you very much. obviously he was with obama. the people who are in lay right now specifically, the head of the frc was invited to go on the show to explain what happened with hawaii and as son the case the invitation was declined. we're following a lot of news. it's mlk day. let's get after it. >> you said these hate felt things and he said them repeatedly. >> no, i'm not a racist. >> i didn't hear that word. country hear what senator durbin heard repeatedly. >> you can't have a compromise if everyone is out there calling the president a racist. >> i don't know if they'll be a shutdown. there shouldn't be. >> i for one will not vote for government funding until we get a deal on daca. >> he was just -- it was scary, very scary. >> part of it is people was on edge but eventually we'll solve the problem. >> it cannot happen again. >> i've been calling on president trump to directly negotiate with north korea to

remove this threat. >> this is new day with chris cuomo and allison cam ratto. >> allison is off. vikings fans poppy harlow extraordinary is sitting in this morning. president trump declaring he is not a racist once again. this time it's in context of his denying that he referred to haitian and some african nations using an ugly s. word but his real problem is that he clearly expressed a preference from people like norway to the black and brown people from impovertyished countries. now lawmakers in the oval office in this stupid he said/he said about what the president actually said and why. credibility for so many poppy on the line. >> it sure is, chris. are the president's comments,

his own words further jeopardizing a deal for d.r.e.a.m.ers. the president is pointing the finger at democrats. they're the ones holding up the deal. all of this as the government shutdown looms in just a few days, this friday. democrats threatening to vote some of them against any funding legislation if it does not include protection for d.r.e.a.m.ers. a lot to get to. >> joining us now is haiti's ambassador to the united states paul attador. do you care in your diplomatic role what the actual word was or you focused on the sentiment of this comparison of people from haiti versus people from norway and who the president wants in the united states? >> we care as a people. we feel that the narrative of haiti in the united states has been misunderstood. haiti too often we make the headlines for the wrong reason. a lot of time think of us only when it comes to natural disasters or instability. people not realizing the country

of haiti and the country of the united states have a long history together. haitians, haitians fought in the independence war of the american here. we fought for your freedom. more importantly, today, the immigrants we talking about here, the haitian immigrants, the sons and daughters serving the u.s. armed forces today. the sons, the daughters are serving in universities around this country. so in many ways we feel that, yeah, the words, they did hurt the community, they did hurt the country of haiti. it hurt because one it's an insult to our dignity but more importantly it's because too much of haiti is misunderstood and they are we hope to engage in a dialogue not just with the presidency, it's important that the president given the prestige of this office that such words shouldn't be coming out of anybody's mouth let alone the president of the united states. >> he said he didn't say it and now he has a couple of republican senators who say they didn't hear them say it.

is that good enough for you? >> regardless of what was said by whom, ultimately the words that were being described about haitians and haiti in that context from what we understood they were not good and more importantly they were misplaced and ill-informed. we're hoping moving forward and this is one of the things i'm hoping to deal with the president, today is mlk day. we're celebrating the legacy of dr. king. this is our way of saying, yes, unfortunately those things did happen. it's regrettable those words were being talked about haiti and other groups. we don't want that to happen to anybody, especially a country like haiti where we've actually been in so much harmony with the people of the united states over the years. in that sense, we extending a hand to the president. i'm personally asking the president, come to our community, the president has attended -- he went to haiti. he told the president that he's going to be their championing. this is their opportunity. we home there's an excuse, an apology for what was said, but

at the same time let me make it clear, chris. a lot of the people we are being flooded with e-mails and phone calls from average american expressing their solidarity with us, expressing their anger at what was said. the apology came from the american people already. so now we looking for it -- we're looking forward to moving forward. on a special day like this, we hope this is an opportunity to take this conversation to new heights. >> you have a policy concern on top of whatever the rhetoric was, the language. the president has ended tps, temporary protected status for a big bunch of el salvador and also 59,000 haitians that came after the 2010 earthquake. >> exactly. >> i was there. i cover it had. here's the policy point. it is temporary. >> yes. >> if haiti is in a stable shame as suggest, why should haitians continue to have temporary protected status here in the united states? why shouldn't they go back home? >> as a government we're not

