announcer: get on your feet for the nastiest bull in the state of texas. ♪ ♪

the trump administration digging a deeper and deeper hole for itself over the president's false allegation of wiretapping. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. sean spicer holds an angry and combative press briefing, refusing to admit that president trump is wrong. plus troubling new information about michael flynn, president trump's first national security adviser who was fired and his ties to russia. we'll talk about that. let's begin the hour, though, with cnn senior white house correspondent jim acosta, who was involved in the exchange with sean spicer. our chief national security correspondent jim sciutto, kirsten powers, senior political reporter nia-malika henderson, andre bauer, and former congressman jack kingston. unfortunately jen psaki had to

go. she had other obligations. we'll continue our conversation in just a bit, but, jim, bring us up to date. you were at that heated white house press briefing today trying to get answers as to why president trump refuses to back down from his unproven claims that he wiretapped the former president. you got into it with the white house press secretary. let's listen to this, and then we'll get you to talk about it. >> you are refusing to answer. the question you're refusing to answer is whether or not the president still -- >> no, i'm not. i just said it to jonathan. >> you have a senate and house intelligence committee, both leaders from both parties on both of those panels saying that they don't see any evidence of any wiretapping. so how can the president go on and continue to -- >> because you're mischaracterizing what chairman nunez said. he said, i think it's possible. he's following up on this. so to suggest that is actually -- and you're stating unequivocally that you someh somehow -- the president has already said clearly when he referred to wiretapping, he was

referring to surveilling. >> but it sounds like, sean, that you and the president are saying now we don't need wiretapping anymore. >> no, no, that's not -- >> other forms of surveillance. what's it going to be next? >> jim, i think that's cute. at the end of the day we've talked about this for three or four days. what the president had to quote wiretapping in quotes, he was referring to broad surveillance. you're basically going back. we talked about this several days ago. the bottom line is that the investigation by the house and the senate has not provided all of the information. when it does, but where was the -- hold on. >> not evidence in the conversations with -- >> i think the president addressed that last night and said there's more to come. these are merely pointing out i think there's widespread reporting that throughout the 2016 election, there was surveillance that was done on a variety of people that came up. >> there was investigation going on as to whether there were contacts between the president's campaign and -- >> you somehow believe -- >> of course they're going to be looking at these various things. >> somehow you seem to believe that you have all of this information. you've been read in on all of these things, which i find very

interesting. >> i haven't been read in by the fbi. >> you're coming to some serious conclusions for a guy that has zero intelligence -- >> give me some credit. >> i'll give you some. >> a little intelligence maybe. >> clearance. i wasn't done. clearance. >> those two panels -- >> maybe both. >> so, jim, the intelligence community has been read in on it. the senate intel community has been read in on it. you know who else could be read in on it is the president. i mean do you ever recall witnessing something like this? >> yeah, it would be really hilarious if this wasn't all very serious. you know, i think what we are seeing at the white house is they're making excuses after excuses after excuses to explain something that the president really should just withdraw and retract. the president, barack obama, did not wiretap trump tower. that did not happen during the 2016 campaign. you now have the leaders of both

the house and senate intelligence committees saying that did not happen. there is no evidence of that. now the white house has broadened that out to say we mean other types of surveillance. you heard the president say that last night on fox news and you heard sean spicer float that out there a couple of days ago when they were trying to walk all of this back. but at the end of the day, this is something the president should never have tweeted, and he should just pull it back. unfortunately, don, as you know and i know because we've covered this president for a long time during the campaign, it's just not in his nature to admit that he's made a mistake and apologize. so the question is, is how long can we see this go on? now, tomorrow is going to be a very crucial test. there's going to be a news conference over at the white house. joint press conference between the president and angela merkel, the german chancellor who is going to be visiting the white house. donald trump is going to have a very serious choice to make. does he call on conservative news media as he did during some of those joint news conferences with world leaders and get questions that don't pertain to this wiretapping question, or is he going to take this head-on

