hello, i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thank you so much for joining us. shutdown showdown. n negotiations hitting the wall as the white house gets closer and closer to running out of money and now a glitch in his own proposal. president trump said to be furious at his white house chief of staff after john kelly said his views have evolved on immigration and the border wall. his attorney says president trump is now eager -- eager -- to talk to robert mueller, the special counsel, but also says

they're considering the president may be walking into a perjury trap. all of that coming up. let's start with a major push by democrats on capitol hill, pushing for a formal censure of the president. looking live from capitol hill. that's where members of the congressional black caucus will outline their effort. this hour they want t reprimand over the comments the predent made last week in an oval office meeting on immigration where he used very vile language to describe african nations and derided immigrants from haiti and el salvador. tell us about this resolution, this censure resolution and the chance for success. >> reporter: the chances aren't great for success, wolf, because quite frankly this is a house of representatives that are controlled by the republicans right now. certainly house democrats pushing forward with their efforts to amount to something of a symbolic nature.

they are certainly very angry and have been very outspoken. in the week since, we've heard the reporting of that vulgar language president trump used in the oval office last week and they want to push this to the forefront to make sure it's keeping its time in the news and amounting to something of a public reprimand by this censure resolution. they will speak shortly here at this press conference. we will likely hear first from congressional black caucus chairman senator mark richmond. they want to get all members of the censure resolution how they fall on this. that isn't likely to happen, it would be very rare to happen, amounting to a public condemnation of a predent very rare tha this would have happened, and likely that it will not get through. >> it's not just members of the congressional black caucus, others are participating in this as well, including congressman

jerry nadler of new york, right? >> he will speak at this saying you have leaders coming forward, signing their name on this, saying this is something we want to push forward. he spoke earlier saying, look, this is a chance to put every member of congress on the record that we don't approve, in his words, of racism and the president when he makes these kinds of racist remarks. wolf? >> we will stand by and hear what they have to say. thanks so much. only four presidents, in fact, have ever been censured. andrew jackson was the first followed by john tyler, james polk and james buchanan, all in the 1800s. the writer for reuters jeff basin, boston globe reporter scott herndon and chief political analyst gloria borger. it's largely symbolic because it's not going to pass the majority of the house.

but it's significant. >> it is significant because you'll have a group of people on the floor talking about this. and i think what you're going to see is the outrage people have about the president's comments, and i think it's an effort to kind of not let that slide and put it front and center again. again, symbolic in the extreme and we know, as someone was saying, that its fate is pretty much predetermined, but i do think that it is a way for members to register their complaints about this president vis-a-vis race. >> there is a lot of complaints. speaking about race, i want you to assess what lindsey graham told our dana bash just a little while ago on capitol hill as far as the president's views on race. listen to this. >> why don't you ask me, is he a racist? >> that was my next question.

>> why don't you ask me. >> do you think he's a racist? >> absolutely not. you could be as dark as charcoal and lily white, it doesn't matter, as long as you're nice to him. you could be the pope and criticize him, it doesn't matter, he would go after the pope. you could be putin and say nice things and he'll like you. here's what i found. he's a street fighter. it's not the color of your skin that matters, it's not the content of your character, it's whether or not you show him respect and like him. >> what do u think? >> i think based on my repting and analysis, i think senator l making a pretty fair assessment. here's what's so troubling about that. this is a president that was very divisive during the campaign. there are a number of people of color in this country. -- who do not have a positive opinion of him. he can't just govern for and have policies for people who look like him and think like him, and as senator graham said, like him. that's why i think his

assessment is so troubling for so many people who need to have that unifyer and chief role for both sides of the aisle. >> i'll get to you right way, but they're counting down right now. republican leaders are scrambling to round up enough votes to keep the government from shutting down. the deadline is midnight tomorrow. the house speaker paul ryan sounded optimistic but was ready to blame the democrats if republicans come up short. >> i think members understand why on earth would we want to have a government shutdown, hurt the military -- and by the way, the sequester on the military starts in due time. that is not in anyone's interest. why we would want to beat the idea to use our troops as bargaining chips is unconventional. i don't think they would want to stop funding our military for