asking the united states to take our citizens for us. that's not the point we're making. there were specific condition as to why tps was provided for haitians was earthquake. there's a process in place in haiti right now to make sure the country is stable in terms of its economic recovery and development process. it just so happened that a number of issues, natural daft, the hurricanes, the cholera outbreak. we're working with u.s. government -- tps is extended another 18 months as the country of haiti continues its process of recovery. so from that standpoint, our argument has never been about please take those 59,000 haitians and just do whatever you need with them. as a government, as a people, we have a responsibility and we taking care of those responsibilities. we are addressing those challenges on the ground. it was a matter of time that we are addressing with the u.s. -- >> it's supposed to be 18 months. it's been seven years now. do you believe that those 59,000

haitians could go back to haiti today and be safe and find a stable life? >> what we saying here, the process of rebuilding haiti has actually hit a number of obstacle. >> right. >> mainly natural disaster. we think an extension would been in the mutual interest not just of haiti but the united states. the idea that haiti as a neighbor given our long history, there would have been actually -- it would have been a good thing for the people of haiti but also for the people of the united states to extend tps a bit longer as we continue. keep in mind, those who are benefiting from tps they are model resident here of the united states. these are people who are working, who are contributing to the american economy, who are great contributor in their local communities at the same time helping haiti on its path to recovery. there's a double bottom line here that everybody benefit from this. this is not a zero sum game and that's why we feel the decision of the administration was actually ill-informed and we

made that clear to them. >> thank you for being with us. appreciate your perspective. >> thank you for having us. >> absolutely. poppy? >> important conversation, thank you both. let's bring in our political analyst, margaret actual van jonathan martin. margaret, let me begin with you. good morning and thank you for being here on a holiday, martin luther king day, such an important day for this country. pretty ironic this is what we're talking about on this day. we're hoping that somehow out of all of this mess and these horrifying words comes an elevation of the conversation. is that what's going to happen? or is this just going to further get in the way of a deal for daca for d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> well, there is still the matter of the shutdown and there is still a deadline that at this point it certainly looks like there's a possibility it will get extended but that all goes to the question of keeping the u.s. government funded. the immigration policy is really

a different question and the president's comments obviously inflammatory, incredibly insulting to everyone in those countries that were affected by it but even if he hadn't used those words his concerns about immigration and his interest in some considers versus other countries i think remains intact and i haven't seen the white house reallycome in and modify its positions over the course of this long weekend to say, never mind. his posture on immigration is completely understood and we want to be attracting a lot -- we're changing our policy on salvadorans or haitians. >> how much does this hamstring the negotiation on daca because up until this point the president seemed to be kind of steam rolling the democrats? you've got national recognition of the need to help the d.r.e.a.m.ers and yet the democrats were going down the road of, well, we'll give him the wall we'll call it something else but we'll get this done. how about now? >> i think this makes it a lot tougher and i think given the

timing here where the government shuts down this friday, i think you're going to see probably some effort to decouple daca from keeping the government open and that will just kick the can further down the road on daca. i think we shouldn't miss the kind of moment here politically that's happening. you got two u.s. senators, i've got to say and david purdue and tom cotton who are making an important choice on national tv yesterday to come out and say some thing was not said that others in the room are saying was, in fact, said and most importantly, guys, the white house itself did not deny in the hours afterwards and they are now suddenly changing their stories to get in tune with this president. it's such a revealing moment for where members of this party are going with the president and choices they are making that, by the way, regardless of this issue and daca and keeping the government open, those two

senators by doing that have made a choice now and i think a lot of people who cover politics watch that and are just really struck by them doing that and, you know, you have to be careful what you say in politics and i speak for a lot of my colleagues when we say we were very, very struck by that choice. >> to go from a joint statement on friday margaret to jonathan's point of quote, we do not recall, right, the president making those remarks using the s-hole comment to then going on separate sunday shows and saying tom cotton, senator tom cotton, saying i didn't hear it. senator purdue said he didn't use that word but it's a gross misrepresentation. a complete flip. what could the political calculation be to be willing to go that far to back up this president on this when it's not just democrats like durbin who say he said it, it's republicans like tim scott saying graham in

