hello, i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. 9:00 p.m. in moscow. 3:00 a.m. thursday in seoul, south korea. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks for joining us their fates hang in the balance. for dreamers a confusing message from president trump. politics at play? the trump administration only letting red state florida off the hook over plans to expand offshore drilling. now, other states are crying foul. and south korea, throwing credit to president trump for its talks with north korea and now the president making an important promise involving possible military action. all that coming up.

but first, president trump calls for overhauling the nation's libel loss. this is what he said in remarks over at the white house moments ago. >> we are going to take a strong look at our country's libel laws. so that when somebody says something that is false and defamtory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts if somebody says something that's knowingly false, that the person that has been abused, defamed, libeled, will have meaningful recourse. our current libel laws are a sham. and a disgrace and do not represent american values or american fairness. >> president also praised his own performance yesterday during a meeting with democratic and republican lawmakers on

immigration. >> actually, it was reported as incredibly good and my performance, you know, some of them called it a performance. i consider it work. but got great reviews by everybody other than two networks, who were phenomenal for about two hours. then after that, they were called by their bosses and said, wait a minute, and unfortunately, a lot of those anchors sent us letters saying that was one of the greatest meetings they've ever witnessed. >> it's bring in our chief white house correspondent jim acosta. let's start with the president's latest comments on the libel laws here in the united states. what is he proposing? >> reporter: well, we don't know what the president is proposing about libel laws, wolf. we know during the campaign he talked about this, talked about cracking down on journalists and writers across the country essentially threatening reporters and writers with lawsuits if they write things

about him he doesn't like. that is what the president is talking about when he talks about changing the nation's libel laws. of course, he would run up against something called the first amendment in the constitution of the united states which obviously would not allow that to occur. and you know, also we have to -- we would be remiss if we didn't say that while he was a citizen, while he was as by man, he repeatedly spread the falsehood that barack obama, the previous president was not born in the united states. and so obviously, this is the president complaining about that book from michael wolff "fire and fury" and some of the reporting that's come out of it which he felt was not positive about him or his administration. he sought to correct that yesterday. it was a remarkable meeting he had at the white house with a group of lawmakers, democrats and republicans haggling over this issue what to do about the nation's dreamers who are waiting to see what will happen to them. of course, you could just sense from what he was saying in that meeting earlier today that he

just does not like the coverage when it goes negative and unfortunately, there were moments during that cabinet meeting where he sounded confused about the numbers of dreamers in this country. he said at one point there were 800,000 or 650,000 or maybe there are a few million. you know, that is obviously something that his own staff could tell him about and give him those numbers. but wolf, as for this other comment that he made that there are letters he's received from news anchors praising him on his perform we've gone back to the white house to say what can you tell us about these letters? that's the first we've heard of that, as well. >> good point. jim acosta at the white house. the president as going to be having a joint news conference with the visiting prime minister from norway. that's coming up later this afternoon, right? >> that's right. he's going to be meeting with the prime minister of norway ernest solberg and at 3:20 holding a joint news conference. top of mind for everybody will

be what will happen with the president's negotiations with congress 0 resolve this dreamer issue. as you saw last night, wolf, a couple of developments. one was the president tweeting that there has to be a wall as part of any deal to save those dreamers from deportation. that is obviously not the impression that many democrats came away with when had he left this ming yesterday at the white house. then of course, that federal court decision out in san francisco halting the administration's use of that suspension of the dreamer program. that is something that the judge said that is just not in the interests of those 800,000 or so young people who are waiting to find out hawaii what will happen to them. in that case, curiously enough, the judge cited the president's own tweets saying that those dreamers should not be thrown out of the country. i imagine that will be something he'll be asked about as well as north korea and other subjects later on this afternoon. >> 3:20 p.m. eastern.

