue. they went into the referendum and came out of it and two years later they are in the same place. they don't have a plan of their own. they cannot keep the irish
border open, maintain peace and stability on the island of ireland, keep our trade and jobs and prosperity with the european union intact. they want to sever all ties with it. this is impossible. they never had a plan of their own. that's why i think it is a form of dogmatism and fanaticism. i think that's the reason for it. >> and very quickly -- >> they never have come up with their own plan. >> what would a boris johnson prime minister look like if he succeeds in a leadership coup. >> i think pretty awful. i don't see any chance of him becoming leader. who knows what is going to happen in british politics at the moment? i have been in politics for 50 years. i don't know what is going to happen tomorrow. i think it is more likely than not that she will cling on. >> you say you have never seen
anything like this before. across the channel in france people have said they have never seen the light of these riots, demonstrations and particularly person personal lal attacks on the president macron himself. i think you are more of a centrist. what do you see for the future of sent tropical stocentrist po? >> i think people in the center left like me have got to understand the roots of this crisis as we have seen in france and have seen it play out in a different way here in britain. brexit is a symptom of that. until you start living in an economy which until the last couple of decades and since the banking crisis has stopped, until you -- it delivers to the
middle of the society today. the labor politicians like me have tried to do something about that. the middle is being badly hit by the form of economics known as near liberalism which i think president macron ill-advisedly didn't challenge. he is now reaping a bitter -- politicians here however brexit goes who think all is stopped, who think they can just carry on are going to find political results and political instability of following them all the way. i think that is now true across europe. i'm afraid it is true right in places like united states of america, as well. we have to learn these lessons. >> we are turning there next. thank you for joining us on this very uncertain -- >> her close ally, the u.s.
president is facing serious legal issues on a personal level. federal prosecutors in new york have implicated the president in a crime alleging illegal hush payments made at trump's direction by his former lawyer michael cohen to pay off and silence two women. they claim to have had affairs with mr. trump. the president de nie denies the relationships. it comes as special counsel mueller drops more bombshells about the trump campaign and connections to russia. clearly, the white house is feeling the heat and the president has yet to announce a new chief of staff when john kelly stands down at the end of the month. so to try to dissect all of this and to discuss it, the u.s. government's accusations is trevor potter. he is a former commissioner and chair of the u.s. federal election commission and also joining us former federal prosecutor and writer for the new yorker, jeffrey toobin. welcome to you both. so it does seem like there is
this rolling sense of crisis across the atlantic. it has been bubbling and boiling for a long time. let me first ask you on given that you are a former official with the republican election commission, what does this say to you now? all of what has been dropped by prosecutors, the advice that mueller had to the prosecutors in new york and what is going on with trump and the payoffs to these women? >> we now know that the prosecutors have a great deal of evidence, not only that these payments occurred and of course president trump for a long time maintained that they didn't, but that they were done from two sources both of which constitute illegal expenditures if they are campaign related. one is michael cohen himself, the president's personal lawyer and the other is the company that owns the national enquirer and corporations are prohibited from spending money on behalf of
candidates. so the prosecutors say the money was spent. these two women were paid in two different ways in the middle of the presidential campaign, really at the end in september and october of 2016. and mr. cohen has pled guilty to violating the criminal laws in doing so. he says that he did these things, that they were deliberate attempts to avoid the reporting and contribution limits of the federal election laws. and he did so at the direction of president trump. so that is what brings this right into the president's living room is that his former lawyer is saying trump organized the whole thing. now, the presidnt says that's not true. it's my word against his. part of the question is what
evidence do the prosecutors have. we know they have some tapes. we know there are other witnesses who they have interviewed. so that is what will play outgoing forward. >> before i turn to jeffrey toobin, how big a deal from your perspective as a republican, former official is this? how big a deal is this for the president now? >> well, he has the argument or makes the argument that these were purely personal payments that had nothing to do with the campaign. on the facts, that seems a real stretch because they were made only in the closing days of the campaign. in one of the cases one of the women had made the charges years before. there was no payment then. suddenly it was important to get this done in a rush at the end of the campaign. but that is his first argument. his second really is that even if these things occurred, it was all cohen's fault and not his