the meeting saying that's basically accurate reporting. >> on the face of it doesn't make any sense and what happens with the normal white house is that if something like that, a comment like that were reported and the staff knew that it weren't true, they would immediately come out and say that is absolutely untrue, that is not what happened which tells you one of a few things is happening, either the white house knew that it was true, knew that he had said almost exactly that word but maybe slightly modified but it's hardly a reason to come out and deny it or three, weren't sure what happened and it's the thing that the president could be heard as saying. so any of those three options are bad and the reaction from the two senators is very -- it's really confusing and troubling because they're questioning their own colleagues that have spoken on the record and it certainly gives the impression they've had a lot of conversations with the white house between point a and point b. >> and the larger issue -- >> go ahead. if i could just jump in here, it

just helps fuel the cynicism about news coverage of politics and the president who, you know, obviously has spent a lot of time trying to raise questions about the coverage because the more doubts to raise about the coverage then the more inclined his supporters are not to believe anything that's reported. i get that political effort. but these two senators by be contributing to that, it makes it harder to report on news and facts. when you take these kinds of steps and it just does not help where we are politically in this country to sort of play these games. >> it's just so obvious. the white house had its chances to back off. it didn't. on one level this distraction and that's at best what it is, does help get off the basic truth, margaret, which is nobody denied the comparison the president drew. we're really just arguing over

whole versus house which is a totally nonissue. the issue is you said -- why do we have to take all these brown people he, why can't we take some nice white people like norwegians and that's what he said and nobody denies that and isn't that the political sin in the first place. >> the president's issue seems to be what countries they're coming from rather than what skill sets they're bringing or the merits or needs of immigration should be and in a global economy and in 2018 the way we talk about this is different than it was 100 years ago and the way we think about these issues are different and throughout the republican party as well as the democratic party there's a lot of discomfort not just about the shock slalu of what he said but about what appears to be the underpinnings of the thinking behind it. >> we got to jump. thank you for joining us. who do fellow lawmakers

believe about what president trump said behind closed doors? credibility counts. if i think that you're going to lie about something silly, can i believe you on the tough stuff. let's ask republican congressman charlie dent. where he's head next? . so, that goal you've been saving for, you can do it. we can do this. at fidelity, our online planning tools are clear and straightforward so you can plan for retirement while saving for the things you want to do today. -whoo!

of being there for my son's winning shot. that was it for me. that's why i'm quitting with nicorette. only nicorette mini has a patented fast dissolving formula. it starts to relieve sudden cravings fast. every great why needs a great how. >> i don't recall him saying that exact phrase. >> i'm telling you he did not the use that word, george. it's a gross misrepresentation.

>> i didn't hear that word either. i certainly didn't hear what senator durbin has said repeatedly. >> two republican senators and a cabinet secretary now deny that president trump used the vulgar word when with talking about immigrants from haiti and some african countries. really they're disagreeing about what kind of vulgar word it was but that's not what two with other senators, a republican and a democrat say happened and that's not what the white house said right after this. they didn't deny it. both times they either didn't clarify or said they're okay with this. joining us now republican congressman charlie dent. what am i missing in this? they didn't deny it. they never denied and even have cotton and perdue put themselves out there like this. they're not saying he didn't draw this comparison and preferring to have white people from norway come here and isn't that the real political sin that was committed? >> look, chris, i wasn't in the

meeting so i don't know exactly what was said but if it's true as was reported by senator durbin, then confirmed by senator graham the comments obviously have to be denounced and i said if it had not been for the fact that the president had made statements about mexicans and muslims and his failure to denounce david duke in a timely matter and the charlottesville situation, i think those previous incidents i think also are cause for concern that have made this situation even more alarming, truthly i'm most concerned that we can still find some type of agreement on the d.r.e.a.m.ers daca way border security component. i hope that is not blown up because of this and on a broader scale too. i've had the opportunity to visit africa with senator kuhns and one thing i've noticed is the people of africa have a high regard for the united states of america because of the things we've done there whether it's on the president emergency program for aids relief or any number of