and call on somebody who is going to ask that question? and we're not going to know the answer to that until tomorrow afternoon. but i think it's a very critical moment for this president because it goes to his credibility, and it goes to -- i know in trumpland, they love the guy. he was down in nashville last night. he gave a rally, and they were very enthusiastic about him. nobody wants to take any of that away from his supporters. but at the end of the day, he has to be the president of all americans, and to some extent, all americans have to believe the president is telling the truth. and he can't make outlandish claims that can't be backed up, and i think that's what he's struggling with. that's what he's going to have to deal with tomorrow, don. >> the other jim on the panel, jim sciutto, good evening to you. sean spicer went through a laundry list of press reports to try to back up with the president said. here's an example, and then we'll discuss. >> "the new york times" reported the following. sean hannity went on on fox days after the election. heat street reported andy mccarthy, sarah carter.

on march 3rd, bret baier said the following, quote, there's a report on june 2016, a pfizer request by the obama administration for intelligence surveillance court to monitor communications involving donald trump and several other com pain officials. then they got turned down. then in october, then they renewed it into a startup wiretap at trump tower and russian banks. >> jim sciutto, it looks like an attempt to muddy the waters here. please explain to us what's the truth? >> listen, you know, it's the height of irony to have the white house spokesperson quoting from the press that the president has called the dishonest media repeatedly, right? but forget that for a moment because let's put up against that, beyond as jim acosta said the ranking democrat and republican on the house intelligence committee, ranking democrat and republican on intelligence committee, but also the republican speaker of the house, the attorney general, who is a republican appointed by the

president, the fbi director, who have all said there's no evidence of this. they're briefed on the intelligence and they've said there is no evidence. that's why on the screen we've said this is a false claim by the president. it's false. there's no question. what you've had in recent days from the president and sean spicer is a redefining of the terms of the president's allegation. the fact is the president alleged that president obama ordered a wiretap on president trump. you know, three elements there. president obama did it. the target was trump, and it was a wiretap. now they're saying, well, what it was really talking about was general surveillance where you might have had trump advisers, not trump himself caught on the other end of russian communications. the fact is there is evidence of that. that's cnn's own reporting. that gets you into potentially dangerous territory, right, because why, then, were there trump advisers and members of the campaign repeatedly -- and that's cnn's reporting in contact with russian officials and other russians known to u.s. intelligence during the

campaign. that's what there's evidence of, and that evidence was gathered during perfectly legal surveillance of russian officials. that's what u.s. intelligence does. it listens to them to see what they're doing for the sake of u.s. national security, and sometimes u.s. persons are on the other sides of those phone calls. that information is minimized by u.s. law. that's all perfectly legal. it's what u.s. intelligence agencies do, but it then raises this other question, which is the subject of house and senate and fbi investigations. why were trump advisers and campaign staff et cetera caught up in that? so, listen, no direction of this is particularly good for the trump administration. >> that's what i don't understand. the more the spin comes, the more i say it's not good. you know, no matter how you slice it for this administration or for the president. and i want to get everyone in, and i should be -- my questions should be shorter. so brevity is the key here. kirsten, did sean spicer do himself any good today? did he do more harm than good? >> well, for himself personally,

no, of course not because i think every time he does this, he, you know, further erodes his own personal credibility which he built up over a long time in washington. but the thing i have to say is i'm wondering if anybody else is getting angry about this, about what donald trump has done here because i think he has sent everybody on a wild goose chase. he's taken the entire apparatus, the government, the entire u.s. government basically, and sent them down this rabbit trail to hunt down something that never happened. >> he knows it's not there. >> he has no evidence it ever happened by his press secretary's own account he learned it not really necessarily from journalists. sean hannity doesn't even say he's a journalist. andrew napolitano does not describe himself as a journal t journalist. he has the entire government apparatus hunting down something that probably never happened when there are real problems happening in this country that he should be spending his time on. i don't understand why anyone is defending this. >> andre, why is anyone

