U.S. Shutdown And Border Security; Senator Warren In Iowa; Elizabeth Warren Speech
ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: -- security officials to see if they can make some headway, and whether they did depends on whom you ask. Sources inside the meeting say there were, quote, "baby steps" but that Pence would not move from the dollar amount demanded by President Trump. And then, just a few minutes ago, this tweet from the president, Vice President Mike Pence and team just left the White House. Briefed me on their meeting with the Schumer-Pelosi representatives. Not much headway made today. Second meeting set for tomorrow. After so many decades, must finally and permanently fix the problems on the southern border. Let's get to our White House Correspondent Boris Sanchez now. Now, Boris, two reviews of that meeting, one only slightly more optimistic than the other. The president's acting chief of staff was there, too. What's his take?</s>BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hey there, Ana. Yes, the acting chief of staff clearly frustrated by the slow progress being made in these talks to try to reopen the federal government and to give President Trump what he's asking for, the 5.6 or $5.7 billion to fund his long-promised border wall. To be specific, those baby steps that you mentioned, according to a source on Capitol Hill, are, essentially, the discussion between Democrats and Republicans today that indicate that Democrats basically just asked Republicans for an official justification to appropriate that $5.6 billion in border wall spending. Republicans, essentially, said, we'll get back to you. They promised that they would respond either tonight or tomorrow. Both sides expected to meet again tomorrow. That, clearly, not enough for the acting chief of staff. He is making the case that Democrats are simply trying to stall. Listen to this.</s>JAKE TAPPER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I know that Speaker Pelosi had said she would -- didn't want to give even more than one dollar to the border wall. President Trump has talked about $5.6 billion. Is there any give in the $5.6 billion, in terms of whether or not it has to be for a wall or whether it can be for more, generally, border security?</s>MICK MULVANEY, ACTNG WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, I think the president has said, for a long time, that it was -- it's $5.6 billion for border security, including the wall. We recognize that things, like technology and border crossings are important. But, certainly, a barrier is important. We didn't make much progress at the meeting, which was surprising to me. I thought we had come in to talk about terms that we could agree on. Places where we all agreed we should be spending more time, more attention. Things we can do to improve our border security. And, yet, the opening line from one of the lead Democratic negotiators was that they were not there to talk about any agreement. They were, actually, in my mind, there to stall. And we did not make much progress.</s>SANCHEZ: Now, Ana, you'll hear more from the acting chief of staff tomorrow in "STATE OF THE UNION" with Jake Tapper on Sunday. He is actually expected to go to Camp David, along with President Trump. They're expected to hold a pow wow to discuss priorities for 2019 for the administration. I did want to point out. We got a statement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just a few moments ago. She's promising that Democrats in the House are going to try to pass individual appropriations bills to open certain sections of the federal government that are currently closed. That would include the Treasury Department, the IRS, simply to make sure that people's tax returns get done on time. There is no indication here, though, that the Senate would actually take up those bills or that the president would even sign off on them. As you noted, the president, according to a source, told Democratic lawmakers earlier this week that he would keep the government shut down until the next election if he didn't get funding for that border wall -- Ana.</s>CABRERA: Boris Sanchez at the White House. Thank you. The White House has painted the border issue is as a national security issue, from holding a briefing in "THE SITUATION ROOM" to Trump claiming yesterday he could build his wall by declaring a national emergency. Today, the president tweeted, quote, "We are working hard at the border but we need a wall. In 2018, 1.7 million pounds of narcotics seized, 17,000 adults arrested with criminal records, and 6,000 gang members, including MS-13, apprehended. A big human trafficking problem." Quick fact check on each those claims that echo similar statements he made yesterday. First, that 1.7 pounds of narcotics that have been seized. According to customs and border protection, this number is accurate. But the way Trump is using it is misleading. That's because the majority of hard narcotics seized by the U.S. come through legal ports of entry. Most heroin, for instance, is moved into the country through privately-owned vehicles at private ports, followed by tractor trailers where the heroin is mixed in with legal products. OK, claim number two, that 17,000 adults have been arrested with criminal records. Again, this number is accurate but misleading. Large portions of the immigrants arrested at the southwest border have committed nonviolent crimes, like illegal entry or illegal reentry or driving under the influence. Now, the president further claims that 6,000 gang members have been apprehended. That number is also correct, according to government data. But those 6,000 have been arrested in communities all across the U.S., not just at the southern border. Statistics show around 700 were arrested around the border alone last year. So, the president's tweet numerically accurate, yes. But misleading, also yes. Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell. He swerve -- he serves on both the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. Congressman, thank you for being with us. I want to ask you --</s>REP. ERIC SWALWEL (D), , JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Good evening, Ana (ph). Thanks for having me back.</s>CABRERA: -- about the Democrats and the president disagreeing on just how badly or what type of border security is needed. Both sides do support border security I know. So, what could the president offer that would have you on board? Is it a certain number, in terms of the amount of funds you're willing to put forward or is it about how the funds would be allocated? Spell it out for us.</s>SWALWEL: OK. The president does not want border security. He wants border theater and that's been playing out here, as he's been offered increases in border patrol agents, increases in technology, fencing where there are vulnerabilities and enforcement on the visa overstays. But the president doesn't want to engage there, because that does not fulfill the promise that he knows that he's going to get which is that he's going to build a wall, sea to shining sea, and that Mexico is going to pay for that. We're never going to go for that. The American people don't want that. And it turns out when it comes to effective security, Ana, that isn't going to stop the issue that we all believe we need to address.</s>CABRERA: He says he doesn't want a concrete wall anymore, though. He wants steel slats. And if you look at the pictures on the border, I mean, it seems incredibly similar to fencing we already have, in some places. Does this create room for compromise?</s>SWALWEL: If the president can articulate where he needs steel slats and why and we can agree on facts, yes, there is an ability to compromise. But if he -- the tweet that he put out earlier today, he's using the word, wall. A wall, to me, is immoral between two allies. You don't want a permanent structure between two allies, especially when the facts play out. And, one, we have a net outflow of illegal immigration, since 2008 in our country. More illegal immigrants are going from the United States to Mexico than the other way. And, two, the majority of people who are here undocumented have overstayed their visas. That's an issue we should address. But a wall isn't going to do anything to stop either of those two.</s>CABRERA: I want to turn to the Russia investigation, because you are on both the House and Judiciary Committees, which the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee both controlled by Democrats, obviously. Let's talk about the investigative priorities. Tell us the top three people who should expect summonses and the specific documents you want to get your hands on.</s>SWALWELL: Well, I don't want anyone sitting on the edge of the seat waiting to see if they're going to get a subpoena from your show. We don't do it that way, as entertaining as that would be. We're going to fill in the gaps on the Russia investigation to make sure that we, in this upcoming election, the presidential election ahead, protect our ballot box. And we believe we're still vulnerable to Russia intent. So, we're going to fill in the gaps where --</s>CABRERA: So, where are the gaps?</s>SWALWELL: So, we want to understand the witnesses who refused to testify because of different privileges that they asserted and evented. We want to, you know, bring them in and put them under subpoena. Bank records, cell phone records, travel records that we sought from people like Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Jared Kushner and others, we would like to get those records. And then, the money laundering that we believe exists between the Russians and the Trump Organization, which, again, we were not allowed to pursue, we want to go there. And we believe that's the case because both Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump said that a lot of money, millions of dollars, was coming in from the Russians in the two thousands, and Deutsche Bank, the president's bank, was fined at that same period of time for laundering Russian money. So, we think we have reason to look.</s>CABRERA: Trump Jr. called the block number, shortly after he arranged that Trump Tower meeting. You'll recall, Republicans had refused to issue a subpoena about the mystery call. But now that you guys are in power, do Democrats plan to subpoena those records?</s>SWALWELL: Absolutely. And that would go to the president's knowledge. Because you have Donald Trump Jr. being offered dirt on Hillary Clinton . Then, he makes a call, and on the phone record it's a blocked number, and then he calls back to Russia. And so, we know, from other evidence, that Donald Trump, his father, had a number that would come up as blocked. And that he was in the building at the time that Donald Trump Jr. was making these calls. So, we have reason to look. Again, every time we learned evidence, in the last two years, that was illuminating, the Republicans would take out their shovels and bury it. For the sake of the American people, we now can unearth that evidence and tell the American people what it means.</s>CABRERA: Some of your colleagues are already talking about impeachment. I know you're not there just yet. We know it is on the president's mind. Two sources tell us, in yesterday's meeting, during an apparently profanity laid in tirade, the president brought it up. And he directed his comments at Nancy Pelosi, alluding to that yesterday. Here is the president.