>> i would demure and say the reason the book is so hot is because of the way the president is reacting to it. had they ignored it, we may be in a different place in the news cycle. he didn't speak to the cabinet heads, or the vice president. meaningful distinction to you? >> i was trying to seek his reportial methods. did you go ask all these people? was he a fly on the wall? did people know that they were talking to a reporter who was going to publish it? he told me yes. when he was asking these questions they said when is this going to come out? he said well, when the book come s out, maybe next year. they said okay, next year. so we'll talk. i think that, frankly, for me, was the interesting point. how do people who are committed to serving a president speak to a reporter about such an explosive issue? of course, michael wolff pointed out even people like rex tillerson, secretary of state,

is quoted as having called him a moron. it's a very touchy issue that's resonated around the world. >> moron doesn't mean he has an incapacity issue. >> no. >> if they keep pushing him that it's not true, if he does have tapes, this story could have a very different chapter. christiane amanpour, thanks to you. >> thank you. cnn newsroom is next for our international viewers. thank you for watching. for the rest of you, cnn "new day" continues. let's get after it. >> the democrats want to shut down the government because they can't get amnesty, then they're going to have to defend those actions to the american people. >> republican leaders want to shut down the government and that's bad. >> in anticipation of an interview request, the president's lawyers are discussing how to define the parameters. >> anything they do would be an attempt to get control over the situation. >> he needs to look the president in the eye and ask the appropriate questions.

>> negotiators from north and south decrkorea are face-to-facr the first time in more than two years. >> this would lessen the concerns about the security of the olympics. >> this is a step in the right direction, by no means is solving the problem. >> good morning. welcome to "new day." in just hours, the president will meet with congress to discuss the fate of d.r.e.a.m.ers, hundreds of thousands of children who came to t to the united states as children. >> cnn has learned that mr. trump's legal team is discussing ways to limit the scope of that questioning. we have it all covered for you. let's begin with cnn's joe johns

live at the white house with our top story. joe, i see that you did bring your fog machine to work today as a metaphor for the murky conditions down there. >> reporter: right. we wanted it to be more mysterious for you. the hidden white house, if you will. look, what's go iing on here, n matter how you cut it, it couldn't be more dramatic. members of congress from both sides of the capital, both sides to sit down with the president to try to get a deal on immigration with the fate of hundreds of thousands of young people who were brought here to the united states through no fault of their own in the balance and a potential government shutdown looming. >> we want the wall. the wall's going to happen or we're not going to have daca. >> reporter: president trump insisting funding for a border wall will be part of any deal to protect the so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers, a demand that

threatens to up end negotiations. >> we're not going to support a wall across america. >> reporter: one source telling cnn negotiations are a mess, with jon cornyn accusing democrats of holding the negotiations hostage and the democrats saying that the long wish list release bid the white house last week have made chances for a deal harder. republican senator jeff flake telling cnn he's prepared to tell the president at today's meeting that the d.r.e.a.m.ers deal needs to be narrowly focused in order to reach an agreement. >> this will be the inflection point where we get things done or we don't. >> reporter: negotiations are under way on capitol hill as president trump's lawyers gear up for a special request from special prosecutor robert mueller. the subject has been broached in a previous meeting but has not been officially discussed.

>> my view is that it will happen some time this year. >> reporter: preparing for this possibility for months, weighing how to define the parameters of a potential interview in a way that would limit the president's exposure. mr. trump is eager for the investigation to come to an end. a source tells cnn that the expectation is that mueller would not wrap up the probe without speaking to the president. >> he needs to, in order to round out, complete his investigation, to come to a decision, he needs to look the president in the eye and ask the appropriate questions. >> reporter: the russia probe looming large over this white house as the administration struggles to shake questions about the president's mental fitness. >> so, do you think he's like really smart and a stable genius? >> i think this. if he doesn't call himself a genius, nobody else will. in my view, he is my president and he's doing a really good job on multiple fronts. >> reporter: the president's allies continuing to call michael wolff, the author of the tell-all book "fire and fury" a

liar. >> do you think it's okay to question the fitness of a sitting president of the united states? >> i think it's -- it would be irresponsible not to. of course. you cannot listen to this man talk without -- without at least contemplating the possibility that something is grievously amiss. >> reporter: this morning in the midst of those latest questions about the president's fitness to serve, we have gotten word that the president's physical examination scheduled for later this week will not include a psychiatric examination. we do expect to see the president after his meeting with members of congress when he is expected to sign an executive order aimed at helping veterans. chris and alisyn, back to you. >> joe, appreciate it. you can slink back into the fog. let's bring in cnn political