defending this? i mean take us inside the president's head if you can here. why would anyone defend this? i mean everyone has said -- anyone with any brain and anyone who has any idea of how this country works and intelligence has said there is no -- as the president whispers because he does that too. there's no proof. i was watching cnn and there was no proof. there is no proof. >> well, don, number one, that's sean spicer's job. i mean he is the ram bbo of the media right now. he is taking on heavy artillery and handing it right back to them. i admire the guy. i've never seen a guy not back down to the press more than that guy. i've been the guy in the press conference. >> does anyone think he's hitting it right back? i feel embarrassed for him. >> don, that's his job. his job is not to say, oh, y'all are right and i'm wrong and the

president's wrong. his job is to defend the president of the united states to the best of his ability. >> he expects him to say that but -- go ahead. jim sciutto, what did you say? >> he's not defending -- andre. >> forget what we're reporting. i mean we're reporting what the president's own appointees are saying about this claim. >> okay. >> as attorney general is denying it. the republican speaker of the house is denying it. >> nia, go ahead. >> i do think one of the thing he's very effective at in that long soliloquy today, he's giving talking points to trump supporters. he's giving talking points to breitba breitbart. he's giving talking points to rush limbaugh and laura ingraham. i think in that way, it's very effective. also i think you have to wonder is there going to be a consequence for this president with his credibility? in some ways, possibly not because at the same time you've got republicans working on health care. you've got him putting his budget out. so it's not clear that this is a

president who thinks there are going to be consequences. there were certainly no consequences during the campaign when he said that, and there have been no consequences so far in terms of him spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories. >> jack kingston, he stayed around by the way. i'll give you the last word. >> let me say this. if you are a trump person, you believe that all this discussion about russia colluding with the trump campaign is partisan bull. >> that doesn't mean it's true. >> if you're a democrat, you're looking at the exact same thing and saying that tweet was irresponsible and bad. i think this whole debate is a reflection of -- >> republicans are saying it's irresponsible and bad as well. >> i hope in two weeks when -- >> hold on, jack. >> whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. >> let me ask do you think it was irresponsible for the president to put that sweet out? >> i think he should have said surveillance.

>> come on, jack. be honest with me. >> obama responded in a very legalistic way. >> obama's spokesperson responded. >> don, even if he had said surveillance -- >> he would have been wrong. >> he was comparing president obama to richard nixon and trying to pull off a watergate-style operation. >> and joseph mccarthy. >> is that not what the democrat party is doing right now? >> congressman, please. >> is that not what the democrat party is doing -- >> there's no cleanup on fifth avenue on this one. i think this is just -- you know, if the president could go back and delete these tweets, whoever it is on his staff that he dictates his tweets to could go back and de -- >> i might walk back what i said about president obama, but you got to walk back what up said about my campaign. and -- >> why? he won. >> that might be what he wants, that's true. >> in two weeks -- >> oh, my god, now we go down

the rabbit hole. should then he say i'm going to walk back what i said about birtherism and i'm going to walk back what i said -- >> jack, i just wonder -- >> jack -- >> i'm going to take you to washington -- >> to be continued. >> oh, boy. >> jim, stick around. we have to talk about some more troubling new information auout about this new information, specifically michael flynn, who was fired and his ties to russia.

today, unlimited gets the network it deserves. verizon. (mic thuds) uh, sorry. it's unlimited without compromising reliability, on the largest, most advanced 4g lte network in america. (thud) uh... sorry, last thing. it's just $45 per line. forty. five. (cheering and applause) and that is all the microphones that i have. (vo) unlimited on verizon. 4 lines, just $45 per line.

the fbi director, james comey, set to testify monday before a house committee investigating russia's meddling in the election. jim sciutto is back with us now, and we're joined by cnn national security analyst julia cayenne, a former department of homeland security official and intelligence and security analyst bob baer, a former cia operative. jim, i'm going to start with you. you have been digging on these ties between president trump's associates and russia. tonight i understand you have some troubling information on lieutenant general michael flynn, who was fired as national security adviser to the president. what can you tell us? >> that's right.