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, you can't impeach somebody that's going a great job. That's the way I view it. And she said, we're not looking too impeach you. I said that's good, Nancy. That's good. But you know what? You don't impeach people when they're doing a good job.</s>CABRERA: You can't impeach somebody for doing a good job. Your reaction?</s>SWALWELL: He shouldn't worry about us impeaching somebody who's doing a good job. But what he should worry about is that the last two years of having presidential immunity, where his abuses of power went just unchecked, those days are over. And we're not rushing to impeach but we certainly are going to do our job. And if there is evidence that's there, we will build an air-tight case, seek bipartisan buy in (ph) and make sure the American people know just what that means. And by the way, Ana, if this was Donald Trump justice, Donald Trump would be impeached already. He is so reckless with the facts that he would've thrown anyone that has done anything like what he's done out already. But we're not going to do that. We're going to give him a fair investigation that he probably deserves.</s>CABRERA: I want to quickly talk quickly 2020. Senator Elizabeth Warren announcing an exploratory committee this week. We said last year you were considering running. But you told me that decision will be based 100 percent on your family. And we saw you with your beautiful baby daughter on that House floor this weekend. We've got a picture of it up. Any announcements to make on our show?</s>SWALWELL: We're getting close, Ana. Senator Warren I'm thrilled is in the race. I think other qualified folks will be in. This weekend, she is in my hometown, home county in northwest Iowa, where I was born. And I think it's important to run all over that state, because we have to go to the rural areas. And I'm going to be going back there soon. But, yes, a decision is forthcoming.</s>CABRERA: All right, Congressman Eric Swalwell. We hope you will save your announcement for my show --</s>SWALWELL: Yes.</s>CABRERA: -- when that time comes. Good to see you.</s>SWALWELL: Of course. Of course.</s>CABRERA: You're always welcome back.</s>SWALWELL: Thanks, Ana. Thank you.</s>CABRERA: All right, thank you. Joining us now, Democratic strategist, Basil Smikle, and host of "S.E. CUPP UNFILTERED" coming your way at 6:00 p.m. Eastern at the top of the hour here on CNN, S.E. Cupp. All right, I want to talk 2020 obviously eventually. But first, let's get back to the important issue this weekend, the shutdown. We're now into day 15. The longest shutdown ever, 21 days. S.E., you heard what we just had, that back and forth with the Congressman and, sort of, what Democrats are looking for, in order to end the shutdown when it comes to border security. What's your take?</s>S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm not sure Democrats have any incentive to change their behavior, at this point. They're not getting blamed for the shutdown, yet. That could change. And I think they're representing their constituents. Their constituents do not want a wall. And so, they've already thrown down the gauntlet, you won't get a wall. Come to the table with some other ideas. I don't think that they will get their piecemeal legislation fixed as passed. As well intentioned as they may be to keep the IRS running, the Treasury, that would take away Trump's leverage. And so, I don't think Trump, on other side, has any incentive to open any aspects of the government, because his incentive is to keep the pain on. That brings the other side to the table.</s>CABRERA: Do Democrats need to compromise, in some way, Basil, given they do now, sort of, hold the power in one portion of the administration, of the House?</s>BASIL SMIKLE, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Quite frankly, as S.E. said, they're in a great position right now. And even if the bills that Nancy Pelosi is intending to put forth next week to, sort of, piecemeal open up government, the fact of the matter is this is really going to fall squarely on Donald Trump and the Republicans. And the meeting at the White House was instructive. It was kind of lopsided, when you think about it. You had Mike Pence sitting across from staffers, not leadership, which tells me --</s>CUPP: Don't forget Jared Kushner was there.</s>SMIKLE: Well, that's important, too. And -- but that tells me something really interesting. Number one, that Democrats are holding firm in their resolute. That's very key and that's very key to our base, number one. And, number two, it also says that negotiations don't really mean a whole heck of a lot, if Donald Trump, himself, is not in the room.</s>CABRERA: That's what I wanted to ask you, S.E., because we have the vice president, last week, throwing out $2.5 billion.</s>CUPP: Yes.</s>CABRERA: And then, the president this week saying, no way. It has to be $5.6 billion.</s>CUPP: Yes.</s>CABRERA: So, if he's not there, is that a problem, if he's not in the room to negotiate?</s>CUPP: Yes, Basil is absolutely right. I mean, having Jared there and Mike Pence there. I mean, Basil, you and I and Ana, we could have a meeting about reopening the government. If Donald Trump and the key players, the people who actually are in a position to make a deal aren't there, it's almost meaningless. And, frankly, sending staffers I thought was a little sort of, I don't know, --</s>SMIKLE: It's --</s>CUPP: -- giving the respect that they believe that meeting deserved.</s>SMIKLE: Exactly. Good point.</s>CABRERA: Interesting. Let's talk 2020 because Elizabeth Warren is on the move this weekend. She announced she is opening this exploratory committee. She was in Sioux City, Iowa earlier this morning and she immediately was met with a question about that now controversial DNA test and the video she put out. Let's listen to how she answered the question.