fault. those are fact questions. the reality is we have all been told that the department of justice has a policy of not prosecuting a sitting president. so the question becomes, does the department and its prosecutors wait until the end of trump's term and then bring the charges? of course, a question of does congress look at this and say the law was violated whether or not there is a criminal prosecution at this stage. but at some stage it is going to boil down to the question of who is telling the truth here. i'm reminded of the great water gate line which is what did the president know and when did he know it? we are now aware that the president knew a great deal about this much earlier than he said that he was in the middle of it. so we'll have to see whether anymore information develops as a result of what we have already seen in the court now. >> so jeffrey, anymore
information? what do you expect to come out? what do you think as trevor just mention mentioned -- he suggested the congress has a choice as to whether to prosecute, the difference between political and what the justice department thinks. what do you think congress will do particularly in the house where they will be taking over the chairmanships of the committees? >> trevor made a really important point which is that under the policy the president can't be prosecuted while in office. the issue is not going to be criminal prosecution of president trump. it is going to be impeachment. will congress take action against the president while he is in office? and i think the answer currently is not yet. there is not enough evidence yet
to persuade the democrats that it is worth proceeding here. as your viewers may know, our system for removal of presidents is you have to get a majority in the house of representatives and then two thirds, 67 votes in the senate. there is no way there are 67 votes in the senate. and as the republicans discovered when they had an unsuccessful effort to remove president clinton from office in 1998, the public doesn't like impeachment efforts that go nowhere. you either have to kill the king or don't attack him. and the democrats i have spoken to, nancy pelosi, jerry nadler who will be the new chairman of the judiciary committee, they say we are not proceeding with impeachment unless we can really have a strong belief that the senate is going to remove him from office. and we are nowhere near that at this point. i think there will be investigations from the house of representatives but removal from
office is really not on the agenda based on the evidence we know. >> we have a sound byte regarding what you just said. let's just play him fleshing out details on the issue. >> you don't necessarily launch an impeachment against the president because he committed an impeachable offense. how important were they? do they rise to the gravity where you should undertake an impeachment? an impeachment is an effect to overturn or change the result of the last election. that's always the question. >> can i turn to trevor for the moment? that is sort of him saying what he believes will be the perspective of the new committee that he is on. trevor, rudy giuliani is comparing the allegations. he allegedly similarly paid hush
money to cover up an affair. he was never convicted of the case. giuliani says that goes to prove that no crime was committed and no violation of campaign finance laws occurred. do you agree? >> i think there are enormous differences between the cases. there is an attempt to say it is all election laws and very complicated. the fec said there is no problem with paying hush money. that is not accurate. what happened with edwards happened more than a year before the election. the primaries hadn't started yet. there were no signed agreements for hush money. the woman involved was not threatening to go public. he had an affair with her. they had a child and the money was being sought to raise the child, house the woman, literally put food on the table. she had been a campaign photographer and had no other resources. i think the situations are very
different than here happening the month before the election with agreements that explicitly say we'll give you this money and you won't talk to the press at a time when all the evidence indicates they were threatening to talk to the press and say figure you don't get us the money within the next x days, we are going ahead and revealing this all publically at the worst possible time for the campaign. so i think the situations are quite different. the evidence here plus there are tapes here that weren't there. there appear to be other witnesses here and the officials of the national inquirer newspaper who have been interviewed by the prosecutors. there is much more here. i think you are still left with the reality, though, that if the prosecutors are right, if cohen is right, if the other evidence is there and the president violated the law, he did so before he became president. so he made be vulnerable to criminal charges, but that is different than the question of
whether it rises to an impeachable offense. the prosecutors argue is that one of the things the evidence tells us is that the election itself was fraud because the american public was hoodwinked, denied information that arguably would have been really important for them to know right after we had all the other scandals with the hollywood tapes and so forth if the president had these two affairs with women and had paid them hush money. so the prosecutors say that this went to the heart of our system because it was hiding information from voters that was relevant to them in making a decision. again, that is different than congress deciding that presidents trump act s constitue high crimes and misdemeanors. does that include things that he did before he became president? then you have to weigh against that the fact that these