this is coming from the house oversight committee. what they've documented are payments that general flynn received for a visit and a speech to russia in december 2015. the speech was known about. you've probably seen the pictures. our viewers have of general flynn sitting next to russian president vladimir putin at a banquet in moscow. jen flynn has acknowledged the speech before. what he has not acknowledged was he was paid money by the broadcaster, which is backed by the kremlin in the view of u.s. intelligence. that's important not just because of how it looks but because of u.s. law. u.s. law requires that he disclose payments from a foreign government on what's known as his sf-86. this is his application for a security clearance, and then army regulations require that he disclose payments from a foreign government as well. we've spoken to the pentagon. the army has no record of him reporting that payment. the house oversight committee is asking the trump administration and the pentagon and the fbi

whether he disclosed the payments on his security clearance form. i asked a spokesman today. he had no comment in answer to that. it's still an open question. if either of the answers to those questions is no, he did not report it to the army, he did not report it on his security clearance form, that's a major problem for general flynn. >> interesting. juliette, flynn said the speaker's bureau paid him to speak, but it's clear that rt wrote the check. he told the vice president and others that he didn't talk about sanctions with the russian ambassador until it became clear that he did. and he was fired. is flynn a rogue player, or do these connections signal a deeper problem with the truth, do you think? >> i think we don't know yet. i also think we haven't heard the last of flynn yet. you know, as we looked at all of these different pieces unfolding both last summer and then over the course of the transition, the flynn incident always seemed to be the most inexplicable both

because of all of his ties, who he was getting paid for, his essentially lying to the vice president, the white house, and trump and his people essentially covering for flynn, and sally yates telling this guy could be compromising them not doing anything. that whole series of events is not explained in any way that should make us feel good, right, in terms of who he is. and so i think what we're going to likely see is either further investigations of flynn. did he lie? all the things jim was just saying. did he lie on his forms? did he not disclose? some of them are internal penalties. some may be criminal penalties. but also the question i have is while we're all waiting for this monday hearing to happen, i think one of the most important people that won't show up is, of course, flynn. and the question remains out there is, is he talking to investigators about what he knows about what happened during the transition? we simply don't know what flynn's strategy is to either protect himself or protect the

white house. >> i wonder how this sits with you, bob, as a former intelligence agent because the image of an american general sitting next to a ruthless autocrat like vladimir putin, getting paid to speak for a russian propaganda outfit. i mean that's jarring. can you remember anything like this in recent history? >> well, don, i think you already know how i feel about this. i mean sitting down with putin is fine. i would do it. you would do it. anybody would. but the question is, i mean, rt is an arm of the kgb. rt provides cover slots for the kgb, for the fsb, the svr. it's an intelligence organization. it's russian propaganda. he knew better. he was head of dia. you don't take money from the russian government, period, and i don't care whether it goes through a speech agent or not. so i find this very troubling.

everywhere in this russian, you know, crisis or whatever you want to call this thing in trump you see the fingerprint of the kgb, whether it's hacking, whether it's trump advisers in touch with these people in europe, and, you know, it gets worse by the day. i just really -- you too have to wonder what's going on here. >> jim sciutto, while congress has been investigating all of this russian intrigue, north korea is heating up. today secretary tillerson said u.s. diplomacy there has failed and now pyongyang is warning of war. how dangerous is the north korea threat? >> you know, the consistent message you hear is the biggest, most immediate national security threat to the u.s. is north korea. i mean granted you have terrorism, no question. the threat from russia, china as well. but the most immediate one, north korea as they nuclearize, and the secretary of state said today that u.s. policy towards north korea has failed over the last 20 years, and it's a fair

argument because multiple administrations of both parties, clinton, bush, obama, they've tried negotiations. they've tried sanctions pressure. they've tried to push china to be tougher on north korea, and in the midst of that, north korea has had this long successful march towards a nuclear weapon and towards the ability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon and put it on a ballistic missile. they've been testing those, and it's the view of the u.s. intelligence committee today that they have to assume they have intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. it's untested but they have to assume they're capable of that. it's hard to say in the year 2017, if you look back, five, ten, 20 years, whether that would be a success by any measure. it's a clear failure. >> thank you, panel. coming up the preliminary outline for trump's 2018 budget. what it could mean for older impoverished americans. careful joe, they've got you outnumbered.