something that is a deadline. >> some democrats are defiant. they're refusing to vote for a temporary spending bill without an agreement to protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers, the iigrants brought to this country illegally as children. just moments ago the house minority leader nancy pelosi called this a moment of truth and blamed republicans for the shutdown threat. here's how she described the children's health insurance program, money that is included in the republican plan. >> this is like giving you a bowl of doggie do, put a cherry on top and call it a chocolate sundae. this is nothing. >> let's bring in our senior white house correspondent jeff zeleny joining us from the white house right now. what are you hearing over there about the prospects of a government shutdown or passing tis temporary spending bill? >> reporter: wolf, there certainly is a lot of confusion, certainly much dysfunction here yet of another potential

government shutdown. this all started with the president himself earlier this morning throwing a lot of confusion into this entire matter by talking about the children's health insurance program. the republicans' strategy was to sweeten the deal, if you will, by including that, but the president, of course, went on social media and he had this to say about that. he said chip should be part of a long-term solution, not a 30-day or short-term extension. of course, chip is the acronym for the children's insurance program. that was confusing to many republicans on capitol hill, but just a short time ago, a few moments ago, i caught up with the white house legislative director mike short and asked him if the president confused this entire process. >> the president isn't confused. you've seen them put out a statement that they continue to support resolution. it's important that the government stays open, important that the troops stay funded. you saw the president make that case a few minutes ago. >> how can republicans in this white house credibly blame democrats if the government

shuts down since republicans control all levels of the government? >> republicans control the house, the senate and the white house. that's a fair point. but you also know it requires a 60-vote threshold in the united states senate. we have 50 republicans present with john mccain's absence. therefore we need 10 democrats. they need to pass it in the house to keep it funded. what happens in the senate? senate democrats appear willing to shut down the government, stop paying our troops, stop paying our military in order to fight for illegal immigrants. >> but you think the freedom caucus on board, do you believe -- >> we believe they'll be able to secure enough republicanotes in the house to get this done. >> wolf, there you hrd mark short. he's keeping track of all these votes in the white house. he believes there are enough votes to get through the house, particularly the house conservatives who have blocked these things before. he thinks they're on board, but he says there is, of course, much more concern in the senate because they must hit the threshold of 60 votes. some democrats are saying they

will not vote for this, but some republicans are as well. lindsey graham and others among them here, wolf, so at this hour at the white house, the white house frankly is not sure if there are the votes in the senate. but wolf, you do get the sense as the hours tick down, this is not politically good for either side. republicans, of course, control the levers of government here, so it's incumbent on them to make a deal. we'll see if they will. all of this is happening, wolf, as the president is flying to pittsburgh. he's going to talk about the economy and his tax cuts and i'm sure he'll also talk about this potential shutdown, wolf. >> i'm sure he will. thank you very much. jeff basin, you met with the president yesterday at the oval office, you and your colleagues from the white house. you had the chance to spend almost an hour with him, right, in the oval office interviewing him. i saw this tweet this morning, chip, the children's health insurance program, should be part of a long-term solution, not a 30-day or short-term extension. it is a six-year program, a

six-year extension, as part of a 30-day budget deal, but if they approve the budget deal, it will go on for six years and help 9 million kids. >> what he's done is exactly what jeff zeleny is saying, he's thrown some confusion into the negotiations. in our interview yesterday that you just referenced, we talked about the possibility of a shutdown, and he started sort of this preempted blame game in the same way you're seeing on capitol hill, saying it would be the democrats' fault, they would be hurting the military. the democrats are actually in a decent position because republicans need them. so that leverage gives them some ability to ask for or get what they want, and the white house, despite having control of republican control of the white house and republican control of the congress, is stumped. >> he hated the lindsey and dick durbin bipartisan deal on immigration, right? >> he did. he said he lost confidence on durbin because of the senators coming out and talking about what the president had said or

allegedly said in that meeting. he said that deal was not in line with what he campaigned for. that was also interesting in the context of what the president had said just a week before in that really extraordinary meeting with lawmakers from both parties where he said, you guys come up with a deal, bring it to and i'mng to sign it. but that's not the language he used in our interview yesterday. >> i'm anxious, how do you see things unfolding with less than 36 hours, and the government could shut down, and that would affect millions and millions of americans? >> it's hard to know where the president stands. this is not the first time he's thrown a wrench in these negotiations, and the conventional wisdom in washington was that this bipartisan deal that senator durbin, senator graham and others had worked on that included protection for d.r.e.a.m.ers, that included defense funding would be what the president would sign at what point. now we saw him throw a wrench in that and we saw him throw a wrench again today. it's tough to see how this will