the joint news conference. jim, thanks very much. let's get some immediate perspective on all of this. joining us cnn legal analyst paul cowan, political analyst, david gregory and gloria borger paul, the president's remarks that the administration is going to take a closer look at libel laws here in the united states, what's your reaction to this? is it simply reaction to that controversial book that came out this week, "fire and fury"? >> i think that was the final straw for the president. he's been talking for a long time about changing libel laws in the united states. but i have to say, he had better be careful what he wishes for because he's the king of insults and defamtory comments himself. and if you made it easier to sue people, i would imagine that he would get sued quite a few times himself. in the end, it's going to be virtually impossible to change the laws in the united states because the first amendment protects political free speech. the supreme court ruled in

sullivan versus "the new york times" that in fact, in political campaigns or political oriented speech, we have wide latitude to criticize politicians. so i don't think you're going to see the supreme court changing that rule and only the supreme court could change that rule. >> gloria, it's interesting though. this is the meeting first cabinet meeting of this new year. and the president's outlining various initiatives he wants to go forward. i was surprised to hear him talk about libel laws. >> because that's what's on his mind. he doesn't like the fact that michael wolff's book is out there. he doesn't like the fact and he said it at his meeting yesterday people started by applauding the meeting itself. but then started criticizing him. we know the criticism became as jim was pointing out because of his lack of command over the substance of the subject matter of immigration that was being discussed. i think he doesn't like being criticized.

this is somebody incrediblily continual jus. he doesn't like as president he's criticized even more and i think it is stunning to me actually that he started this cabinet meeting which is about, again, which is about substance. he did talk about all of his achievements over the past year. but then he goes off on this tangent which is all about him and about what he would like to do because he doesn't like the fact as president of the united states that he's a magnifying glass. >> i thought he was going to talk about his goals for this new year, infrastructure development, welfare reform. other very important issues. clearly on the agenda. but i didn't hear that. >> it's very pre-2016 thinking, wolf. that was your mistake. a couple things are striking about this. you have this cult of personality where the president is obsessed with the notion of performance. he says it wasn't a performance yesterday when he was talking in an unprecedented way with

lawmakers on both sides about immigration. yet, he welcomes the cabinet to the studio. he talked about great reviews he got and yet doesn't want it to be called a performance. he's obsessed with watching television. cable television namely about how people talk about him. so that obsession keeps getting in his own way. what he did yesterday was interesting. it was surprising. it was -- even if it was a stunt, it was the kind of thing that donald trump as president can pull off that could actually achieve some things maybe other presidents haven't achieved. what you see is a window into what i think drives him more than anything else, he's thin skinned. he doesn't like to be criticized and that leads him down a road where he gets so distracted, he can't capitalize on what you said, which is let's take a time -- the time to roll out some areas where we can wear down the opposition, where we can bolster part of the agenda, whatever that is. >> it's as if the kind of

personal grievance sort of takes over everything. and try as he might to stay on the road that the staff clearly wants him to stay on, which is to talk about the things you were talking about, wolf, that he can't help himself but let this personal grievance get in the way of everything else. >> because yesterday, exactly 24 hour ago, we saw ta 55-minute televised portion of that meeting had he with democratic and republican members of the house and senate. we emerged and it was sort of unclear how much he would link the daca extension of daca for the dream ares allowing them hundreds of thousands of people, who stay here in the united states. they were brought here illegally by parents as little children, but then and it was unclear how much of an link he wanted, but last night, he tweeted this. as i made very clear today our country needs the security of the wall on the southern border which must be part of any daca approval. so there's not going to be an agreement on daca, he says,

unless the democrats agree to fund the wall into what does the wall actually mean? he's talking about border security. democrats were i think pleasantly surprised how the meeting went because they can sign onto the idea of more border security that falls short of a wall. we don't know where his final position is. what i thought was refreshing about trump yesterday was the way he breaks out of the norm of politics by saying we've got to get thing on dreamers. he contradicted himself about the whole bill love idea from the campaign. he could break through some of the most strident opposition on the right. he can say i'm the guy who can pull this off. trust me to get more security. and also we can do the right thing. he's got the ability actually to do that. i don't happen to think that the wall is a bottom line issue. it's how you define what the wall amounts to. >> what we saw yesterday was not a great negotiator. what we saw yesterday was somebody who wants a win and who said to people, i trust you. whatever you come to me with, i