the dinosaurs' extinction... don't listen to them. not appropriate. now i'm mashing these potatoes with my stick of butter... why don't you sit over here.

something for everyone is awesome. find your awesome with the xfinity stream app. more to stream to every screen. president trump's 2018 budget blueprint could slash funding for meals on wheels, a program that provides wheels for older impoverished americans. good evening. glad to have you on. >> my pleasure to be with you. >> under president trump's new 2018 budget blueprint, meals on wheels is set to take a bit of a hit. how is this going to impact you? >> well, i think we have to really take it in context. we're approaching these potential cuts with already a pretty challenging situation. we have an unprecedented growth of seniors who need services across the country. if you look at the amount of meals that were provided in 2005

and the lack of funding that's followed this growth, we have over 23 million meals less than we did in 2005. so we're actually starting at a point that is actually really bad already. so the president's volley and budget, his starter has suggested that under the community development block grant, that there will be an impact on meals on wheels programs. and although we don't have the actual cuts that will take place in health and human services, there is a proposal to cut 18% from that. and the largest base of funding for meals on wheels programs across the country is the older americans act, which is part of hhs. so we really don't have all the information we need. but the bottom line is that we're already struggling to meet the need, and any cuts in a time when we're seeing more and more seniors needing services and the growth of the senior population is just not good news. and it will mean --

>> yeah, go ahead. >> i don't mean to cut you off, but my question is can you survive with this current proposal? >> well, you know, i don't think it's a question of survival. i think what you're going to see is programs across the country unable to meet the need. about 35% of the funding for most meals on wheels programs across the country come from older americans act. so this is a really solid, public/private partnership where dollars that come from the federal government build the base of the programs, and then communities through volunteerism and dollars step in. but there's no way to take and to buffer that type of cut, especially when programs are struggling to actually meet the needs that's at their door right now. >> you won't be as effective, and that means that -- i mean and that affects people's lives. we're talking about people here and their lives. the white house budget director mike mulvaney was asked about the cuts to meals on wheels.

listen to what he said. >> you can't spend money on programs just because they sound good. and meals on wheels sounds great. again, that's a state decision to fund that particular portion. to take the federal money and give it to the states and say, look, we want to give you money for programs that don't work. i can't defend that anymore. >> so then the national office for meals on wheels responded, and here is what they tweeted. they said, meals on wheels is a proven public/private partnership that effectively meets seniors' needs. that's what you said. and then they include the stats about how important the program is to seniors. it says 81% say it improves their health. 92% say it enables them to remain living at home. 90% say it makes them feel more safe and more secure. so, mr. mulvaney's argument is that it is unfair to taxpayers if there are no proven results. is that the case? >> well, i just respectfully disagree with him strongly. i don't thifrmg it's just meals on wheels america who is disagree with him. i think some of the third-party independent investigation of the

impact of the meals on wheels program shows time and time again that not only are those things that you just said true, but there are real assistance offered in keeping people out of hospitals, keeping them from going back in the hospital after leaving the hospital, and diminishing the need to place people in nursing care. so we've proven time and time again in study after study that there is a real return on the investment that is made and that every dollar out there really makes a difference. i'll just give you one stat. my program in san francisco and every program across the country can serve a senior and keep them in their homes for an entire year for the cost of one day of hospitalization. so i think that the argument that this doesn't produce a return or have an impact is just not true. >> cnn's van jones wanted to see just who's going to be affected by these cuts. he went to visit krista patton,

and she's here in new york. she depends on meals on wheels. listen. >> i think you should try to put yourself in my situation. what would you do? i am, as i indicated, i am on a fixed income. i am basically home-bound. i haven't been out of this apartment in, like, seven years. how else would i eat? i don't know. >> so you saw congressman chris collins there. he was watching. van had him on the show tonight. is christa patton a typical person who benefits from meals on wheels? >> absolutely. >> what are options without it? >> let's be frank. meals on wheels san francisco provides two meals a day seven days a week, and many of those clients live on $900 a month of income in a city like san francisco. imagine if we were not provides those meals. this is not just a value add.