involved the campaign which made him president. >> jeffrey, your reaction? >> i think that's exactly right. the reason this is such a big deal is that on the eve of the election when two women were about to come forward to allege extramarital affairs with donald trump, something that would have been a huge bombshell affecting the outcome of the election almost without doubt, this money was paid to shut them up. that certainly is a campaign expense by any rational determination. so the guilt seems fairly straightforward. what is very complicated is whether it is an impeachable offense. that is much more a political question than a legal question. you don't -- just because there is a technical violation of the law, you don't impeach someone because that is such a major step. we have never removed a president in all of american
history. bill clinton was impeached. andrew johnson was impeached. richard nixon was forced to resign. we have never impeached and removed a president. it is obviously a very big deal. i think the democrats are waiting to hear everything from robert mueller before they make a real decision. all of these interim disclosures, fill in the political situation, but no democrat is going to do anything until we hear everything that robert mueller and the special counsel -- >> irobert mueller did over the weekend on the friday and last week, all his recommendations about manafort and flynn and cohen and jail time and deals and all the rest of it, where is that in the sort of, you know, the road forward right now? how significant is all of that as we stand right now? >> it is significant because a lot of the developments we are talking about, the facts we are
learning come out of the court filings. but what we have not seen is robert mueller's comprehensive picture of what really went on here. what was the nature of the relationship between the trump campaign and russian interests? was there a conspiracy to effect the outcome of the election? how should we view the firing of fbi director james comey? was that an act of obstruction of justice by the president of the united states? those are the core questions that mueller is investigating. and we haven't heard his comprehensive answer to that. until we do, i don't think any democrat in a position of power is going to make a determination about whether to proceed on impeachment. >> we learned today that the accused russian spy appears to have reached a plea deal with prosecutors. so that of course, she is accused of infiltrating
republican circles to advance russian interests. trevor, which is more significant or serious? is it the russia or campaign finance allegations? i want to ask you what you make of sort of a broader indictment of the president and his methods by people who actually worked for him and who he appointed as cabinet secretaries? for instance, this is secretary of state tillerson, former secretary of state, speaking this weekend saying so often the president would say here is what i want to do and how i want to do it. i would have to say i understand what you want to do but you can't do it that way, it violates the law. discuss, trevor potter. >> well, we have a person here who we know from his entire business career was used to getting what he wanted and did not -- surrounded himself by
people like cohen who tried to make that possible. i don't think he's used to being told that he can't do something because it's illegal. and that's what tillerson was saying. you look at the payments to the women and it's pretty clear in cohen's account that trump said do this, make it happen. and we don't know whether he was flatout told it was illegal and said i don't care. but what we do know is that these laws were broken and cohen says at his direction. so i think through all of this, what we learn is that probably what we knew on election day which is we have a president who does what he wants and even his supporters are now saying he may not understand how government works and he may not be accomplishing everything, but at least he is connecting with a
segment of the american people which is a way of ignoring the information that has come out since the election. it's not just these illegal payments of hush money with corporate money and so forth. the russian side itself -- it came up quite a while ago that contrary to everything that the white house and president had said, there was a meet wg senior campaign officials and russias.s we had dirt on hillary clinton that will help your campaign and the president's son said great, bring it on. we have known this. we have known meetings have occurred. i think it's not true. the candidates that i have been associated with, someone like john mccain would have said call
the fbi. there is a division. maybe it is a partisan division. maybe it is just some people don't want to face what we already know or have made the decision that painful as it is there is nothing we can do about it at this stage. >> let me ask you the final question. the former fbi director has said that americans should, quote, use every breath we have to make sure the lies stop on january 20, 2021 which is the next presidential inauguration day. on the spectrum of extraordinary comments by former officials, where do you place that one? >> james comey has come out as an unspoken -- as an outspoken opponent of the president and someone who believes the president is a threat to the rule of law. comey himself is in a peculiar