will sign. and then lindsey graham said you have to close the deal. republicans said wait a minute, mr. president. these are our -- these are our priorities. so you saw something very different. but he might be able to sign anything and have his base go along with him. sheriff joe arpaio just said on cnn today, i'll go along with a daca deal which was kind of stunning because i trust president trump. so maybe he would be able to get away with that. >> there's more we'll discuss. don't go far away. there are a lot of other developments unfolding. including more on the president's contradicting statements on the fate of dreamers. republican senator rand paul will join me live later this hour. we'll get his reaction to that and more. republican and democratic governs are blasting the ez's plas to expand offshore drill. details on the pushback from coast to coast. >> and the president says he's

open to talks with north korea one day after the south korea and north korea met. the threat of the nuclear state overseas. that and more coming up. ting pls small plates, with big flavor- like yucatan shrimp in chili-lime butter and caramelized pineapple. and if you like hot, buttery maine lobster, check out this petite red lobster roll. for new entrees, explore globally-inspired dishes like spicy dragon shrimp. and now, when you order any two new or classic entrees, you get a free tasting plate. so get your coupon at redlobster.com and join us today!

and my brother ray and i started searching for answers. (vo) when it's time to navigate in-home care, follow that bright star. because brightstar care earns the same accreditation as the best hospitals. and brightstar care means an rn will customize a plan that evolves with mom's changing needs. (woman) because dad made us promise

we'd keep mom at home. (vo) call 844-4-brightstar for your free home care planning guide. we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

president trump says the united states is open to talking directly with north korea. that according to a white house readout of president trump's call with the south korean president. the two leaders spoke by phone for about 30 minutes. it comes a day after north and south korean officials sat down for the first time in more than two years, a meeting that the president moon credits in large part to president trump. for more, let's go to senior international correspondent i wan watson in seoul right now. tell us more about the call. >> reporter: well, sounds from the readout ha both the south korean president and president trump are hoping yesterday's ground breaking talks between north and south korea could be as a possible spring board to larger diplomacy with north

korea. possible direct piptcy between the u.s. and north korea. going one step further, according to the south korean readout of the call saying that president trump sent a message to north korea that beak the u.s. will not engage in any military action whatsoever as long as these interkorean talks are taking place. that's a pretty strong signal that's being sent to pyongyang right now. also, going one step further and saying that vice president pence will be leading the u.s. delegation that will be attending the winter olympics here in south koreaing in one month's time. of course, the talks began on tuesday aimed at trying to get north korean athletes to be able to attend those winter olympics. that agreement has been welcomed by south korea, by the countries here in the region and by the international olympic committee. here's a big question. is it possible that the u.s.

delegation that attends the winter olympics in one month's time that they could potentially meet somehow with the north koreans? there are only two athletes anticipated to be coming but the north korean entourage is expected to be much, much larger. wolf in. >> let's not forget what the president trump said over the weekend when he was at camp david. he was asked by a reporter, are you willing to engage in phone calls with kim jong-un right now. president trump responded sure, i always believe in talking. ivan watson, we'll get back to you when you get more. thanks so much. important story emerging. also coming up, fresh outrage brewing after a top democrat releases the closed door testimony over the controversial trump russia dossier. we'll tell you what's in it, how it contradicts what the president has said. to make decisionss a lot er when you know what comes next. if you move your old 401(k) to a fidelity ira,

we make sure you're in the loop at every step from the moment you decide to move your money to the instant your new retirement account is funded. ♪ oh and at fidelity, you'll see how all your investments are working together. because when you know where you stand, things are just clearer. ♪ just remember what i said about a little bit o' soul ♪

things are just clearer. we know life can be hectic. that's why, at xfinity, we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now, with instant text and email updates, you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels, so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for - because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today.