it is actually the difference as the client that you just heard. it's the difference between life and death and being able to survive. and this is not uncommon. this is true across every community in the country, and i think what's really troubling is as you look at the first round of cuts in the community development block grants, these block grants are targeted predominantly at low-income communities and communities that live on the margins. so we really are kind of causing and exacerbating a problem that actually we need to remedy. >> ashley mccome ber, san francisco director of meals on wheels, thank you. >> thank you. coming up, donald trump campaigned that he would be a law and order president. so what does the president's budget mean for police around the country? that's next. the more mysterious they sound, the more... powerful you'll think they are. it's time to see what power really looks like. new neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair

with accelerated retinol sa. clinically proven to reduce wrinkles in just one week. wrinkles? your time is up! rapid wrinkle repair. and for dark spots. rapid tone repair. neutrogena® see what's possible.

what does the president's preliminary budget blueprint mean for police forces around the country?

i want to bring in cnn's bren jen grass. good evening. tonight the commissioner james o'neill slamming the president's budget proposal for cuts that will impact his force. he tweeted, under potus budget, virtually all fed funding to nypd eradicated. entire counterterrorism apparatus in nation's top terror target hobbled. how much money are we talking about? >> let's break it down for you, don. we're talking about $700 million that would be affected, all the states affected with that money. but if you break it down to new york, $190 million would be cut according to this proposed budget and 110 of that is going to the nypd. so we're talking about a police department as you just said in that tweet that is constantly foiling terrorist attacks. as the mayor said we're in the crosshairs of terrorist activity here in new york city. the commissioner said they need that money just for the resources for those counterterrorism efforts. we're talking about surveillance cameras all around the city. we're talking about docks that can sense vapors in the air.

we're talking about active shooting training for its new police officers in this enormous force here. so the police department called this critical money, and here's more of what the police commissioner said in that press conference today. >> this funding is absolutely critical. it is the backbone of our entire counterterrorism apparatus. is the cornerstone of effective preparedness and prevention against terrorist threatens and enable us to do all we can do to keep this city secure. to cut this funding would make us increasingly less safe. >> reporter: this is something i heard you talk about in the tease. mayor bill de blasio is saying for a president who says he wants to keep america safe, it's just sort of ironic that he's threatening to take so much money away from a city that really needs that money, don. >> brin, new york runepublicans how are they responding? >> we heard from peter king. he put out a tweet today saying white house has released no precise numbers regarding budge

cuts. any reduction to new york is dead on arrival. there is bipartisan refusal to this money being cut. it's something that they do fight every year. we hear, you know, even last year president obama threatened some cuts. certainly not significant as we're seeing this year with president trump's proposed budget. but this is something i have to say listening to the city leaders, the commissioner and the mayor, it's personal. remember, new york city is trump's hometown, so they find this to be a little personal. >> that's a good answer because i want to ask you, the first lady and the president's youngest son currently living in trump tower on fifth avenue. hundreds of thousands of dollars go into protecting the president and the first family in nyc. is there a discussion about that? >> reporter: oh, absolutely. we know that $146,000 a day goes into protecting melania and their son barron at trump tower. it's even more when the president is actually in town. so there's a lot of resources that are paid to that. it's unclear right now certainly

so early in this budget proposal where the money will come from for that to happen. i mean nypd is trying to get reimbursed by the federal government. we don't know if that money from the homeland security budget actually goes to that, but certainly this is a discussion that's ongoing because nypd needs money for that as well. >> $146,000 per day. thank you. i appreciate that. coming up, how many budget cuts may impact african-american voting blocs that donald trump swore to work for. where's frank? it's league night! 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. bowl without me. frank.' i'm going to get nachos. snack bar's closed. gah! ah, ah ah. ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides.

this is one gorgeous truck. special edition. oh, did i say there's only one special edition? because, actually there's five. ooohh!! aaaahh!! uh! hooooly mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. it's truck month. get 0% financing for 60 months plus find your tag and get $5500 on select chevy silverado pick-ups when you finance with gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.