other issues. we're well regarded and this incident i think is going to have some consequences for us at least in the short-term. >> how bad is this that the president is now enlisting republicans like perdue and cotton to back up something that doesn't deserve any support? >> well, i can't speak for those two senators. i wasn't in the meeting. i don't know what they heard. >> would you do that, charlie? let's say -- right after the meet gs, you're going to remember a president using a word like this or anything like this, right? and you can hear it in their language. he didn't use that word and they say it's a misrepresentation of the meeting overall. we know what's going on here, but right after a meeting, if you wanted to back up the president that would be the time. you just exited the meeting. you know damn well what he said and didn't say, that's the time to come forward. if you say you don't recall and all of a sudden your wreks gets better and the only thing that's changed is how much pressure is being put on you by the

president. how is the media supposed to see that? how are the democrats supposed to deal with you if you can't get something like this straight? >> i'm accepting what durbin and graham confirmed. that's my understanding. i wasn't in the meeting. i'm just making these comments based on what's being reported in the media. >> i hear you. let's talk about the deal. when i'm talking to democrats about this i've been chasing after them because there's such widespread approval in both parties for helping the d.r.e.a.m.ers and i keep asking them why are you in such a hurry to give the president whatever he wants to make a deal here when you finally have some leverage. what are you picking up in terms of the readiness of democrats to get something done on this and what the big pillars are? >> truthfully, i believe members of both parties are ready to

deal on this issue. there's the graham/durbin proposal. it's pretty good. it deals with family reunification. it deals with a number of issues that many of my republican colleagues have expressed concerns over. it's a very good start. you've also heard about the goodlatte proposal. i believe that this d.r.e.a.m.er proposal should be tied to the budget agreement. that should be forge coming any time -- >> why. >> not for the continuing resolution -- >> not to the one this friday, not this friday's deadline. >> no. >> make that point please. >> yeah. we need a budget agreement and the budget agreement does not shut the government down but we absolutely need one to set the top line spending levels for the government so we can then complete the appropriations bills. >> why do you want to tie these two things together? because you have the d.r.e.a.m.ers who are going to be an increasingly dire state especially if the white house doesn't continue to comply with

this california federal judge's order to keep the applications being approved for extension. why tie them together and increase the risk? >> i'd be happy to do them as stand alone measures. i'd be happy to do it either way. you pointed out that the democrats have a fair amount of leverage, truth is they do. because there are not 218 republican votes in the house to pass a budget agreement, omnibus bill or certainly on the d.r.e.a.m.ers. so there's leverage there and the democrats know that. they have leverage in the senate because we need at least eight votes there and we'll need their votes in the house. it might make some sense tie them together. if we could pass a stand alone bill, d.r.e.a.m.ers and border. i'm all for it. let's do it. >> do you think the president should take the time restriction off the daca deal? do you think it's important enough where you shouldn't be doing it to a countdown clock? i get the idea of pushing you guys to act. this isn't about dollars or even a temporary shutdown of services that can be made up afterwards

like with a shutdown, not that that's a good thing, but these are real lives and real anxieties and real displace mnl. do you think the president should back off the timeline? >> we may need the president to back off the timeline if we cannot get an agreement. there's simply no reason why we can -- >> you think he would? >> i i believe there are 300 votes in the house for some kind of daca border security agreement. very easily. i don't think the issue right now -- it's not can we find the right policy. we think we know what the policy is. this is a political matter right now. let's just get it done. the president's march deadline may not be helpful, we can accomplish this task well within that timeline. >> charlie, let me ask you about one other thing. why did it take so long to get this hawaii false alarm rectified? >> as a guy who used to serve in the homeland security

committee -- >> can you imagine in philadelphia you had 30 minutes of people running around that this is it? this is armageddon. this is about to happen. missiles are coming in and nothing from the white house or from the -- how do you explain that? >> again, that's a little bit mystifying. again, the department of homeland security should be all over a situation like this reassuring the american public that there is, in fact, no issue here, that this is a false alarm and a mistake and i can't really speak to that. i was surprised that it took as long as it did. we saw the television on saturday is when this occurred and, by the way, saturday was the day the eagles were playing and tell poppy that many of us in our region are very much for the eagles next week. just want her to know that. >> we look forward to it. >> it'll abe big game and these are big issues. charlie dent, i appreciate you coming on the show. it is not easy to get republicans to come on and talk about what's happening in the white house right now.