</s>ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I am not a person of color. I am not a citizen of a tribe. Tribal citizenship is very different from ancestry. Tribes and only tribes determine tribal citizenship and I respect that difference. My decision was, I'm just going to put it all out there. It took a while, but just put it all out there. All of my hiring records, including a DNA test, it's out there. It's online. Anybody can look at it. It's there. And I think what 2020 is going to be about is not about my family. It's about the 10s of millions of families across this country who just want a level playing field. Who just want a chance to build an America that doesn't just work for a handful of folks at the top. But an America that works for all of us. And that's why I'm in this fight.</s>CABRERA: S.E., how'd she handle that?</s>CUPP: You know, that was a valiant effort at a pivot. But this is never going away. That's, in part, because Donald Trump's been very effective at hammering her on this. But also because this was a huge unforced error of hers. She did not have to release a DNA test. She didn't have to pretend that she was a native American and release a video, boasting about her native American roots. That a candidate, for president potentially, has to get up and say, I am not a person of color, I am not a member of a tribe, it's really -- it's hard -- it's going to be hard for her to get away from this. No matter what she does, she will not get away from this. It was a huge P.R. disaster. And, folks, I'm talking to can't believe people around her let it happen in the first place.</s>CABRERA: Is that how she starts to get away from this, Basil, by just -- and now acknowledging I'm not a person of color and, sort of, meeting it head-on?</s>SMIKLE: It's a start. But I think this is going to follow her for a good chunk the campaign, if not the entire campaign. And I've said this to you before. You know, it bothers me, as a person of color, because it seems like she used her native American ancestry, however much it is, to an advantage. You know, my great, great, great grandfather is Scottish. I can never say that I'm white, ever, because it just doesn't work that way. And so, for her to use this, sort of, sliver of ancestry to her advantage and now have to actually roll that back a bit is, in some ways, doubly -- not dishonest but it's doubly hurtful, particularly to the tribes that are involved.</s>CUPP: And mostly because the tribes that were involved in those communities were insulted --</s>SMIKLE: Yes.</s>CUPP: -- by her attempt at this. She directly offended them. So, when that community that you're trying to be a part of disowns you, --</s>SMIKLE: Right.</s>CUPP: -- you've got big problems.</s>SMIKLE: Right.</s>CABRERA: We had Rashida Tlaib this week making headlines. She is one of the new members of Congress, a freshman Democrat, used an expletive laden speech to go after the president calling for his impeachment. Basil, what happened to when they go low, we go high?</s>SMIKLE: Well, the rules of decorum, I think, went a long time ago. This is -- it's not something I wouldn't necessarily do. But, the truth is, we're in a very different space right now. And if you're upset about that but not upset about all the things that Donald Trump has done in the last two years or his, sort of, silence, with respect to Charlottesville, for example, among other things, then I think not only is that sort of unfortunate, but it really does say a lot about where we are in this country right now. I don't -- look, it's not something I would do because that's just not what I would do. But I don't take away the anger and the angst that she probably feels in making that comment, and what the folks in the room how they took it. But we are well passed that point of decorum.</s>CABRERA: S.E., let me read you how a fellow Congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is defending Tlaib's language. She writes, Republican hypocrisy at its finest, going after the critics here, saying that Trump admitting to sexual assault on tape is just locker room talk, but scandalizing themselves into foe outrage when my sis says a curse word at a bar, GOP lost entitlement to policing women's behavior a long time ago. Next. Does she have a point?</s>CUPP: No, she's -- as she's want to do, she almost, sort of, walks into a contradictory point. If you are mad at Donald Trump's coarsening of language and you were critical of the way he talked about women, minorities, name your party, and --</s>CABRERA: Grabbing women by the you know.</s>CUPP: All of it.</s>CABRERA: Yes.</s>CUPP: Then you should be -- you should find as equally as offensive and gross and inappropriate. If you think Donald Trump's language is unbefitting of the office, so is this. I am religious when it comes to intellectual consistency. And so, as Basil is saying, if you're bothered by this but not Trump's language, that's a problem. The same for the reverse. Let's be consistent. Find it all gross and unacceptable and inappropriate and demand better. Any defense or justification of what Rashida Tlaib said I think is self-serving and hypocritical.</s>CABRERA: I've got to leave it there, guys. Thank you so much. Basil, S.E., good to see you both. S.E.'s back at the top of the hour. Don't forget her show at 6:00. New details tonight about the former U.S. Marine detained in Russia accused of spying. Sources are telling CNN he has no connections to the intel community. So, why is Russia targeting him? And what are they saying about a possible swap? Plus, as the U.S. is scouting sites for a second Trump-Kim summit and the president routinely boasts about his relationship with Kim Jong-Un, new questions over whether he is falling prey to Kim's flattery. Live in the CNN Newsroom. Don't go anywhere.