turn out, but the wrench throwing will continue and who knows who will be to blame. >> gloria, he seemed to not be wanting to extend this chip program, and it reminded me of the surveillance extension, he threw a wrench into it, and it had to be fixed by the white house later. this time he sent a tweet and the white house has to make a clarification. >> maybe he needed marc short having to give the president tutorials on things he should know about and understand because they're important to the operation of the government. and this question this morning, the white house had to issue a statement after the president tweeted saying, you know, we support the house version to avert -- to avert a shutdown. you have the house leader doing

somersaults trying to avoid a shutdown. he clearly did not understand what was in this measure. then the other qstion you have to ask is, for example, on he s his own chief of staff, now kelly, who was talking about how the president has evolved on this. well, where is he? what does he believe? you had mitch mcconnell saying, as soon as the president tells us what he wants on immigration, we'll do it. well, that's an extraordinary statement from the senate majority leader. >> the white house chief of staff, john kelly, says the president's position on the wall has evolved, that the president was uninformed during the campaign when he made all those statements about the border and the wall. the president this morning,

saying everybo saying all of this. now cnn reporting that president trump is furious at his white house chief of staff. john kelly called his campaign promises on immigration and the border wall uninformed. after a controversial interview with the russia investigation, steve bannon was supposed to be back up on capitol hill this afternoon, but that's not going to happen. we'll tell you why.

let me thank you all for coming today, which is really our need to call an unfortunate press conference and address the country over remarks that, one, never should have been made, two, that were factually inaccurate. so i know there are a million questions, and the congressional black caucus, all of us 48 members, the 78 million people we represent, along with the

judiciary committee and our ranking member jerry nadler, decided that we would speak for what we call the conscience and the morals of this country, because when you hear statements like this, talking about the value of other nations, i think it's very important for not only those other nations and our nation, but the world to know that that's not how we think, that's not how we feel, and you can't just be quiet. because at some point silence becomes betrayal. and what we would never do is betray this great country that we love. we would never betray this great congress that we're all members of and have the honor of being a member of. so if you're asking why we felt the need to introduce this resolution, there are three points. one, the first point, which is most important, is to let the

world let africa, el salvador and haiti know that america does not feel that way about them nor where they live. and that we as a congress and members of congress and the congressional black caucus that we not only respect their countries, but we support their countries. and we recognize the contribution that their countries make to the world. and specifically on the singling out of africa, and maybe it was frica that was being referred to, i would just s that it's painfully ironic that a country where the people were taken from their homes and shackled and brought over in the belly of a ship and built this great country and made it what it is today to now say, we don't want people from those

countries. it's just outlandish, astonishing and painful in a way that cannot be described. if you listen to "lift every voice and sing" which is described as the negro national anthem, the last two lines say true to our guide and true to our native land. as a congressional black caucus, we could not stay silent and let the native land be described in that manner, nor el salvador, nor haiti. >> senator richmond, the chairman of the congressional black caucus, explaining why they and others in the house of representatives want to introduce a resolution of censure, a censure condemning the president for his comments about african nations, haiti, el salvador, immigrants coming to the united states. very vulgar, vile comments indeed.

cedric richmond,t's not going to pass the house of representatives but it's a statement about their anger. >> to the people they represent and the congress itself, it's an important one. these are people that are enraged by the comments that came from the president and represent their constituencies who feel they don't have a voice in this white house. we were reporting a couple weeks ago about the lack of diversity in this white house, and a lot of people say they don't feel like they can speak to this president, saying it was like he was trying to govern for them. when you ask the president about his personal history and even when he was a lawmaker, it creates a situation that can be tension filled, especially when such vulgar language was being used. >> did you get into this, jeff, when you talked to the president yesterday? >> we asked him to clarify what he said and he declined to. he said it was a tough meeting, which is something he had said to describe it already, and he