analyst david gregory and politico.com's anna palmer. david gregory, the wall. for all these competing plans, bipartisan proposals go iing on. at the end of the day is the proposition if you want something to be done for the d.r.e.a.m.ers under daca, if you want anything, give me that wall. is it as plain as that for the president of the united states? >> well, we'll find out just what that bottom line is. that's certainly where he is right now. he has revived this. he has thrown this into ongoing negotiations as a bottom line demand. what we know are a couple of things. the president wants accommodation on daca, d.r.e.a.m.ers, just as democrats do. we also know that democrats

don't want to build a wall and neither side would want to shut down the government. though we'll hear a lot of posturing about that. there's no doubt that republicans are in a more vulnerable position right now. but you've got to give the president his due. etches negotiated with democrats on capitol hill over the budget pretty deftly so far. they've avoided getting to the brink and we have to watch and see what moves are made in today's meeting and days and weeks to come. >> ana let's talk about today's meeting. it's happening in a couple of hours. here are the people who have been invited. it's a long laundry list of them. 12 republican lawmakers, eight democrats. is there anything that comes out of this meeting today? >> i wouldn't expect a lot of substantive material where you'll see we have a big deal that's going to happen. i think this is much more of a pomp and circumstance, showy thing to do. >> showy thing mean being look how bipartisan we are even if we

don't come up with anything? what's the point? >> you've seen both democrats and republicans be pretty positive about where they're going. they're trying to find a pathway forward, we're ten days out from a shutdown. this is a very important step in washington speak, in a washington kind of manner for this to happen. certainly a deal on this will be cut for the big four leaders of congress with the white house. they've been negotiating behind the scene as a lot. people seem pessimistic that they'll be able to find a deal in the next ten days. >> why are they more pessimistic today? >> this is where the rubber meets the road. they have spending caps. they have to be able to corral the right. democrats pushing on daca don't want any deal without that. two entrenched sides. who is going to budge on this?

it's very clear right now. >> big x factor, to alisyn's point, whether this meeting is comity or comedy, a joke, or farce, is that the president is putting his foot down. that's why he wants these people there today. he wants to make that sale, look at those republicans and remind them the people you voted for me and whom you fear want this wall. isn't it as simple as that? >> right. there will be a counter saying not everybody does want that wall. now you're going to draw us into a debate about whether the wall is a good thing. there's lots of evidence to say it's not. >> does he care about that? >> i don't think. >> he promised it. he knew when he promised it it wasn't cost effective-to-physical borders that make it almost impossible to do, all types of different coverings and extensive security already. they put money into it. democrats have offered money for those barriers, as well, in the

past. this about owning his political promise more than anything else it seems. >> no question. let's not forget the most important thing. america was not supposed to pay for it. >> right. >> the president through his powers of perfesuasion was goin to get mexico to fund this wall. what's happened with that? it's gone nowhere. he has injected this in a way that absolutely is not helpful. bottom line promise was we were going to scrap obamacare and get tax reform through. he has gotten the second one. he dismantled a key element of obamacare. yes, in an election year, i think this president wants to say to republicans, don't cross me. this is a major promise. and your voters are going to come out if they think we've delivered on key promises. >> i also have to say this is really a clear sign of him throwing red meat to the bat base right now. this is what republicans will need for 2018.

they're so fearful they're going to lose both their majority in the house and potentially in the senate. >> sorry, david. we have to move on to mueller. all of this is set against mueller's investigation. no surprise, of course, that at some point bob mueller would interview president trump, of course. it seems that there are negotiations under way already, what is the scope and is it under oath. what are people saying about this? >> everybody expected this to happen. a lot of republicans are fearful in the capitol of letting trump be unleashed in this kind of interview. he has a very hard time when there's contentious people are questioning his integrity. and he could go off the reservation there. republicans are hoping to limit the scope of this however they can. certainly democrats are -- this is going to be -- they're going to want this to play out in the mid term election.