thank you for doing it. you're always welcome to discuss issues that matter to the american people. >> thank you. >> be well. so top house democrats unveiled this resolution to try to censure the president, why? the attack on immigrants. can they actually get bipartisan support behind this effort to do it. democratic congressman jerry nadler is leading the effort. he'll join us next. 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. ♪ ♪ there are two types of people in the world. those who fear the future... and those who embrace it. the future is for the unafraid. ♪ all because of you

♪ ♪ the markets change... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price. invest with confidence.

so we know how to cover almost almoanything.hing even a swing set standoff. and we covered it, july first, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

welcome back. president trump says he is not a racist. he said that again last night. he denies using a vulgar word to describe immigrants from these african nations coming to this country. well, now the chairman of the congressional black caucus and democratic jerry nadler want to censure the president over those remarks. joining me now is congressman adler, he is the ranking member of the house judiciary committee as well. your first interview of that. thank you very much for being with us. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> let's talk about the move to censure the president here. you need bipartisan support to make this happen. >> yes, of course. >> it is ultimately -- it's not

going so far as impeaching the president. it's largely symbolic. it's a publicly reprimanding. what's your goal? >> the goal is to put the congress and the united states on record that we don't approve of racism and that the president when he makes these kinds of racist remarks is not speaking for the people of the united states. we have ambassadors in country's all over -- country's all over calling in their american ambassadors when the president characterized certain countries as terrible places, he may be right or wrong but the point he will made was we don't want people from places like that, we want the people from places like norway. we don't want black or brown people, we want white people coming here. that's straight racism. it's part of his character. we saw the same thing in his remarks after charlottesville. we saw the same thing going way back to his taking an ad in the paper saying that we should execute central park five who proved to be innocent.

it's a long pattern and we have to repudiate it. >> would you go as far to call this president a race sift? >> absolutely. she's shown it repeatedly. tim scott condemning the remarks and neil love the first haitian saying i can't defend the indefensible. you don't think you can get enough bipartisan support on this censure move. >> i think it's important that we find out -- i think it's important that we offer this resolution. the head of the black caucus and myself on behalf of the black caucus and the democrats in the judiciary committee that we offer this resolution of censure and that we give our republican colleagues the chance to speak out. i think it's important that congress speak out and i'm not going to take the cynical view which may be the correct view, i won't take that view right away that our republicans colleagues

are irredeemable and will not condemn the condemnable. >> you tried to censure the president in august after his remarks following the violence from white supremacists in charlottesville. does something feel different to you this time? >> i don't know. it's cumulative. we've seen some republicans expressing great unease about this. we'll see. >> let's talk about the russian investigation. you're the ranking democrat in all of this on judiciary. so you cosigned a letter last week to house speaker paul ryan and here's a sentence from it, house republicans have chosen to put president trump ahead of our national interests. that's kwiequite an assertion. you say they're putting the president ahead of national interest. who and what's the evident evidence? >> there's a concerted campaign by the republicans obviously to distract, disable and discredit, a, the mueller investigation, b

the fbi, every institution we depend on for fair justice. >> their argument is they believe that's also in the national interest. i get that -- >> it's not in the national interest to discredit and disable those institutions. take a look -- just the nonsense. all we actually know about the mueller investigation because they have been commendably leak-proof, all we know they've indicted two people and gotten guilty pleas from other people. everything the republicans say alleging that this is a biassed investigation is based on the personal political opinions of people who may work for it when the fbi is prohibited by law from inquiring it. >> we've debated it. you know there are some real questions about some of the folks who were leading, helping lead the russian investigation like peter strzok. the text messages. >> peter strzok is entirely

entitled like anybody else to have a personal political opinion that he expresses to his girlfriend -- who both work for the fbi. >> what you have to show is not political opinions by people working you have to show bias by the investigation. >> and mueller removed him from the team. let me ask you two more things. one is the line was i think mueller's going to be fair. then most recently a few days ago the line was again in his words this is a the single greatest witch hunt in american history. which can president do you believe? does he believe mueller's is going to be fair or is this a witch hunt? >> which does he believe? >> which do you believe the president actually feels? >> oh. i believe the president changes from day-to-day. i think he's very unstable in this and many other things. >> on the issue of articles of impeachment, if democrats were to retake the house in the midterms you'll be the lead. you will take the lead. you're going to be essentially your party's gatekeeper on any move to impeach the president. what i find fascinating about