president trump insisting once again today that there was absolutely no collusion between his campaign and russia. his insistence comes just one day after democratic senator dianne feinstein released testimony about that infamous trump dossier from the company that oversaw it. president trump tweeted earlier today calling this the single greatest witch hunt in american history. and strongly denying any collusion with russia. the president has of course, made similar claims before. listen to this. >> there is no collusion. you know why in because i don't eke 0 russians. what has been shown is no collusion. no collusion. there's been absolutely no collusioning. > there is absolutely no collusion. that has been proven. when you look at the committees, whether it's the senate or the house, everybody, my worst

enemies, they walk out, they say there is no collusion. but we'll continue to look. >> want to bring in amber phillips, miller for "the washington post" political blog the fix. you have a new piece comparing the president's words to the testimony we've now read from glenn simpson, co-founder of fusion gps. how does the testimony compare to president trump's claiming this is a witch hunt and that there's no evidence of collusion? >> yeah, well simpson's testimony suggests the opposite. there is actually evidence of collusion between russia and the trump campaign, that his research firm found this while they were investigating more routine political opposition research that they might use for a client against president trump. not only that, but that this, what they found alleging collusion they found was so serious, they called the fbi. the fbi came back to them and said you know what? we believe you because, and this is really key, according to simpson's testimony, the fbi had

a source on the inside of the trump campaign. here's what glen simpson said to congress. he said essentially what chris steele, the author of the dossier told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal trump campaign source. my understanding was they believed chris at this point, they believed his information might be credible because they had other intelligence ha indicated the same thing. one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the trump organization. now, reporting right after this transcript was released shed a little bit of doubt that this was someone like a trump whistleblower inside the campaign. it could have been a whistleblower from someone talking to the trump campaign. it's still very much in doubt who the source is. point is, the fbi is basically saying they corroborated according to his testimony there might have been some evidence for collusion between trump campaign and russia. >> the president also claim this investigation was made up by the

dras, that fusion gps is linked to democrats. listen to this. >> the whole russian thing is what it's turned out to be. this was the democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election. they lost it by a lot. they didn't know what to say. oh had he made up the whole russia hoax. now it's turning out that the hoax has turned around and you look at what's happened with russia and you look at the uranium deal and you look at the fake dossier. that's all turned around. >> so amber, how does had compare to simpson's testimony. >> once again, the head of fusion gps directly contradicts president talking to congress. what he says is yeah, we got funded by democrats during the campaign to continue research. research that was started by a conservative website that asked us to look into trump's ties to russia. we didn't know we were going to find collusion. what simpson says is the purpose of this was to see if we could

learn for generally speaking about his business dealings in russia. what came back was something very different and obviously, more alarming. so it's not the same thing as saying that the dossier was motivated by democrats to smear trump. democrats funded research that found on its own, simpson claims, there was collusion. and not only that, they were so surprised at what they found, this dossier alleges that there was perhaps bribing or black maying, any other number of claims that have been unsubstantiated so far by the media and parallel investigations going on. but to them, they thought it was so serious that according to simpson, to me this was like you know, you're driving to work you see something happen and kaw 911. they couldn't not call the fbi on what they stumbled upon. >> amber phillips, thanks so much for that explanation. president trump is furious that simpson's testimony was released. he tweeted this earlier quote. fact that sneaky dianne feinstein who has on numerous

occasions stated that collusion between trump and russia has not been found would release testimony in such an underhanded way totally without authorization is a disgrace. must have tough primary. gloria and david are still with me. what was she hoping to achieve by releasing this transcript. >> i think she was hoping to achieve a certain amount of transparency which she did. i think what we saw, what amber was talking about in simpson's testimony is they felt they had a five alarm fire here. at least christopher steele did. that's why he went to the fbi. he didn't go to the fbi because he was out to get donald trump or for meother reason. he was a known quantity to them. and he felt he had a presidential candidate who could potentially be subject to blackmail. and he felt a need to go and report this. and i think what we now know

about his testimony is that perhaps what he was referring to was that the australian am bass tore who had been contacted and had a drinks in london with george papadopoulos who teld him about the information they had on hillary clinton's e-mail. so there was an external source, as well that the fbi was aware of. >> i'm a little bit more skeptical about this than gloria. i think this is a bit messy. i just don't totally take on face value they went to the fbi and said look, we could have a candidate who could be blackmailed. that could be true or part of the issue. we also remember that in the course of the campaign, people were looking for information to get donald trump because they thought there was a lot of there there. all of a sudden you have these kinds of accusations that are quite explosive. that if they're turned over 0 law enforcement, all of a sudden, elevates it. anybody who is investigated by the fbi becomes a bigger deal.