you have a president saying all this crazy stuff and he's still under investigation. >> that cuts the other way, too. democrats are at risk of over reaching on this the same way that republicans got hurt over reaching with bill clinton. is he going to be fielding questions that are beyond the scope of what we heard about thus far? could it be into financial negotiations or financial life of the president and his dealings in russia? this is an area. >> it's an area where the unknown looms very large. so much of the reporting and discussions go on and somewhat ignore the fact that mueller -- that's been a tight ship. we don't know what they have. it's so relevant to this concept. the lawyers for the president are there to work for the president, not the government but him personally. they don't believe it's a foregone conclusion that theyhe

needs to talk to muell rechlt. i'm sure there was a lot of discussion about why this was necessary. >> can they just say no? >> yes. if you want. you have legal and practical. legally, could they say no? yes, unless subpoenaed. right? then under penalty, that's what that word means but practically do you really want to say that to the big dog when he holds the reins of the investigation? then it becomes how am i speaking to you? about what? it brings us to the point that ken starr made. if anybody knows what it's like to be accused of overreaching with ken starr who began with a land deal and ended with monica lewinsky in a blue dress. senator blumenthal said i think mueller will have a face-to-face with the president of the united

states. possible, probable, what do you think? >> probable. he needs to, to round out his investigation, to come to a decision. he needs to look the president in the eye and ask the appropriate questions. >> so, david gregory, what are the stakes? >> well, the obvious danger is that the president doesn't perform well, that he fields questions and says things that aren't true, that can be proven to be untrue, that are inconsistent and that it goes into the realm of the unknown. that's why they're trying to limit the scope of the discussion. the upside for the president is that he feels confident that he can put a lot of this to rest, either because he didn't know certain things that were going on, but what he knows about was entirely proper. i would venture to say that he has some desire to do that, to look mueller in the eye and tell him what's what and try to put some of this to rest. but it's obviously a risky proposition to sit down with

him, despite whatever, you know, parameters they put on this. >> david gregory, anna palmer, thank you for being here. breaking news right now just in to our newsroom. north and south korea announcing moments ago they've agreed to hold military talks after meeting for the first time face-to-face in two years. will ripley is on the ground there. he joins us live near the dmz. all the breaking details. what have you learned, will? >> reporter: it's really been a remarkable day here on the korean peninsula, alisyn. when previous talks like this have taken place, it's taken weeks to hammer out the kind of agreements they agreed to today. as you mentioned, upcoming military talks on easing tensions. north korea has agreed to send a high-level delegation got olympics, including tae kwon do, cheering section, and a long dormant military hotline. they announced that today even though it happened almost a week

ago and possibility of reunions of divided families on the korean peninsula. in the short term it's a win for both sides. south korea hopefully gets the peaceful olympics they've been hoping for, uninterrupted by a nuclear test or missile launch that could scare away spectators or disrupt the event. south korea and the u.s. have postponed joint military drills but this is key, north korea's chief negotiator expressed strong discontent with even the mention of denuclearization. south korea had indicated that they hoped that talks would potentially include north korea gisk up their nuclear weapons. they've said that won't happen. the bridge behind me leads to north korea. we're just behind the demilitarized zone. if the talks go peacefully and there are further discussions, what will happen next? obviously the u.s. and its

allies are hoping that they would be able to denuclearize for the lifting of sanctions but north korea's chief negotiator saying denuclearization not on the table. chris? can a deal protect-to-protect d.r.e.a.m.ers from deportation get done? does it mean that the president gets money to his border wall? those now have been joined into one proposition. wall or no d.r.e.a.m.ers. who gets affected? what are the stakes? let's go to sumatra. the coffee here is amazing. because the volcanic soil is amazing. so we give farmers like win more plants. to grow more delicious coffee. which helps provide for win's family. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters.

but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to time to bask... in low prices! find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. refreshing, isn't it?. tripadvisor.

all right. a big, big proposition on the table. can president trump strike a deal today with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on protecting d.r.e.a.m.ers and funding his border wall? those two thoughts are more linked than ever before. let's discuss, with cnn political commentator ana navarro and chairman of the conservative union, bill shlapp.

