[Berman:] This morning new questions about job security for FBI Director Christopher Wray. That is the director handpicked by the president after he fired James Comey. The president was asked if he has confidence in Director Wray, and in an interview published by "The Hill" overnight, the president responded, well, we'll see how it turns out. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Jim Himes. He's a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, well, we'll see how it turns out. If you're Christopher Wray this morning, do you feel good about your job?
[Rep. Jim Himes:] I think you do, John. And the reason you do is the president's opinion of you has nothing to do with how you have done your job. In fact, if you have done your job and been fair and been thoughtful and abided by what the American people want rather than what Donald Trump wants, you probably get targeted. It's not just Christopher Wray, right? It's the chairman of the Federal Reserve. It was Jeff Sessions. The president's opinion of you depends entirely on whether you are serving his interests 100 percent. So if I was Christopher Wray, I'd say you know what, I've established myself as something of an independent director of the FBI, and I've got the president's tweet to prove it.
[Berman:] It is interesting he says Christopher Wray says he wouldn't call it spying what investigators were doing during the Trump campaign in 2016, and also Christopher Wray has said he does think if a politician is offered dirt on an opponent by a foreign government, say the Russians, Director Wray says you do think he does think you should go to the FBI. It's interesting those are the areas where he splits with the president.
[Himes:] Well, it's also interesting that it's sort of subject for debate. I mean, yes, when a foreign country, especially a foreign country that is something of an enemy, or at least an antagonist to the United States offers you something, of course, you go to the FBI. This is not a debatable proposition anywhere but inside Donald Trump's head, you know? And you know, the notion that Christopher Wray by objecting to the use of the term spying, John, I sit on the Intelligence Committee. Spying is what we do to other countries. Investigation is what you do when you have some evidence that a presidential campaign maybe compromised or maybe attempting to be compromised by an antagonistic foreign power. We've got to keep some clarity on these debates. Christopher Wray is not taking some heroic stand here. He's just saying what is true everywhere except in Donald Trump's brain.
[Berman:] And so, your personal position has changed. You are now supportive of the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. This is different from you a month ago or several weeks ago, you were not. So, what is different now?
[Himes:] Yes, John, this is not an easy decision for me. You know, as I said in my statement yesterday, an impeachment inquiry, starting an impeachment, of course, is divisive. It'll consume an awful lot of public attention. It is a very serious thing to do. It took me some time to get here. But, John, you know, there was a week, two weeks ago when the inspector general came out with an impressive recommendation that Kellyanne Conway had clearly broken the law and that she would be removed from office and the president said, heck, that doesn't matter. That, of course, was the same week that the president said, I'm not sending any information to the Congress on the question of the Census citizenship question. So, there's a moment where the president one week it has nothing to do with Russia, it has nothing to do with his credibility or legitimacy as a president basically says screw you to the Congress. And, John, you know, our system is built around the idea that the president would be differential to the Congress. If doesn't exist, we essentially have a king. The other thing that changed for me, John, was I listened to my constituents. And my constituents said, look, we get it. We understand that you sort of playing this through and, you know, the impeachment is not going to result in the removal of the president, so you're thinking about 2020. What my constituents said was this country changes when people are willing to speak with clarity and conviction and strong moral terms. If all you're doing is kind of playing the odds and figuring out the statistics in the face of appalling behavior, we won't be galvanized if you will if you speak clearly. And Congress can speak no more clearly when it engages in an impeachment investigation.
[Berman:] I get that you're hearing that from your constituents. The part I'm not sure I fully understand is when you're talking about Kellyanne Conway and you're talking about the census. As you said, that has nothing to do with the Russia investigation. Are you suggesting there should be some punitive measure how the president is reacting there? I don't understand why that would change your view of an impeachment inquiry on Russia. Either you see evidence of obstruction that you think is worthy of investigating or you don't.
[Himes:] John, that's a small part of it. That there is evidence of obstruction is not sort of debatable proposition anymore. The Mueller report, of course, offers up ten instances of possible obstruction. So, let's tick that box. But remember, the legal standard or at least the constitutional standard for impeachment isn't just obstruction, it's high crimes and misdemeanors. I just listed for you the treatment of Kellyanne the complete disregard for the law.