you, you've been public in warning your fellow democrats and let me read your words, if impeachment proceedings would tear the country apart too much or there's no buy-in or not enough bipartisanship we shouldn't do it for whatever reason. that's surprising to some -- >> no. i'm quoting myself from my speech in 1998. do you still feel that way? >> yes. >> and explain why. >> an impeachment must be bipartisan. it must be partial buy-in by the other party for two reasons. one arej me tick. you need a two-thirds vote in the senate. you can peach on a partisan basis in the house but what's the point. second and more importantly, to really remove a president from office is in one sense to negate, to nullify the last election and you may have to do it. democracy may do it. if you do it in a circumstance in which at the end of the

process, unless an appreciable fraction of the people on the other side who voted for trump by in to that at the end of the process, you will have the country face 20 years of recriminal nations. we won the election. you stole it. you have to able to achieve the people on the other side agree, they had no choice. this president went so far off the rails we had to do it because you don't want the country torn apart. >> sentiment has to be there as well. >> there's got to be some substantial buy-in from people who didn't agree with you if the first place. >> we appreciate your time. thank you very much. nice to have you here. all right. so they're telling us that what happened in hawaii with this false missile alert was human error but boy did it trigger pandemonium. there was no actual incoming missile, thank god. how do they fix this? not just on the state level but on the federal level because there was no word for half an hour.

next. 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 adult 7+ promotes alertness and mental sharpness in dogs start winning today. 7 and older. (ray) the difference has been incredible. she is much more aware. she wants to learn things. (vo) purina pro plan bright mind. nutrition that performs.

ibut it doesn't always come naturally. this i can do, easily. benefiber® healthy shape is a 100% natural prebiotic fiber that's clinically proven to help me feel fuller longer. benefiber® healthy shape. this i can do! sfx: tsfx: feet shufflingc life can change in an instant. be covered when it does... ...with a health plan through covered california. we offer free expert help choosing the best plan for you. and all of our plans include free preventive care. financial help is available,

so check for yourself to see what savings you qualify for. open enrollment ends january 31st, so don't miss out. because you never know when life... ...will change. get covered today. we are following breaking news this morning. a fire on a casino shuttle boat

north of tampa has left a female passenger dead, 14 others injured. look at those pictures. passengers were jumping overboard trying to escape the flames. the fire likely started in the engine room. it spread quickly. they credit the captain for turning the boat around when he noticed the flames making it easier for first responders to get there and help. himt's governor is apologizing for the false alert that had people thinking a ballistic missile was headed towards the state. officials say an officer in the emergency operations center mistakenly picked the wrong message template and that's what sent out the warning to the public. it took 38 minutes for a correction to be issued. that employee is now been reassigned. the federal communications commission chair says the false alert says hawaii lacked reasonable safeguards but should this be a federal issue? we reached out to the fcc chair,

please, come on and tell us what the parameters are. he declined to talk about this national emergency with us. he did, however, appear on fox news. >> rescue teams sifting through miles of debris going door to door hoping to locate some of the victims of these deadly mudslides. at least 20 people have died as a result. you've still got at least four others still missing. thousands gathering at a vigil last night at the courthouse lebing the victims. president trump's s-hole outburst clearly vulgar. if he didn't use that word, does that change anything? what about the comparison he made of brown people to white and who he wants here? we'll weigh the president's words next.

outburst clearly vulgar >> i was out here smoking instead of being there for my son's winning shot.

that was it for me. that's why i'm quitting with nicorette. only nicorette mini has a patented fast dissolving formula. it starts to relieve sudden cravings fast. every great why needs a great how.