why should the wall be the line in the sand -- sorry to mix metaphors -- but in terms of getting anything done for the d.r.e.a.m.ers. >> i don't think it is the wall, to use your tortured metaphor, the line in the sand. i think he wants to see security on the southern border but also to end family chain migration. >> you don't think that the wall is a red line? that's what's coming out of the white house. you're saying that's, what, puffery? >> i think it's more than the wall. i think they're asking more than that. the wall say symbol to people. it's easy for them to jump to the wall. what the president is really looking for is, you know, a more comprehensive view at what we need to do to change our immigration system. >> so, here is the catch on this. the wall is a big promise during the campaign. everybody gets it. he said mexico was going to pay

for it so this conversation should have never been necessary. but, whatever. people seem to have forgotten that or it's no longer important. there are so many lives on the line here. how do you see the politics of this, ana, in terms of what they're holding out for, these changes to the immigration system, versus what is at risk? >> what's at risk are human lives. what's at risk is the future of 800,000 to 3 million young people who know this country as their own, who are american in every way but one, who play with your children, who go to school with your children, who are in universities. who really -- you know, they're some of the best and brightest that this country has. some of them are serving in the military. they are what makes america great already. i would say that this is a chance for donald trump to show that he is the man, the art of the deal. you know, i think he has to be very crafty in the negotiation. to me, this wall thing is more

symbolic than it is literal. i don't think you have to get hung up on the idea of 2,000 miles of 50-foot wall. this is not the wall of the kingdom of the north. it could be drones in some places. it could be enhanced border security in others. it could be more agents at the border. it's about border security. neither the democrats nor the republicans nor the white house should get hung up on the semantics and what it means. i think they're going to reach a deal. let's remember, there is a deadline. not only is there a deadline, every day that goes by over 1,000 of these young people are losing their status and their ability to go to school, their ability to work. so, you know, this is not theatricaer ii ii iic -- theore >> part of the shame here, matt, people say they care about the people. we're not even talking about the el salvadorans. that was kicked to congress as if it was some kind of democrat

albatross. as you and everybody knows it was started by president bush, john ashcroft because of the earthquake but both sides extended it because they saw the cost to humanity involved. >> i think that's right, there have been previous presidents that have given them temporary protective service because that's what the president's authority -- becomes a mockery of the law if temporary just becomes constantly renewed and really becomes permanent. what you do with that, you have a separation of powers argument at that point. congress needs to legislate. what we forgot under eight years of obama, with him being overturned, by the way, by the federal courts more than any other modern president because he overstepped the boundaries of what the constitution says are presidential powers. it would be good for this country, chris, and i think ana would agree with me, if congress would do its job and legislate on these areas. if they critical condition the can over to the president to handle these thorny issues, we don't get long-term resolution, which is not good for these

people, either, who have to live in the state of this temporary status. it's the right thing to do to follow the law, turn it over to congress. these folks have 18 months to file for legal status. it's going to be done in a humanitarian way. >> how do you know? >> after people -- >> how do you know? imagine if it was your family. >> i'll tell you how i know. >> you've got plenty of ethnicity in your family. you've got 18 months. don't worry about it, matt. >> i'll tell you how i know. let me answer -- >> we don't want people to come into the country anymore. >> let me answer that in two ways. we've sent over 39,000 of these el salvado rachlt n. s back under president trump and president obama and you can't give me one example of how it wasn't done in a humanitarian way. number two -- >> how could i know? >> you're a good journalist. >> how many of you know wanted to go back or shouldn't have been here? >> they don't want to go back. the point is that they're not here under permanent status.

because of that, if it's temporary, chris, we both know what the word means. if it's temporary, it has to come to an end. >> i get what the law is but we also know -- go ahead. finish your point. you're not going to let me say anything. go ahead. >> on the point of my family, we did come here legally. i'm a pro-immigration republican. i have no problem with legal immigration. i would like to see it be big, vigorous and have a positive impact on the society of our country but it has done done through legal means. >> law enforcement is subjective. clinging to the idea if we don't enforce the law specifically and strictly, we disrespect the law. that is bs. we do it all the time. there's a subjectivity to it. the reason that bush and then obama went and said tps needs to be extended was because of the humanity. they knew what they were doing. of course, congress should find a permanent solution. it's about how you incentivize it. by saying i'm canceling it, i'm putting it on you, that's not the humane way to do this.

find a solution or i will cancel this. that's the way you would have done it, if you cared about the people. >> i think both things can be true. but let's remember that temporary protective status is a status that is given in extraordinary moments and it's really an act of compassion by this country. >> mostly el salvadorans because of the earthquake. >> haitians because of the earthquake. nicaraguans because of hurricane mitch. the problem is that these acts happened two decades ago. for two decades these people have become part of our society. they work. they have jobs. they have homes. they've married people here. >> they have kids. >> they've had children, who are in schools. we've got to think large picture. what are the problems that are the consequences of now telling these people you've got to get out? are they going to be homes in foreclosure? are those going to be businesses closed? >> separation of families. ana is making all these points.