[Berman:] But do you want an impeachment inquiry into that. Do you want the articles of impeachment to be Kellyanne Conway's violation of the Hatch Act and the president's failure to reprimand her?
[Himes:] I want the president's treatment of the recommendation, the unprecedented recommendation around Kellyanne Conway is yet one more example of a total disregard of the laws of the United States. And I see total disregard of the law as something that should be investigated by the Congress.
[Berman:] I want to ask you about the immigration discussions that took place last night or more accurately the border security and the crisis, the humanitarian crisis at the border. Were you part of the meeting Nancy Pelosi was in talking about the funding, the $4.5 billion of funding up for grabs right now?
[Himes:] I was not in that meeting, John. I heard about it. Obviously time is short for us to get to a deal and they're not there yet. But I wasn't in the room.
[Berman:] Do you anticipate voting to support the measure? I know you don't know exactly what's in it yet, but assuming it does come to the floor soon, would you support that? Do you think there's a need to vote on something soon?
[Himes:] Yes, I think I will. And I want to hedge that a little bit, because I haven't actually seen final language. I want to hedge that a little bit. But, John, part of the dynamic around here, you know, my colleagues are human. They have emotions. They have moral sensibility. My colleagues look at what's happening at the border, particularly with children being forced to sleep on concrete floors, being treated worse than prisoners who have been convicted of serious crimes. These are children, and a lot of my colleagues say we have to start from scratch here. Now, I'll make the argument, and again, I want to leave myself some room because I haven't seen what the final proposal is, I'm going to make the argument that I make a lot around here which is I get the moral outrage but please let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can make progress and get 65 percent of what we want, if we can fix an awful lot of the problems at the border, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let's make some progress.
[Berman:] Congressman Jim Himes from Connecticut, thank you for your time this morning. I do we appreciate it.
[Himes:] Thank you, John.
[Berman:] Alisyn?
[Alisyn Camerota, Cnn Anchor:] OK, John, a pivotal vote today that could make San Francisco the first U.S. city to ban e-cigarettes. CNN's Scott McLean is live in San Francisco with more. What's the plan, Scott?
[Scott Mclean, Cnn National Correspondent:] Hey, good morning, Alisyn. According to the latest CDC survey, more than 3.5 million middle and high school students in this country use e-cigarettes regularly. The team vaping problem is not at all unique to San Francisco. What is unique is how they're planning to deal with it, by outright banning e-cigarette sales in this city. That is a big problem for small businesses. One local smoke shop we spoke to said that vaping accounts for about 30 percent of its sales. Now, technically, this proposed ordinance would apply to e-cigarette products which have not been reviewed or cleared by the FDA. But that is all of them. One of the biggest companies, Juul, is actually headquartered here in San Francisco. It says it actually advocates for raising the age to buy its products to 21. It says that more regulations, not a ban is going to keep it away from critics. Other critics say banning e-cigarettes will just push people towards traditional cigarettes or create a black market for e-cigarettes in San Francisco. I asked one member of the city board of supervisors, Shamann Walton, about that. Listen.
[Shamann Walton, San Francisco Board Of Supervisors For District 10:] And we're going to continue to work hard to make sure that that does not happen, and that's why we'll have enforcement strategies. If you look at, you know, just for an example, Cuban cigars are prohibited here in the country and you don't see people running around doing crazy things to obtain Cuban cigars.
[Mclean:] So, again, this is about keeping a harmful substance away from kids unless it has been reviewed or clear by the FDA. And you might be thinking well, marijuana has not been reviewed or cleared by the FDA either, yet you can legally buy that in many places across the city and statewide and California. So, why then is San Francisco not looking to also ban marijuana? I asked that question to supervisor Walton, you saw there, and the city's attorneys office. Neither would answer the question on the record. This proposed ordinance goes to a final vote this afternoon, Alisyn.
[Camerota:] Scott McLean, thank you very much. So, President Trump uses a familiar tactic to deny another sexual assault allegation. He insults the woman. We discuss if it'll work this time. That's next.