went on to express his frustration that senator durbin spoke about it. but he did not want to clarify exactly what he said. >> the reporting that we and other organizations did, he seemed to be sort of pleased that these comments were being reported because it was music to the ears, at least in some of the people in his base. >> that's troubling when you look at the reactions not just from the people of the united states but around the world to the comments from the president. you have people from the ag commission saying they were alarmed. they said the president is either uneducated or misinformed about the people of haiti. they have two countries on the world stage who are looking to him for an idea of what americans are and what americans believe. >> just like the president, you know, has caused problems for his congressional leadership -- we were just talking about that a moment ago -- he's caused problems for his state department. i mean, they have ambassadors that were being called in and

sort of read the riot act because of the president's own statements. it just seems to me that the transition that needs to be made from being sort of private citizen donald trump to president of the united states donald trump, and thinking about repercussions of his words, of his tweets has not been made, and every time he does something like this, you see people scrambling, as we were talking about before. >> i want to move on and talk about the white house, too. there is a national security component to a of this as well. national security officials have told me they're concerned that these words so widely publicized around the world will be used by haters and potential terrorists out there to conspire against the united states. that's a serious problem, indeed. i want to shift gears, talk about the president source telling us the president was fuming over the comments of the white house chief of staff john kelly in a meeting of lawmakers

yesterday up on capitol hill as well as during his interview with fox news. listen to what general kelly said about the president's views on the border wall with mexico and immigration. >> he's very definitely changed his attitude towards the daca issue and even the wall. he has evolved in the way he's looked at things. campaign to governing are two different things and this president has been very, very flexible in terms of what is within the realm of the possible. >> the president then fired off this tweet. let me read some of it to you. "the wall is the wall. it has never changed or evolved from the first day i conceived of it. parts will be of necessity, see through and it was never intended to be built in areas where there is natural protection such as mountains, wastelands or tough rivers or water. so the president gets angry when he is criticized like this. it's extraordinary that a white

house chief of staff would say publicly, certainly privately as well, what he said. >> privately, i think the word was uninformed. publicly in that interview, which is a president who has evolved -- >> he said he was uninformed. >> he doesn't want to be criticized. the president likes people who say nice things about him, who compliment him. this he did not say was a compliment, because what it does is goes to the heart of donald trump, which is, he wants to win and doesn't have sort of a -- a belief system that has been governing him for years or a political theology. winning is his theology, so yeah, of course he got angry. >> instead the president went on in that tweet to also insist, mexico will still pay for the wall, he said. the wall will be paid for directly or indirectly or through longer term reimbursement by mexico who has

a ridiculous $71 billion trade surplus with the united states. the $20 billion wal is peanuts compared to wt the u.s. makes. nafta is a bad joke. >> chief of staff kelly is really pointing out that his feelings have evolved. even in that statement when he's talking about indirect payments by mexico or the way the wall can be partly fencing, those were all statements that were not true to the original donald trump candidate message. but now, as the chief of staff points that out, you see the president has quickly gotten upset, and when staffers seem to be criticizing him, that's why we knew that tweet was coming this morning, and sure enough it did.

>> before i let gu, jeyou go, j you discussed that meeting in the oval office. the criticism that he was getting from his own physician, that he was overweight, needed to start losing some weight, and also that he needs to start exercising. did he respond to you? >> he's not going to the gym any time soon. that's not what he said specifically, but he said he already gets a lot more exercise than people probably think. he walks all over the complex, he goes golfing. >> he's got a cart. >> yes, he has a cart, but he gets more exercisehan people think. he would be willing to change his diet and make portions a little smaller and take out those bad ingredients. >> so no treadmill desk in the oval? >> i don't think there will be a treadmill desk. the president's lawyer, meanwhile, a concern that a potential interview between president trump and special counsel robert mueller could be a perjury trap.