now, what i think mitigates all of that is you do have the fbi's own investigation that confirms some of this, an internal source has been reported on. you put all of that into the mix and what trump is doing is creating the crisis of the idea that this is all a hoax. it's just not the case. there's information here that i think feinstein wants out to say this is all fodder for an investigation. some of which can be verified, some can't. >> i don't understand why a lot of these interviews aren't public, by the way. i mean, the american people, you have the bob mueller investigation which is going on in a black box. then you have a public's right to know about what congress knows about the hacking of the election or what was going on in the campaign. i mean, i take you back to iran con where the people testified, publicly, about this. oliver north testified publicly about what he knew and what he didn't know and what reagan knew

and what he didn't know. i think there is -- these investigations have very different roles, and so far, by and large, we have seen this testimony go on in private and we've seen transcripts released. >> the problem is it's fundamentally a political process. >> let me play for you chuck grassley, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee who was not notified by dianne feinstein about her unilateral decision to release these 300 plus pains. he's upset they've been released. he spoke with our manu raju. here's his explanation. >> these transcripts would have been released eventually anyway. but i think it does create some problems, for instance, when you're getting people to voluntarily come to you, it may make a lot of people a little more reserved about whether or not they want to cooperate. and i think particularly in regard to jared kushner that it

could maybe affect our moving forward with that. very high profile person as an example. but it will continue -- we'll continue to move forward. >> i just think that's so silly. this is just an institutional complaint by senator grassley who knows better. congress leaks all the time. and they leak selectively. if you're in that position as the witness, if i were in that position, i would rather have my entire transcript released with all of its context rather than people on the hill right or left leaking the stuff out to make a point. >> remember in iran-contra, people were offered immunity. that was a problem for the prosecution, right? so there are -- there are issues here. but you know, i do believe that the american public has a right to see these transcripts and has a right to even watch these people testify if they're willing to do so. i remember don junior at one point was willing to testify in public. >> different matter that's not

come up. the other day, the administration announced they would allow offshore drilling along the atlantic coast. it upset a lot of governors, especially the governor of florida, rick scott. all of a sudden, they've just announced guess what, there won't be any offshore drilling off the coast of florida but there will be offshore drilling off other coasts. >> you know, apparently if you make enough noise, you can get a decision reversed quickly which means the policy isn't being thought out well enough initially which we've seen evidence of. >> it's politics, right? you have somebody running for governor who wants to get re-elected. and you had this decision that was made. and then it was reversed. so some people are saying this is about mar-a-lago. the decision was made originally. and i think this is, i know you'll be shocked but i think this is about politics. >> all politics is local. so is all presidential politics looking at battleground states. >> won't be any offshore drilling off the coast of florida. a bunch of other states, unless

they can convince the president to change his mind, there will be. guys, thanks very much. there's much more news coming up. we'll take a quick break. we'll be right back. afi sure had a lot on my mind. my 30-year marriage... ...my 3-month old business... plus...what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i made a point to talk to my doctor. he told me about eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. not only does eliquis treat dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis had both... ...and that turned around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to.

eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis right for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you.

in southern california, hundreds of people are stranded in their neighborhoods waiting to be rescued. heavy rains caused rivers of mud and debris to run down the hillsides in zonta barbara county. 15 people have died, dozens are missing and injured. our correspondent paul vercammen is joining us from montecito right now. how are the rescue efforts first of all, paul, going? >> reporter: well, we're seeing them in action right now.