you've heard them before. only reason i jumped on you before, casualness. you're married to a cuban woman. we all know her and love her. you know what it's like for families. i'm only second generation in this. the idea of casually saying you've got 18 months, brother, you'll be good. >> let me try to explain. look, my heartbreaks for people. i think a lot of people around the globe want to be in america and many of them want to be americans and i think it's because we have a great country. and i understand that there's probably more economic opportunity in the ability to live your life as you want. that being said, there has to be a legal system. >> sure. >> if we do this under tps where people can flow into this country -- i agree it's an act of compassion. i'ma okay with people coming here temporarily. that's going to stop if always coming here temporarily results in backdoor staying permanently because these people get in front of the line of other people trying to come through

here a legal route. those people always get pushed back. >> i hear you. but there is legit accommodation that doesn't mean having to leverage their livelihoods. that's all i'm saying. >> i actually think that donald trump is in a unique position. he has got absolute support from his base. his base tends to be anti-immigrant. he has much more maneuverability than an obama did, than a george w. bush did. he can actually get something accomplished that they tried to do and failed at. this could be a huge accomplishment for him because he has got the support of that base. they give him a lot of wiggle room. he can come up with an art of the deal. at this point you have to think of these tps people as part of the equation. >> sure. >> if you're going to take way the lottery visa, it's almost the same amount of people that's the haitians tps. to pick people who are already american and already proved themselves to be part of this country. i just think you have to think

outside the box. >> i got you. we're out of time. appreciate this conversation. we'll keep going as we see what the president does and how congress responds, i'll certainly have you back. your ideas are always welcome. matt, ana, thank you. quick programming note, we'll go back to prime time for a few weeks. part of cnn's new year programming. tonight we have anthony scaramucci. how does he justify what's being said about the president? how does he justify these decisions we were just talking about now? good inside voice. we'll test the position. >> that sounds so intriguing i might even stay up late for it. >> nah. >> we'll see. michael wolff said 100% of the white house staffers whom he spoke to thinks that the president is unfit for the office. ghost writer of "art of the deal" spent a lot of time with donald trump. what does he think about that?

he's next.

it is to everybody who speaks to him.

if you spoke to the president, if you interview the president, you would call me up and say, oh, my god. >> that was michael wolff, the author of "fire and fury," fielding questifield i -- fueling questions about president trump's mental fitness. wolff claims that 100% of the people he spoke to believe that trump is unfit for office. joining me now, the ghost writer behind the trump autobiography "the art of the deal." you spent a lot of time shadowing, hanging around with donald trump while you were ghost writing his book. that was in 1987. which i hate to say is a long time ago. when you read michael wolff's book, what's new to you? what surprised you? >> well, he has clearly deteriorated. most of the general things that

wolff observes are things that i observed and that i talked about when i spoke to the new yorker in july of 2016, the utter inability to pay attention for any long period of time, the garbled syntax when he tries to speak, the utter and complete self absorption. all of these things have always been true of trump. what's happened is that he's deteriorated. he doesn't think even as well as he once did. and i certainly share, alisyn, the belief that trump is the person wolff describes him as being in that book and i don't know about 100%, unless he didn't talk to some of the people who are his -- i don't believe sarah huckabee thinks that he's what wolff says he was. i believe that any reasonable person spending at least 15

minutes with donald trump knows that this is a deeply, deeply disturbed man. >> so tony, you see, if i understand you correctly, some of the quirks, for lack of a better word, becoming more pronounced since you spent time with him. let's just do a lightning round of some of the headlines from michael wolff's book. i want to get you to weigh in on them. number one, did the president watch between four and eight hours of television? this has been other reporting from "the new york times" as well. when you spent with him, was the president watching a lot of tv every day? >> he was, alisyn. he watched in the early morning and he watched from the time he went back to his apartment in the evening. but what he did during the day, i can say because i was there for it, for months and months at a time. he worked. he doesn't appear to do so much of that anymore. and i don't know the reason. but it's clear that he's either lazy or incapable of working now. and that wasn't as true before. >> okay. i want to ask you about that.

that has been attention grabbing. i don't know of anyone who would call donald trump lazy. in my experience with him, he could spin a lot of plates at once. he was a multitasker and he was a hard worker. so the reports that he -- and this is stuff that is from axios, not even from michael wolff's book. i want you to comment on it. he's showing up in the oval office later and later, sometimes as late as 11:00 a.m. that's news to you? >> absolutely news to me. and i suspect that the reason, as you suggest, is not that he's lazy, it's that he is so disturbed about what's going on and so obsessed with watching it on tv and so much more singularly self absorbed than he has ever been -- and that's saying a lot, to be more -- that he feels compelled to stay in front of that tv and he sure as heck doesn't have an interest in policy. so the things that would go on in the office, in the oval office are not things he wants to spend as much time doing.