>> efforts by the white house to restrict what the former chief strategist can and can't say. congressman mike quigley is a member of that committee. you see him live. we'll discuss with him when we come back.

after weeks of dancing around the issue, president trump may be ready to meet with the special counsel robert mueller to discuss the ongoing russia investigation. >> the president is very eager to sit down and explain whatever is responsive to the questions. >> do you have any fear of a perjury trial? >> no, but i think it would be foolish to not proceed without considering that possibility. >> let's discuss with illinois democratic congressman mark

quigley. he's a member of the intelligence committee. congressman, thank you for being with us. >> is it normal to be wary of a perjury trial? >> you can't lie to the fbi, intelligence committee or congress. that would be a concern of a president's attorney in any case. >> the ex-white house chief strategist steve bannon appeared before your committee yesterday. he was expected to return today, but for some reason he didn't. let me first get a couple questions, including this one. axios reported that bannon did say he spoke to other senior white house staffers about that very controversial june 2016 trump tower meeting with the russians. first of all, did bannon say that? >> what bannon said was he had talked to other people about those events and times. obviously it was in the book. so apparently he's referencing a

nonexistent privilege, but he can talk to anybody but congress about those events. >> is he going to be speaking? i know he's going to be answering all the questions from robert mueller, the special counsel. when he comes back, will he be willing to answer all of your questions? >> i think he absolutely has to. let's remember what happened this week. he refused to answer questions. and because the republicans -- he's out of favor with the republicans, they whipped up a subpoena real quick. he still refuses to answer those questions. i'm sure when he comes back, he'll be under subpoena again. we'll see if the majority is willing to press the case and make him answer these questions as he has to under the law under subpoena. >> here's something that's unusual. i'm sure it was noticed by you and your colleagues as well. the white house deputy chief of staff rick dearborn, he appeared before your committee. he answered all of the committee's questions. so the white house won't let bannon and former campaign

manager docorwin lewandowski do the same thing dick durbin did? >> they have more terrible things to say about what took place. the white house is is more concerned about what certain people have to say. so obviously they know him from more information that would be damaging to the white house's case. what's frustrating here, and we just pointed it out, there were other witnesses who have refused to answer critical questions, right? mr. sessions, trump jr., eric prince, all questions essential to know what exactly took place. the majority was unwilling to snap up that subpoena like they did with mr. bannon. as i said yesterday, apparently only steve bannon can unite that committee. >> what about corwin

lewandowski, the former trump campaign manager? he refused to answer your questions as well, and yet you did not issue a subpoena to him. why? >> the only answer they gave back was the fact that he would be willing to come back and answer all questions. here's where it gets complicated, though. he appears on another network the day before and announces he's going to answer every question. then he appears before our committee and says, well, i'm only prepared to answer up through the time i left the campaign. obviously something took place in the meantime. i think it's a fair bet to say there was a gag order directly from the white house. >> in that book "fire and fury" bannon saide suggested at the heart of this investigation wasn't necessarily just collusion or obstruction of justice but money laundering.

were you able to find that out? >> unfortunately that wasn't brought up because he stopped answering questions. it's odd that it came from mr. bannon, but i think he's absolutely right. the problem is our committee has barely scratched the surface on the issue of money laundering. let's put it all together. the mueller investigation has slapped a subpoena on deutsche bank. deutsche bank was recently fined about $630 million for their role in money laundering with russia. a $10 billion money laundering scheme that the russians partake in. obviously it's a major concern. we have to understand that two of the indictments that took place so far involving mr. manafort and mr. gates involved money laundering in that same neck of the woods. so mr. bannon is right and it should be a focus of our investigation as it already is with the mueller investigation.

>> i know there were some tensions in your committee, the house intelligence committee, between democrats and republicans. have you resolved those or are they still very evident? >> it's a bad day to ask. i'd like to think that my republican friends understand that thi should be just as important to them as it is to us. former cia director mike morrell call what the russians did the political equivalent of 9/11. it is very easy to imagine a scenario in which the russians would attack republicans in a campaign as they did democrats this time. we also have to remember that they hacked into over 36 states board of election. it's our job to get to these answers and find a way that it never happens again. >> congressman, thanks for joining us. up next we'll get a view from the other side of the aisle on certain topics, meddling in

the white house and bannon's testimony, whether the republicans have the votes in the house to stop a government shutdown. a member of the house intelligence committee will join us as well from the white house right after this. if you've been diagnosed with cancer, searching for answers may feel overwhelming. so start your search with our teams of specialists at cancer treatment centers of america. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts with a $500,000 life insurance policy.

how much do you think it cost him? $100 a month? $75? $50? actually,duncan got his $500,000 for under $28 a month. less than a dollar a day. his secret? selectquote. in just minutes, a selectquote agent will comparison shop nearly a dozen highly-rated life insurance companies, and give you a choice of your five best rates. duncans wife cassie got a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford.