situation because hillary clinton supporters can't stand the guy either because on the eve of the election he disclosed an investigation of hillary clinton that may have cost her the election. so he is a -- an unusual figure. we are certainly at a moment where the number of people who believe the president was involved in very serious, actually criminal wrong doing, is very high. it is not high enough to get him removed from office at this point. but we are very much mid scandal, not at the end of the scandal. and i for one certainly have no idea how it is going to turn out. >> we have had a bipartisan discussion. jeffrey toobin and trevor potter, thank you so much for joining us this evening. sticking with the white house, turning to immigration and looking through the filter of religion with our next guest
the reverend samuel rodriguez. he is puerto ricoen. he quickly rose to prominence among christian evangelicals. now as his latino community and church diverge over actions of president trump he talks about the hot button issue of immigration and why he hopes for some compromise in washington. >> thank you so much for talking with us. is it my understanding that at least within the last sort of five or ten years that you had a belief that the evangelical movement on the whole was embracing the idea of immigration reform? would that be accurate? >> i have been advocating for reform for years. i worked with george w. bush on it and president obama eight years on it. now i'm working with president trump. to be honest, in the beginning the white evangelical community was the staunchest group opposing immigration reform. there was a meeting where we
were praying. one of them at the end of the meeting said samuel, why don't you tell your people to go back home? i didn't bring up the issue of immigration. out ofrt bl the blue, tell your people like if i were moses. i was blown away. other research studies validated the idea that the staunchest group opposing immigration reform were white evangelicals. evangelicals are supporting immigration reform in a way that protects the border but deals with those that are currently here in a way that is compassionate. >> what's going on with president trump, though? why are you not able to move him? >> as you well know, we have had conversations with the white house, with the president.
i handed into the president himself in his hands a proposal that i do believe will solve the issue. i think this is doable. i know it is doable. it is a new proposal that i'm giving the president. this proposal is a bit edgy and controversial. it is. i take away the issue of citizenship and perpetuity. so i sit down with republican leadership. i ask them what in the world is going on? what is it? every time we have a chance to pass immigration reform and private conversation offline say pastor sam, we have great angst that we are legalizing ten million democratic voters. imagine the election we just had for mid terms. many of the elections the votes determine the outcome. this would seal the deal for democrat party. republicans i'm told the issue is citizenship.
if we can remove citizenship from the table and provide legal status for those that are currently here undocumented that are not involved in nefarrious activity and not depending on government welfare entitlements, but we remove citizenship i believe that is the deal breaker. president trump i'm not saying he will or would, i am speculating based on conversations anecdotally and directly, i believe the president may sign a piece of legislation that will bring forth comprehensive immigration reform if we remove the citizenship component from any sort of deal. >> and so tell me why this is acceptable to you. you have always been a citizen. why do you feel that it is for you to trade away the citizenship rights of other people in. >> i'm not trading away anything. i have been advocating. my record is known and my kids
are mexirans. i started preaching in the front line. >> you just said you are going to broker a deal -- >> because i asked him. i surveyed them. i got together in arizona. we had over 1,300 individuals from arizona intentionally recruited to make sure we had undocumented leaders and followers in the meeting. i asked him what do we have to do. here is what they are telling me on the hill. it's the issue of citizenship. this is why. they believe it is the rule of law. you came in here illegally. there has to be a price to pay. if you are not willing to go back to your country of origin, how in the world can we grant citizenship to people who came in here illegally when there are those waiting to come here legally. it is not right and fair. so the response was we just want legal status.
citizenship sfais not the numbe one thing we are fighting for. i'm not surrendering anything. i want these wonderful god fearing people who are a blessing to our nation and not a curse. i want them to come out of the shadows. the only way to do this to get across is coming here illegally. what is the price? if they remove citizenship from the parents, not the children, mind you -- >> that was going to be my question. >> the children would receive citizenship. the kids should not pay for the sins of their parents. the kids receive citizenship immediately and the parents do not. they are legal. they have a permanent green card and can travel around the world and enjoy the american experience and pass heritage from one generation to the other. >> how does that address the problem? it seems the line is so long now, a lot of these people are never going to see citizenship anyway.