>> michael wolff has reported -- i wanted to get your thoughts on this -- the president seems to fixate on things. in fact, according to michael wolff, when he talked to people around him, the president tells the same stories over and over. and maybe he always did that. now there seems to be a condensed time. if he used to tell the same stories in half an hour, now michael wolff claims it's within ten minutes. did you see that practice? >> donald trump has only told one story, to be fair, and that story has been the same throughout his life. i'm the greatest. i'm the best. now it's advanced to i'm a genius, a stable genius. it's always been the same story. i do believe he has become more repe p repetiti repetitive. i went back and watched the interviews he did 20, 30 years ago and they're scarily different. he is more articulate. i wouldn't call him a literary

figure, but they're vastly different. >> did you ever have any questions about his mental stability when you spent time with him in 1987? >> you know, he was not under any kind of intense stress. and this whole phrase "mental stability" is such a tough one. did i think he was a deeply narcissistic guy? yes. most of the diagnosis you can do of donald trump, any layperson can do. do i think he was mentally unstable then? yes, i do. in other words, had he been subjected to intense stress, do i think he would have behaved in ways that are scary? i do think that. at that time, it simply wasn't the case. now that he's president and the pressure is ratcheting up, not only in terms of just being president but all the controversy and pressure around him, i think it does contribute

to his instability. and that instability is significant. and frightening. >> tony schwartz, great to get your perspective because you spent a lot of time with the president. it's interesting to hear your reflections from 1987. thanks so much for being on "new day." >> thank you. >> chris? a big head shaker for you this morning. here is what happened. a kansas state lawmaker is now apologizing because of a really just wildly wrong comment that he made during the debate about race and marijuana. what he said, what he seemed to really believe that had people stunned, next. (vo) i was born during

the winter of '77. i first met james in 5th grade. we got married after college. and had twin boys. but then one night, a truck didn't stop. but thanks to our forester, neither did our story. and that's why we'll always drive a subaru. here's the story of green mountain coffee roasters sumatra reserve. let's go to sumatra. the coffee here is amazing. because the volcanic soil is amazing. so we give farmers like win more plants. to grow more delicious coffee. which helps provide for win's family. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters. kayak compares hundreds of travel and airline sites so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. cheers! kayak. search one and done.

you feel better. introducing tommie copper's all new shoulder centric posture shirt. they're biggest breakthrough yet. advanced engineering promotes healthy posture and relief for achy shoulders and back. visit tommiecopper.com to see the entire line of wearable wellness compression. they have you covered from head to toe. go to tommiecopper.com right now and find out how you can save 25% on your first purchase, plus first shipping. life hurts, feel better.

all right. there is a new documentary coming out called "the final year." it's about the time year of the obama administration from a foreign policy perspective. the now former u.s. ambassador of the united nations, we talked to her about what this documentary was about, specifically does she believe that the achievements that the trump administration are heralding right now are proof that obama was weak and trump is strong?

here is her response and her concerns for all of our future. >> i don't think we should all express delight at having pulled back from the brink of a potential nuclear war. i don't think that's where the bar should lie and the fact that we have walked away from the international agreements that we forged isn't just bad for the last administration. people say to me you must be so sad about your legacy and all the work you guys did. our legacy? i'm sad for the international order and the risk to peace and the welfare of people around the world. and i think the fact that the rest of the world is moving on, that china is trying to forge a free trade agreement where we didn't, create a huge regional trade block would be a major threat to our interests, the facts that the europeans said to us you may want to walk away from the iran deal but the iranian government is sticking to the deal so we're sticking with it. wait till the real threat comes. and in terms of korea, i think

it is very important that there's a dialogue between north and south korea, but i don't think that that's something that we have encouraged. that's something the republic of korea has done, fearful that the language that the president has been using is going to lead us down a very reckless and dangerous path. >> how would you describe the trump foreign policy strategy or ideology to date? >> i would have no ability to tell you what that foreign policy or strategy is. i know that the secretary of state wants to cut the state department's budget and staff. to me that's not a foreign policy. that's bookkeeping. and the president wanted to go after isis again. i think that's something very important that we have achieved, but isis is a symptom as well of major governance challenges. i'm not seeing the diplomacy you need to create inclusive iraq that is going to mean, or syria for that matter, that will mean that the people who gravitated toward isis feel that they have a place in a new society. but i couldn't tell you what they are trying to achieve.