we'll fok...im. ok? you don't always use your smartphone to read the latest posting. aw, a girl lost her dog. oh! hey... wait a minute. you don't always use your smartphone to friend someone. hi. i think i found your dog... but when it matters most, you count on tracfone to keep you connected, for less. murphy! (dog barking) aww.

smartphone plans with talk, text and data start at $15/month, no contract. all with unlimited carryover... ...and nationwide 4g lte coverage. tracfone. for moments that matter. ltry align probiotic.n your digestive system? for a non-stop, sweet treat goodness, hold on to your tiara kind of day. get 24/7 digestive support, with align. the #1 doctor recommended probiotic brand. also in kids chewables. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in i literally say, ahh. america loves the leesa mattress. we have more five star customer reviews then any other mattress of it's kind. this bed hugs my body. today is gonna to be great. place your order and

experience the leesa mattress at home risk free. order now and get $100 off and free shipping too. go to buyleesa.com today. just heard from one side of the aisle in the russian investigation. now i want to welcome utah congressman chris stewart. he's a republican in the house intelligence committee. congressman, thanks very much for joining us. >> good to be with you all. thank you. >> were you disappointed when the former white house chief strategist steve bannon refused to answer some of your committee's questions yesterday? >> disappointed and frankly quite angry about it. look, i understand there is executive privilege. there is expectation that a president should be able to

consult with his advisers about official business and do so in private, but what mr. bannon claimed was far beyond that. it made democratic congress angry and many of us angry, and we pushed back on that and said, okay, if you won't answer these voluntarily, we'll subpoena you and bring you back and ask you under subpoena. that was the only thing we could do, but it was the right thing to do. >> do you believe the white house interfered and asked him not to answer those questions? >> that's a really interesting question because i honestly don't know. i chaired a hearing yesterday with mr. dearborn who is an actual member of the administration now. he answered every question. he didn't hesitate. and i don't know why mr. bannon would take the view that he wasn't going to answer any of these questions, and other members of the administration were very, very forthcoming. i don't know, maybe mr. bannon took his exception to executive privilege far beyond anything anyone had intended, but you know what, at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

welcome pel will compel him to f any. >> the former campaign manager came forth, too. he refused to answer questions, but you didn't subpoena him like you did with steve bannon, and you're absolutely right, the white house deputy appeared and he answered all the questions, didn't dodge any of them. you heard what mark quick lee sa -- quigley said, they feared maybe they had more damaging information, where dearborn did not have damaging information. is that a legitimate concern? >> it's a concern. i can understand why some people would take that view and want to pursue it for those reasons. i have to tell you, just being very honest, i don't think that's likely. i think that we would have some indication of what that damaging information might be and we simply don't. i think it's a couple things. mr. lewandowski didn't claim

privilege. he said, i'm not prepared to answer that right w. i didn't think that was within the scope othe questions, so let me come back to yo but he didn't ever say, i won't answer those questions. now, mr. bannon did. i think he did so inappropriately. but, you know, no one has accused mr. bannon of being involved with this. he wasn't involved with any of the trump tower meetings, he wasn't involved with the dossier, he wasn't involved with any of the court investigation. i think it's very likely he has information that we haven't already had access to. >> did you ask him about that trump tower meeting? >> yeah. he was asked about that. now, i got to be fair, too, i wasn't there for the entire eight hours. i was actually flying in to d.c. during the first part of the meeting, so there are some things you may ask me that i'm just going to have to say, i don't know, i wasn't there. but i do know he was asked about that. >> the white house obviously is insisting they have not interfered and they have not exerted executive privilege, but they apparently did tell these guys, or at least steve bannon,

there are certain things we don't want you to talk about. but he's going to come back. he was going to come back today, steve bannon, but now he's going to come back at a later date. do you know when? >> yeah, we don't yet, but we'll be persistent on that. it's not going to be months down the road. we'll bring him back quickly. we were hoping today. maybe not today or tomorrow, but certainly within the next few weeks. >> while i have you, congressman, let me get your thoughts on a possible government shutdown. the white house chief of staff john kelly said the president stands on the border wall with mexico during the campaign was uninformed. he also said the president's position has evolved on the wall on other matters, but today the president tweeted that his position hasn't evolved at all. how do you explain this disagreement between the white house chief of staff and the president of the united states? >> oh, my gosh, i would be maybe the last person in the world that could explain that disagreement. you would have to ask them. let me just say, speaking broadly once again. many of us feel like we should