how is that addressing the issue? >> it's a political issue. the moral issue is what i'm fighting for. i'm fight frg people coming out of the shadows. i'm fighting for an end of this unbelievable hyperrhetoric. i want to remind the audience, the immigrant community is a blessed community. there are bad apples in every single group. so we can't just paint collectively the immigrant community as this group engaged in nefarious activities or rapes and murders. i'm not technically an immigrant, but as a puerto ricoen, i can tell you first-hand as a pastor of undocumented individuals, some of the most hard working, god fearing most beautiful people in the planet are undocumented in america. the political reality is this ship will never sail unless there is a great compromise. and in the spirit of daniel webster back from the 1800s, we need to offer a great piece of
compromise and that is the citizenship component. >> there was a moment in which i recall that you would do a lot of events and conversations with a person very prominent, richard land who was the head of the southern baptist convention ethics and public policy commission. do you think that relationship kind of moved the conversation forward? >> so i began touring the country at different cities telling them we are not a curse. we are your greatest blessing. we are the fastest growing demographic in the southern baptist, church of god and so forth. so i would say try to deport us. try attenoes. you are deporting your own future. this is the most christian group out of ten people that come to jesus that convert, 6.9 are of latino descent. it is the growth of the church. so you are deporting the growth of the church. once that conversation took place we saw changes.
in full disclosure, richard ler. i'm advocating for my community. when richard land took the podium and spoke on behalf of immigrants, that was the game changer. >> wouldn't it be fair to say that there were political calculations involved as well as demographic calculations that you adhere to a certain set of conservative social ideas that are also shared by white evangelicals? there is a lot of compatibility around the views, around abortion rights and same-sex marriage rights. do you think that is something that they say these are things we agree with? was it that kind of a deal? >> there is compatibility that i can't deny. i think every life is sacred. i have a personal belief about limited government. with that being said, i never
sat down with richard land or white evangelical leaders to deliberate on the strategy of getting comprehensive immigration reform passed because we will like republican candidates. it has always been independent, but i can't deny the fact that there is a lot of coalescing around issues of life and religious liberty where it behooves -- i don't get why republicans are not like the staunchest supporters of immigration reform. 30% close to. 29.7. 30% of latinos voted for president trump in spite of all the tweets and rhetoric. >> why is that? >> holy cow. 30%. more than romney. it's all about the faith. it's about life and religious liberty. so when hillary clinton in her last debate talked about abortion in the ninth month, i got texts and e-mails.
i was bombarded with texts. i just shifted my boat. abortion in the ninth month? the moment hillary clinton endorsed that she lost a measurable portion of the latino electorate, enough to switch pennsylvania and florida over to the r in donald trump. >> let's talk about trump. sorry to cut you off. preachers never get edited. so i have to -- so on the one hand, like a lot of other evangelicals, you agree with him on certain things. on the other hand, it's not just rhetoric but policies that you find deep laly hurtful and demeaning to people that you care deeply about. first of all, i wanted to ask, how did you decide to speak at his inauguruation? was that a difficult decision for you? >> no. it was easy as sunday morning in the words of lionel richie. i'm going to tell you why. if obama would have invited me,
i would have done the same thing. and so to me george bush, obama, donald trump to me there is a continuum where i advocate for what i believe policies that are critical to the collective american community and to latinos and to the people of faith. and then i walk away from washington, d.c. i don't drink the partisan kool aid. >> it's an occasion of state and you felt that you were there to lift up your own words. >> not my words. quite the opposite. the opposite drove me. 1.1 billion people watching around the world and i have the chance to preach the gospel to 1.1 billion people and lift up the name of my lord jesus. >> how did you decide what you were going to pray at the inauguruation? >> it will seem interesting. i prayed and fasted. i had people around the country. i wanted to reconcile the country. i believe the lord drove me to
matthew chapter 5. let us be light. blessed are those, the poor, marginalized. that message of unity and reconciliation, that was the message the holy spirit placed in my heart. it is the reason why i sat down over dinner at the white house with the president and vice president and sat down next to ivanka and jared. and jared said what is in your heart? i said racial reconciliation. he said how do you do it? i went let's begin with prison reform, justice reform. there are people of color suffering in jail when white kids got off because they have the right attorneys and young men in color are in jail. we need sentencing reform and justicing reform. think about that. that is now a piece coming out of the white house that will impact communities of color but more importantly african-americans or more