. >> did you see what various senators in the room said about my comments? i'm not a racist.

i'm the least racist person you will ever interview, that i can tell you. >> president trump once again denying he's a racist because once again he said something that made people accuse him of racism. he used a vulgar word to say that he would rather have immigrants from norway than people from what he called s. hole countries like haiti and some african nations. what matters here? let's get to the bottom line. we have joan walsh and national review editor rich lower requirement it's good to have you both here. it is the problem that the word that he used or is there a larger problem that we're missing by getting into the whole versus house. >> i think there's a larger problem. rich is one of the first people that i heard deliver us the house version but at the time we both agreed, it doesn't change anything. it's essentially the same word and it's the same sentiment and it's something that virtually everyone recognized right away. it is racism, to pit these brown

countries basically against the whitest of the white country norway, is just a window on to his world view and what he wants to do with immigration policy. >> why create this situation, rich? he didn't have to do this. he didn't have to fight this. if the white house wanted to deny the language they could have done it from jump. raj put out a statement that when asked, he didn't say it was the wrong language. a white house staffer talked to cnn katelyn collins and said we're okay with this, we think the base is okay with this, we know what happened with his comments in the nfl. let's move on. why create this people are lying about it? >> i'm fairly confident -- i wasn't in the meeting but that the word was house. i think it's completely absurd for dick durbin for him to say he said vial and racist thing. >> how do we know? >> the president's position is that we shouldn't take account of countries of origin and that we should emphasize skills. so if you're someone with a college degree and meet other various metrics from an s house

countries you can come here and if you of -- well, this was -- >> why did he pick countries? you understand your own point. the president doesn't want to be about countries any more but he made it about countries. >> go ahead. there's a discussion about the visa lottery program which as you know even immigration reformers said this is a terrible program. various people have tried to eliminate it over the years. it randomly sprinkles visas to random countries around the world. that's exactly the wrong approach. we need to be more deliberate about our immigration policy and senators graham and durbin were proposing not eliminating it but just sprinkling some of those visas again around random countries so the president says. let's not do it to random countries and his position is not one that will create a lot of white immigration from norway. it will create more immigration from people, probably with brown skin but that have higher levels of education to which makes it easier to succeed here.

that's just a fact. >> we're only talking about it because he brought it up. this is him creating this issue and you have agreement on chain migration and the lottery. >> no, you don't. >> they had it in their last iteration of the gang of eight bill and that's not what they're fighting over right now. >> the problem with this deal, so-called, that durbin and graham offered doesn't really do anything on chain migration as we just discussed. it doesn't totally end the visa lottery program and instead of focusing on the small population of daca recipients which is what we're supposed to be talking about, once a with wider amnesty for all d.r.e.a.m. act people, their parents and people who are beneficiaries of temporary protective status. this is a negotiation, chris. i don't think you're shocked always by vulgar language. >> it's not the language. it's not the language. i never called the president that word either. some of your friends on the right are trying to get me fired. not very nice. this is who he is. this word, this is the way he talks and certainly this is the way he feels about this comparison. a comparison he drew, but points

to rich for talking about issues that matter on this proposal. >> thank you. >> the context of this discussion wasn't the lottery. it was the temporary protection status. >> for the country. >> they said, what about these people, that's when he made this comment. >> exactly. >> so the context matters so much but in the larger scale -- >> i'm sorry. you're just wrong about that. >> it has to be right. >> can i clarify? >> let me make my point and you can shoot it down. my back hurts. talking haiti, talking about el salvador, what do they have in common, they're both tps membership countries right now because of natural disasters. mr. president here's why we keep the lottery system the way it is and he brought this up. >> just to be clear, the proposal on the visa lottery is some of it is going to be transferred over to tps folks and some of it is going to go to random countries so the context

of the session is a visa lottery which pages attention to countries of origin and the president's position is we shouldn't do that any more. >> he made that point by drawing distinction between countries? >> you think a merit based system is racist? >> no. we've had this debate before. you keep derailing it. you keep derailing yourself. why are you tying yourself and your point of view some of which has merit to what the president said? how can you defend that. he said s-hole countries. >> gospel truth. >> he said -- blank house instead of blank hole, you're okay with that. >> i didn't say that. >> no. hold on. i invited you on to be fair. >> but you're distorting what i said. >> no. >> but you'll agree at the beginning of the discussion we all said -- >> the word doesn't matter. he was saying something vulgar either way. we move on to the next poin. he's the one that brought up