secure our southern border, including the negotiator of the country, protect our sovereignty. but it doesn't have to be, the fact is, shouldn't be a physical wall. there is no reason for it. there would be environmental concerns. some detectors, some military presence, in some cases a wall. i think that's what many of us are looking for and hoping to achieve when we talk about a southern wall. but i couldn't explain, really, what the president means or why he may disagree with some of his staff. again, i just wasn't privy to some of those conversations. >> congressman stewart, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, sir. it's been one year since president trump and his predecessor appeared together at the inauguration. they haven't spoken since. what's the reason? >> plus the president speaking in pennsylvania to sell taxes, push the economy trying to save republicans an open

house seat. will his support help or hurt the republican candidate?

next hour, the president will be in pennsylvania. he's there, he tweeted, to back the republican candidate. despite that tweet, the white house hasn't announced this a a an official white house trip.

what's at stake, jason? >> so much is at stake here, you know, when it comes to the 18th district. when it comes to the 18th district, often referred to in these parts as trump 2.0. >> i think it's an honor. people will respect that. >> five-time representative in the pennsylvania state house and staunch trump supporter. would you be more likely to support the republican ciccone? >> special election in the 18th district, vacated by tim murphy, anti-abortion gop congressman, who resigned after it was revealed he allegedly asked a woman he was having an affair with to have an abortion. the 18th spreads across four counties and includes industrial towns and suburban communities. it's primarily white and working clas

class. >> i don't know if you realize this, jason, but you're in trump country. >> a loss in so-called trump country could have national repercussions. connor lam, his opponent, is a former u.s. attorney. his supporters say he's not your typical democrat, that he's more moderate and not afraid to take on his own party. he raised eyebrows when he said he would not support nancy pelosi as democratic ader. konlg, as a whole, has failed to achieve the results people want. it's not a personal thing but when that happens it's time for new leadership. >> reporter: is that enough to fwan points in a district that has not elected a democrat since 2000, despite having an edge in party registration? paul is one of those democrats

here who switched parties and is now behind sa krchlt krchccone. >> people don't want another obstructionist democrat in washington. that would be conor lam. >> more voters standing behind saccone at this grocery store. >> we need a supporter of trump and rick saccone is a supporter of him. >> reporter: democrats hope that the president's popularity has waned here, which could help them in order to pull out a win here. still, democrats say they have an uphill battle. and who is this guy? young-looking you, yeah? lifelong democrat michael flynn says sarcone's support for trump has turned off some voters. >> what i've seen in the past year of donald trump and mr. saccone say he's more trump than trump, that settled my -- made my decision there. >> that settled it? >> i would hope it would be a backlash from what we've seen

from trump but i don't know. >> voters head to the polls here march 13th. little audio glitch there at the top, wolf. let me just say this is a race that's very, very important to the republican party. they've already seen defeats in places like alabama and virginia. they don't want to see a repeat of that here. that's why you've got donald trump who tweeted out earlier this morning, saying that rick saccone is a great guy. after that, you had the press secretary basically weighing in, saying this is not a political event, that this is an official event. but if you believe that, i've got a bridge i need to sell you. wolf? >> jason carroll reporting for us from western pennsylvania. that's it for me. i'll be back 5:00 p.m. eastern in the situation room for our international viewers. "amanpour" is next. for our viewers in the united states, "newsroom with brooke baldwin" starts right now.

wolf, thank you. hi, everyone. i'm brooke baldwin. you're watching cnn. the finger pointing is at a fever pitch as the government is set to shut down can you see the clock rht there, 34 hours and counting. we'll dive into what's being done to avoid that in a second. first here is what would happen if there is no deal and the current spending bill expires. hundreds of thousands of nonessential -- that's what they call them -- would be furlou furloughed. if it lasts long enough they would be without a paycheck but would be paid retroactively. the military could potentially not be paid during a shutdown also. guess who would still be collecting paychecks. yes, congress. it is written into law. the national parks, zoos, museums, they all shut down. mail still gets delivered. essential services like social security s