an unlimited data plan is only as good as the network it's on. and verizon has been ranked number one for the 7th time in a row by rootmetrics. (man) hey, uh, what's rootmetrics? it's the nation's largest independent study and it ranked verizon #1 in call, text, data, speed and reliability. (woman) do they get a trophy? not that i know of. but you get unlimited done right. (man 2) why don't they get a trophy? (man 3) they should get something. (woman 2) how about a plaque? i have to drop this. my arm's getting really tired. unlimited on verizon. 4 lines, just $45 per line.

candidate donald trump reached out to african-american voters by famously asking, what do you have to lose? at some point he said what the hell do you have to lose? here's some answers now that president trump's preliminary budget plan is out. let's discuss with michael singleton, bakari sellers, angela rye. and paris sen ard. good to have all of you on. paris, president trump said on the trail to african-americans, listen to this. >> what do you have to lose by trying something new like trump? you're living in poverty. your schools are no good.

you have no jobs. 58% of your youth is unemployed. what the hell do you have to lose? >> we'll get rid of the crime. you'll be able to walk down the street without getting shot. right now you walk down the street, you get shot. what do you have to lose? >> that did happen, didn't it? so what do african-americans have too move with the president's proposed budget. let's say, for federal agencies that assist the poor, department of housing and urban development down 13.2%. department of education down 13.5%. department of health and human services down 16.2%. so it seems like some african-americans are losing a lot. am i wrong, paris? >> well, yes, don. i think you are wrong because if you look at the 13.5% cut that you mentioned for the department of education, what we do know in a time that a lot of cuts happen across the board, across the federal government because the

president said and campaigned that he was going to do that, what we did not see were any cuts to hbcu. the $492 million that hbcu were not cut. what we did not see were cuts to pale. >> when people are kicked out of their houses, i guess they're going to go live in an historically black college university. >> don, he said those were going to be priority. they were going to be top priority. he kept the same amount of money, paris. i've heard you complain about from president obama. that is why my mouth dropped open. you're right on the numbers. >> yeah, absolutely. >> i can't believe you're now defending the same number. please hold your guy accountable on this. >> i am a champion. that's why i was so disturbed when president obama cut millions out of hbcu funding from his first budget. and when you look at this president's budget, he did not make one cut to hbcu funding. he did not make one cut to pale funding. >> paris, what do he do with pale? >> angela and paris, hbcu is

important but a lot of people are sitting watching tonight going, hbcus, i got to eat. i've got to live somewhere. yes, i would love to send my kid to a college, any college, and hopefully maybe they want to send them to an hbcu. but why are you rambling on about that when we're talking about urban development, about health and human services. there are more important issues than hbcus. >> di would caution you -- >> i didn't say it wasn't important. i said there are more important issues. don't put words in my mouth. >> when you put up a graphic that shows all these cuts -- >> paris, my entire family went to hbcus. look at me, i know what they are. i'm a product of an hbcu family. but my point is -- >> that's great, don. >> there are more important things than hbcus, and you keep pointing to one of them when i've gone down a list of things that are really important.

and when i'm telling you i would rather eat than -- or some people, the priority for them is to eat rather than where they're going to go to college. >> all i'm saying, don, is that on the graphic that you put up, you showed that where there were cuts, and i was pointing out to your audience that there might have been a 13.5% cut to the department of education, but within that cut as it relates to african-americans, no cuts to hbcus, no cuts to pale. when you look at other department things such as charter schools, there was an increase to charter school funding, which african-americans overwhelmingly support. when you look at things like building the wall and enforcement and things that are going to directly impact jobs, there are monies going into dhs which are going to lead to more jobs. i.c.e. officers and immigration officers, which african-americans -- >> so, michael, please go ahead. >> so you can make fun of hbcus -- >> i'm not making fun. wait, wait, wait. that's a flat out lie. >> you did. >> i didn't make fun of hbcus.