countries as a distinguishing feature and he's done it before. what he's doing to enable a cover-up of this? he's got two senators now who had big futures in front of them who are now really caught in an odd thing, am i wrong on this? >> no, you're right. rich, are they saying that house is different and so they're not going to go -- confirm hole because it was really house? >> i urge everyone who wants to understand this issue to read the transcript of tom cotton's interview yesterday. excellent explanation of the issue, which is we are not going to pay attention to countries of origin any more in their view. we'll go to merit based system and how chris you think a merit based system or racist. >> nobody's saying that. he brought up s-hole countries. >> i would humbly perhaps that you should interpret the president's mark through that prism. that's his policy prism. >> why would i do that? >> because he's not advocating people from norway coming here. >> that's exactly what he said. >> his position is a merit based

system where ever you are around the world, if you have a college degree, if you have certain either jobs -- >> when you say that, then you say that, you don't say why do we have to take people from countries like this, we should take people from countries like this. you should say that in order to make a point that you don't want to consider -- >> the actual position on the issue is irrelevant to this country. >> i'm saying you can't use an articulation of a position to clarify and change what he actually said. >> but he doesn't actually want -- >> he doesn't actually want nor weejens to come here. we wants people with skills. >> he said i want people from norway. >> because his policy position is they'll have a merit based system that doesn't pay attention to countries of origins. >> in a loose discussion and an argument -- a guy ho is -- >> a guy who -- >> sitting in the tavern. >> more inflammatory way of saying something, said it in a way that i wouldn't have said

it. you guys -- if you think country of origin is the wrong way to go then you should agree with me that we should have merit based system. >> rich, let's end on this. it's martin luther king day. this was bad timing for the president but maybe not. i said that on the show at night. i probably shouldn't have. you want opportunities to matter. whatever his position is about country of origin. is fine. let him learn how to articulate it. because when you say i don't want so many of these, i want more of those and you're talking about countries, you do not help someone like rich lowry say. >> which is why rich lowery should not be defending him. >> we should be doing this based on merit. wherever you're from, you have a college degree, you speak english. >> the opposite of what he said. >> you still have the joan problem. >> what's the joan problem? >> i think joan has a rich lowery problem. >> then he should have said that and he didn't.

>> it's the opposite. >> it's in the context the visa lottery program which pays attention to countries and he's like let's not do that. i don't want to -- >> he should've said it, rich. he should've invited you to the meeting. >> that's always very good advice. >> look where we're left right now. they're calling each other liars on the basis -- >> you're taking a very hostile interpretation. >> because he deserves it. >> you're treating it as fact. >> he said what he said. >> he said what he said he. >> it's not the first racist thing he ever said. >> it's not like he's never said anything like this braen we're suddenly calling him on it. he has a history of talking this way about nonwhite people. >> his position matters, right? >> here's what matters even more, though, is you've got legitimate points to make and the other side is going to push back and negotiate it. they're not doing it because he set up a situation. we will often argue is the president getting a lot of criticism, yeah, does he ask for it, yes. he could be doing what you're doing right now but he isn't because he's trying to backfill

on a b.s. statement. rich lowery, that is the most true thing you said. >> thank you. appreciate it. we're taking a break here. you've got a big treat coming your way. cnn "newsroom" with john berman right after this. i got possibly this morning -- this morning so i win. e 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 through goodt times and bad at t. rowe price we've helped our investors stay confident for over 80 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. ♪ ♪ there are two types of people in the world.

those who fear the future... and those who embrace it. the future is for the unafraid. ♪ all because of you ♪ ♪ 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. good morning. john berman here. i'm not a racist, an extraordinary declaration from a president on this holiday honoring martin luther king jr. but perhaps most extraordinary that many people this morning do not believe it. this is what the president said overnight to reporters pushing for answers about the white house meeting where he called african nations blank hole

countries and said he would rather have immigrants from norway. >> i'm not a racist. i am the least racist person you have ever interviewed, that i can tell you. >> this comes as some republicans center in the room are denying they heard the president use the offensive word and if you can believe it, a new report that they're basing these denials on the different between a hole and a house. so as officials play games with these "h" words, the fate of some 800,000 d.r.e.a.m.ers hangs in the balance and a possible government shutdown looms and days after the president jected a bipartisan deal, the president is reiterating his claim that it is the democrats who do not want a deal. we're watching the developments in west palm beach. case lin, what's the latest? >> reporter: well, john, extraordinary statement from the president just hours before the martin