>> do you think or do you wish that the obama administration had done more to sound the alarm about russian interference during the election? >> i think given how things turned out, we all ask ourselves, you know, >> i get the decision that was made, you didn't want to seem like you were interfering, and as part of the team we get what the calculous was. in retrospect, do you wish more had been done? >> i have a hard time believing the republicans who were discouraging us from jumping up and down on a political level, the intelligence community, those republicans would have embraced that message and said, look, listen to president obama, he said putin is trying to interfere in the elections, you

really think, chris, senior republicans would have said, oh, he has a point, let's ban together? >> weren't they saying don't? >> i don't think we have seen an evidence of a rally around the flag around election interference, and that saddens me because whoever you want to vote for, one thing we all should agree on is americans get to choice. >> what do you make about the question about president trump's fitness? >> on the base of my twitter feed, they seem like worthy questions. >> do you think it's about mental health or behavior? >> i don't have insight into that anymore than you do. >> this documentary will be in theaters, what do you think

people will take from it? >> i hope they do not see it as an exercise down memory lane to make them feel better about their day-to-day and i hope it's not a time warp. it's the first documentary, i think, that opens up government and shows behind the scenes how decisions are made, and the arguments, the heartbreak, sometimes, and the mistakes as well as the successes. you know, at a time when people despair about our institutions and have less faith, not more faith in government, i think what it shows is, yes, diplomacy, and our efforts to make peace and promote human rights or whatever around the world, but it just shows caring about the enterprise and having a set of objectives and recognizing the interest of the american people are linked to those people abroad and giving everything, as john kerry does in the film, he can barely walk-up the stairs, he had just done 19 hours of meetings and

going from yemen to libya to syria trying to make things better. does the film show us succeeding in syria? it does not. but having that affect, mobilizing the countries around the world in pursuit of a more just and stable world, that's the right objective. >> always appreciate your perspective. always welcome on the show. >> thank you, good to be here. >> make sure to catch the documentary "the final year," january 19th. we're following a lot of news, so let's get after it. >> we're not, really. >> i love that line so much -- >> do you say that at home? >> i do. we will take a break, and when we come back, sometimes we just need to play you something and let you see it that this is a elected lawmaker in kansas and

making an argument about why he is against marijuana legalization, and there are plenty of reasons to be for or against it, but his reasons will pop your eyes open.

i tried hard to quit smoking. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

to find smarter solutions. to offer more precise and less invasive treatment options than before.

like advanced genomic testing and immunotherapy. see how we're fighting to outsmart cancer at cancercenter.com/outsmart something you are not hearing a lot about, everybody is talking about the d.r.e.a.m.ers but did you know the trump administration they just told 200,000 immigrants from el salvador that they must go? the decision to cancel their temporary residents permits come with an 18-month grace period to give them time to apply for other forms of immigration relief or leave the u.s. and el salvador is not ready for those coming back from the u.s., and these are families with homes, kids and jobs. president trump's health and human health nominee heads to

capitol hill for his confirmation hearing. democrats are expected to grill him on the rising drug prices and republicans are expected to give their unanimous support to him. the kansas state lawmakers was arguing whether or not to legalize marijuana, and one of his reasons for being against the legalization was this. listen carefully. the tape is not great. >> what you really need to do is go back in the '30s and where they outlawed all kinds of drugs and what was the reason why they did that? one of the reasons why, i hate to say it, it's the african-americans, they were basically users and basically responded the worst to all of those drugs because of chair

character makeup, their genetics. >> that's a republican state representative steve alford in a public meeting. yes, he just said african-americans had the first response to marijuana as a function of their character and makeup, and then he issued a statement saying he was wrong and sincerely apologized to anybody he hurt. why do we play this? because racism and ignorant thoughts about race don't always exist in the loudness of the kkk or people carrying banners or saying things obnoxious, it's often quiet moments and people that believe things and feed a very corrosive sense of fairness and humanity. that's what this is. i'm not saying this is a bad guy, i am saying that he believed this to be true. >> clearly. what rock has he been living unde