>> you said they weren't important. >> that's a lie. i said there were more important things. >> i don't like to qualify things as more important. >> i'll tell you what's more important. it's more important that you come here and tell the truth, okay? now, go ahead -- >> did the president cut hbcu funding? >> go ahead, sir michael. >> if i could interject, the president did not cut hbcus. the fund remains the same as it did prior to the president being sworn in. that's fine. but i want to talk about some more critical issues such as housing. for example, 85% of hud's budget, which oversees housing for a lot of poor people who happen to be african-american, 85% is residual. so you decrease the budget by $6.3 billion, and you will see a net loss in people who rely on housing vouchers, for example, predominantly of them again are african-americans. so when you look at programs

such as that where you're going to be potentially decreasing the number of housing vouchers that will assist people with moving out of public housing into a rental home where they're going to have a decreased rent because of the government ability to assist them, i think is extremely troubling. clearly you want to get people out of a bad neighborhood to a more decent neighborhood, to a system with at some point being able to move on to what we like to call a market rate apartment, meaning essentially they can pay market rate with anyone else. that's problematic when the president says i, i want to revitalize the inner cities, et cetera, when you're cutting programs that will hurt people who you claim to want to assist. i think it's extremely hypocritical to say that. many african-americans are not concerned about a border wall. i hate to say that. many are not when there's a large number of african-americans who are living in communities where they're now going to have to worry if they are currently relying on a housing voucher, is that voucher

still going to be there? if you're a single mother, you rely on wick. will that program still be there in the next -- >> by the way -- >> no, that's not true, paris. it was cut. you should read the budget, paris. it was cut. >> i'm trying to figure out what you're looking at. >> just in case you're wondering, shermichael is a conservative, is a republican, and he once worked in government. anyways, bakari, how much will this budget -- paris, let other people speak. how much will this proposed budget. >> that was me, don. >> okay. sorry. go ahead, bakari. >> i think the way you judge a budget is by how they treat individuals who are at the dawn of their life, which are our children, how they treat people at the twilight of their life, which is our seniors and how they treat people in the shadows, which are our disabled individuals. i think this budget fails on all those metrics, specifically to african-americans. the irony that we're sitting here having to defend -- and i

heard it earlier on your show -- meals on wheels, which directly affects many of those old ladies who sit at the front of the black churches and wear the big hats, who have to decide whether or not monday through saturday, clorn they're going to get their prescription drugs or pay their utility bills, they depend on meals on wheels throughout the week. you're talking about after school programs and lunch programs that directly affect many poor african-american children. you know, to paris' point about historically black colleges and universities, and i appreciated the dialogue because they need to be lifted up even more. but the fact that they weren't cut is not any type of success story because we need an infusion of money into those programs, not some hold harmless stat you're. the president said what the hell do we have to lose, and as my grandmother said, you can't fall off the floor. well, african-americans feel as if they're on the floor during this white house, and he didn't do anything to help lift us up in this budget. >> angela, i'll give you the last word here. 8% of african-americans voted for this president, more than

for mitt romney. he vowed to help poor african-american communities. how do you think those voters are feeling tonight? >> well, i think they're learning about the budget right now, and so it's incumbent upon us to tell the truth about what's in it. what's in it is a cut to the small business administration after this administration, including ben carson today, tweeted that small businesses are the backbone of this country. this is a budget that cuts the minority business development agency. this is a budget that cuts the program that ensure that kids and mothers and families can stay warm during the winter. there is cuts to wic, to snap program benefits. that is a fact. there are cuts to department of justice programs that we all know, love, and care about. there is an increase in funding, and earmark of -- i'm sorry, 2.6 -- >> sorry. got to go angela. >> $2.6 billion for a border wall. guess who's paying for it? he lied. it's not mexico. it's me and you, your mama and your cousin too, period. >> don, if i could -- >> i'm out of time, guys. i'm sorry. thank you. that's it for us.

i'll see you right back here tomorrow night. thanks for watching. . . .

you are mischaracterizing what happened? where was it then? >> the white house delivering a blistering defense of the wiretapping claims despite the members of the senate intel committee say there is no evidence. would you cut funding for meals on wheels? trump's budget plan facing backlash this morning. the white house stands by their numbers. and the number of house republicans opposing the