significantly african-americans. >> as you know, there were many people who declined to participate in the inaugu inauguruation. there are many people who declined to participate in certain of these counsels that are put forward by the white house because they don't want their presence to be seen as an endorsement of this president's behavior or his policies. >> i was there for president obama. when i disagreed with a great number of his policies as you well know. so how about that? so to me presence is everything. dr. king -- that's when you should be present. a conversation can change a heart. i want to be there where a conversation can be there where someone's heart will change. >> when something happens like, for example, the people who were
being called the caravan when tear gas was fired at them because there were a few people rushing the border, what is your response to an event like that? what do you do? >> everyone stood privy to the fact that i was very disappointed with the engagements engaged by wonderful people in my border patrol. so i understand they do a great job at protecting our border and i appreciate their service. however, tear gas and there were kids there. i understand some of the kids were used intentionally by those in the beginning of the group attempting to come here illegally. we can do better. we can do better. by the way, it's not a caravan of 7,000 people attempting to invade america. the vast majority of people are just desperate people looking for a better day. it should break the heart of
every american. i have no problem when americans say these people are trying to come here illegally. i respect that. i want to hear the following likewise. but we are hurting with them. we need to address their need. we should do something to help them because they are people created in the image of god. what would i do if i would be in their same circumstances. >> why do you say people attempting to come here illegally? it is my understanding that if you present yourself for asylum that the trepgz of the current law is that you are not illegal until you have been demonstrated to have not met the conditions for asylum. so why do you keep using that term? >> i hear you. there are two groups. there is the group that was explicit in saying we are not accepted through the legal port of entry then we are going to come in here illegally. i'm addressing that group. the group of individuals attempting to come here legally via the conduit of a port of
entry applying for asylum there is a process and legal system in place and they are engaging or attempting to engage that system, god bless them. more power to them. go to the process that is in place. what i call illegal are those that are attempting to come in here illegally who stated explicitly if they reject me here i'm going to try to come in here illegally. we want people to come here legally. >> seems the new testament is very clear about welcoming a stranger. how is it that people who aspouse a certain set of faith principles can be so hostile toward people who are fleeing for their lives? and since you are a person who has a foot in both worlds, how do you understand this disconnect and how this issue is viewed? >> there is a group that really says our great angst, our consternation, the imperative
that plugs the acid reflux is the illegal entry. we want people to come here legally. then there is another group that i think suffers from a way of thinking where they believe that being an american is a western european presentation of the american definition. and that's not what makes you an american. the color of your skin, your pig pigme pigmentuation does not make you an american. herence to the declaration of independence where you embrace the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cht wh. you are born here or naturalized here or the son of an american who believes in the great idea that we have a right that only god gave us and only god can take them away. >> how do you change that? if somebody deeply believes that they are right and deeply believes that immigrants are a threat to the character of the country that they love, what are you going to do to change that belief? >> when you wake up in the
morning if you see yourself primarily as a republican or a democrat you are issues. you should see yourself primarily as a christian, a child of god. ll live out that christian you heritage as outlined by jesus. then we will have a compassionate world view, one that recognizes the rule of law with compassion. otherwise, then we are just s d sunday christians and not living out our faith every day of our lives. >> thank you so much for talking with us. >> thank you for having me. and when we spoke earlier this year, the reverend didn't hold his punches when speaking about trump's child migrant policies calling them antichristian and antiamerican. that is it for our program tonight. thanks for watching. join us again tomorrow night. uni world is a proud sponsor of "amanpour and company."
a river specifically, multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt and more. for more information visit uniworld.com. additional support has been provided by -- business report" with sue herera
and bill griffeth. >> dizzying day. the dow swinging more than 500 points as volatility continuing to be the new normal on wall street. >> the last time, chuck you shut it down. >> no, no. >> and then you went -- i don't know what to do what you did. >> oval office showdown. the president and democratic leadership have a very public, very heated spat over how your taxpayer dollars should be spent. >> switching gears. ford revives a discontinued model with the hope that a smaller pickup truck will drive big sales. those stories and much more tonight on "nightly business report" for t