first we'll look at this telephone pole right here and give you a sense of the enormity of this tragedy. it's dangling between two trees. then you look just beyond that. that was a house there. that's the foundation. the floodwaters ripped it completely off. that search and rescue team just went through here. you see the house in the distance with the paint on it? they marked that car to show that it was clear, that there was no one in there. then the house beyond. then you look in the foreground in front of us where this bulldozer is. that's an area they're trying to clear right now. as we come 36, go ahead and pan this way. we'll see what the search and rescue crews are up to. they had searched this area. and there's another house just right over here, wolf, that was completely ripped off its foundation. so the debris field is surreal at times. it includes parts of houses and power poles. then you have telephone poles mixed in there along with all of these trees. one thing that's unique about

this mudslide is in this part of california, it goes from about 3,000 feet to sea level in a very, very small amount of distance. just several miles. we're probably about a mile and a quarter from the ocean. and so they're going to have to go through with these people missing all of these debris fields and see if there's any survivors still in there. then you articulated that another scenario called romero canyon where there are residents they told to shelter in place because there was such a big debris feed, they couldn't even get in there and they may have to bring them out by helicopter. they were successful if making a lot of helicopter rescues yesterday. so that's the scene here in montecito. this is one of those places where they absolutely got blasted by this massive slide after the thomas fire. the biggest fire in california history. back to you, wolf. >> yeah, first fires now mud

slides and flooding. awful situation in that area. paul, thanks very much for that report. up next, the white house is clamming a federal judge's decision to block the trump administration's plan to end daca, calling it outrageous. republican senator rand paul is standing by live. we'll discuss. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,... ...isn't it time to let the real you shine through? maybe it's time for otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... ...with reduced redness,... ...thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has... ...no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased... ...risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have... ...a history of depression... ...or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla...

...reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper... ...respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take... ...and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.

the white house is now correcting the official transcript of that meeting that the president had yesterday with democratic and republican lawmakers dealing with the so-called dreamers, the daca legislation. but they say a line, a

critically important line omitted in the official transcript was not, according to white house officials, they insist an attempt to scrub what the president actually said. first, let's listen to the exchange very sensitive moment during that 55-minute conversation at the white house. listen to what dianne feinstein, the senator from california, what she said about the dreamers and legislation and the president's response. listen to this. >> what about a clean daca bill now with a commitment that we go in to a comprehensive immigration reform procedure like we did back on remember when kennedy was here and it was really a major major effort, and it was great disappointment that it went nowhere. >> i have no problem. i think that's basically what dick is say. we're going to come out with daca and do daca and start on

phase two. >> would you be agreeable on that. >> yeah, i would like. i think a lot of people would like to see that. i think we have to do daca. >> that was the actual video. we saw it exactly here 24 hours ago. it was live. it was on tape. we saw the whole 55-minute exchange. the initial transcript released by white house omitted that critically important line from the president when he was asked by senator feinstein, would you be agreeable to that meaning a clean daca bill. the president said yeah, i would like, i would like to do that. that was omitted. that line, yeah, i would like to do that omitted from the official transcript. it was later corrected. they put that line in but there's a lot of suspicion as to why that most sensitive line during that 55-minute conversation in the official white house transcript was initially deleted. david gregory is still with us right now. david, you've covered the white

house. i've covered the white house. those white house officials who transcribe these meetings, they're very, very specific and when all of a sudden that most sensitive line was deleted when the president said yeah, i would like, i would like to do that meaning a clean daca bill. by the way, that was followed by kevin mccarthy, the house majority leader who said mr. president, you need to be clear though. i think that senator feinstein is asking what senator feinstein is asking, what we're talking about daca, he said you've got include security. >> he kind of bellows from across the room, wait a minute, mr. president before you do that. that seems fishy to me as i'm sure it does you. we know the transcribers who work in the white house who are terrific. this is something the president wouldn't want out there to be consumed to be scrutinized and maybe they felt like well, he didn't really mean that. they corrected it. you shouldn't be messing around with the transcripts.

the point is that the president seemed committed to do something until you know, republican leaders said no, no, you're not thinking this through all the way which again suggests some level of lack of preparation. >> these are official transcripts, historians study them. they feinstein said would you be agreeable to that meaning a clean initial, but they fixed it and corrected it. >> the other question is they talk about doing this in phases, first one is dreamers, how do you get to the wall and what the president wants. >> thanks very much, david, for that. republican senator rand paul will join us. we'll discuss this and a whole lot more right after a quick break. how do you win at business?

stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com

president trump today taking

aim at the u.s. court system, saying in a tweet, that it is, quote, broken and unfair after a federal judge put a hold on the administration's efforts to wined down the daca program, that's the program for the children brought into the united states as kids as minors by their parents. joining us is the rand paul. senator, thanks for joining us. >> good to be with you, wolf. >> so you have good relationship with the president. have you spoken to him personally what he wants in this initial immigration reform bill possibly making daca permanent? >> you know, i haven't spoken to him recently about this issue or in the particulars. i've spoken with him in general about it. and i think he is open to a compromise, so am i, and i think many republicans are. and i thisnk that's the real question on the immigration. will the democrats compromise on us to find a solution. they wanted to fix the daca

problem. conservative republicans aren't as excited but willing to come halfway but want to make sure we fix the border at the same time. i think there is room for compromise on this. >> even though some of your conservative colleagues call it amnesty, you are still in favor of a compromise? >> what i've always said is about a million people come to this country every year. and if there is a million daca children, as long as they take the spot of somebody already coming, why don't we internally immigrant them. in other words, they would count towards the normal immigration totals we have and it wouldn't be that hard to figure that out. i think that's a solution that could occur even with others within this group, as long as they couldn't towards the totals, as long as they'll work, and we do need to fix some of the things the president has talked about. i think the diversity lottery we should be replacing with merit base. 700 million people want to come to america if they could, let's pick the brightest and best of them, ones that we need, what categories of workers and we

could have a much better immigration system than we have. >> are you in favor, senator, on border wall? and whatever happened to president trump's promise that mexico would pay for it? >> i remain a fiscal conservative even on the wall, so i'm not excited about spending $20 billion on the wall. we are $700 billion in the hole. i heard from somebody the other day that said we build 2,700 miles of concrete barriers on inter states, all those noise control barriers, we've done that for $2 billion. so i think the price tag should be debated and i think we can have barriers. i think we should also use technology which is less expensive. but the barriers i think we need to look at the cost of them chblgt t. the people advocating are for getting fiscally conservative and giving enormous numbers. so yes i would look at the number very carefully many and

while i'll vote for barriers but not voting for $40 billion for barriers. >> and you are not under the assumption that mexico eventually will pay for it, are you? >> i think the only way you could understand that to be true would be indirectly somehow that you could say that we spend a lot of money on illegal immigration in hour country. and i think that's the only way you could sort of emergency that mexico would pay for the wall is eliminating some of the costs we spend on people illegally coming into the country. >> you have tied your budget vote to the federal intelligence surveillance act, 702 of the act, targets the communication of nonu.s. persons located outside the united states for foreign intelligence purposes. how far, senator, are you willing to go to block this? >> well, this program let's us spy on foreigners in foreign lands without any constitutional protections. i agree with that.

if you are a forner in a foreign land targeting the united states you don't get the protection of the constitution. my worry is they also collect information on millions of americans and i don't want database to be searched without a warrant. and if you search that about forei foreigners, it should not be domestic crime. so we have to obey it for americans. as long as we have those protections in place, the program can continue, and i'll vote to allow it to continue. but right now the reform proposal that the house committee has put forward makes it worse. it actually says that you can use that information to convict people of domestic crime, americans. so this would be americans being convicted and violating their fourth amendment rights. i can't be for that. hand i'll fill buster or do whatever it is to stop that. but there is ta chance thes house, my amendment with senator widen is going to be voted, just

continue justin, their amendment in the hour in the house, and decent chance we win this. it's going to be close. >> before i let you go, i know you have to run, senator, first of all, how are you feeling? we all were shocked by all of the reports that we read what a neighbor of you punched you and beat you. tell us what happened. how are you doing right now? >> it actually wasn't an altercation. i was attacked from behind unaware. never saw my assailant. so i wouldn't really call it an altercation or punching or something like that i was attacked from behind with hearing protection on. never saw it coming. i was severely injured. had six broken lungs, pneumonia, pain for a month. doing better now. and i appreciate you asking. >> you sound good. and fortunately you sound a lot better. but i didn't