guy that had these kinds of issues. for example god's sake we heard it in his own voice on tape so this is not a surprise to anybody. i think the reason that you're not seeing the outrage and level of interest, is because there's not much shock value to this and people knew what they were getting. >> that's not what the vice president said. the vice president said he's not going to comment on the latest baseless -- >> he ain't stupid. would you comment about your boss' -- >> i do think the line here that gets crossed by politicians is when they use their office. >> yeah. >> to cover up their moral terpitude, and when they use our taxpayers' money to take care of those things i think that's a line that everybody cares about. i do care about what politicians do in their personal life. >> but not that much. >> that's what we all do. >> very good. ana navarro and matt schlapp, thanks for the debate. good morning to your new day. it's tuesday, january 23rd. 8:00 in the east.

the government shutdown is over for now. president trump signing a short-term spending bill re-opening the u.s. government today. democrats relenting in return for assurances that the senate will vote on immigration in the coming weeks. the party now facing intense backlash from some for not fighting harder to protect d.r.e.a.m.ers. >> this morning president trump not focusing on the next round of immigration talks. instead he's tweeting about missing fbi text messages. comes amid the bombshell report that the fbi threatened to resign amid pressure from the president and firing the deputy director. >> joining me is the white house budget director mick mulvaney, good to have you, sir, as always. >> sounds like there's a lot of caffeine in the coffee. >> if you think i'll spend any of my time talking about that, you are sadly mistaken, my friend. we'll take that conversation off line a different time. you're no stranger to shutdowns. do you think the democrats did

the right thing and why? >> i think they did the wrong thing getting out and the right thing coming in and that is coming from the 2013 shutdown. i do think senator schumer, called shutdown schumer, overplayed his hand. didn't think that we would be able to manage a should thedown as well as we did, and had no choice, but to cave and that was the word the press was using yesterday and re-opened the government. >> isn't this very similar to 2013 on principle? didn't believe in the aca. you wanted to do everything you could to not get it funded and here you have the democrats saying that d.r.e.a.m.ers don't deserve to be treated like dogs and thrown out of the country and they were standing firm on that. don't you respect that? >> difference between 2013 and 2016 is in 2013 when i was a member of the house representatives i was asked to vote for something that i did not like. i was asked to vote for something that funded obamacare, and i just couldn't go there, could not vote for that. last week when we -- when the bill passed in the house and

went to the senate, it was a bill that senators and democrat senators supported. they supported keeping the government open, they supported the c.h.i.p. extension program and the delay in many of the taxes and most specifically the cadillac tax. so they voted against a bill that they liked. keep in mind, the bill didn't change that much between friday and yesterday. all of the change was a couple of days and all of a sudden, what was it? maybe 30 democrats voted for it yesterday where only five voted on friday. so you had a different dynamic in the first time anybody they know and can remember that most voted for a bill they liked in order to vote the government to shut down. >> functionally it's a situation. pelosi and the democrats have lots of problems with what was in the bill, different types of appropriations and different caps and you'll have to deal with that now in this window, but whether or not it's a bill that makes you pay for something you don't want or it's a bill that ignores something that you think is mandatory, both wind up being matters of principle.

>> again, you're asking two different questions. keep in mind, mrs. pelosi did not object to this bill based on the caps and appropriations. she objected to the bill because daca was in it. >> she said yesterday we have much bigger issues to deal with not just daca and she listed a whole laundry list of things that were ignored or treated unfairly, in her opinion, in this cr. >> she did, and i don't think -- i simply think you're misunderstanding what she's talking about. in that discussion and i've had discussions with mrs. pelosi about that. she's talking about the larger deal to raise the caps to do a permanent fy-2018 funded bill, and not in the cr. it's splitting hairs, but it is important. she did not object to the bill last week or she voted against it again last night and i love the fact that mrs. pelosi has voted to shut the government twice after accusing me of being an arsonist. anyway, i don't think she objected to what was in the

bill. she objected to what was not in the bill. the bottom line is folks voted against a bill and they liked to shut the government down. >> the party that doesn't have the power is only left with that recourse, that's what they do. that's how we got green eggs and ham from senator ted cruz, right? it was just a stunt to delay the process and keep it open to be discussed and maybe get some leverage out of it. that's what happened this time. the democrats wound up just backing off and creating this window of opportunity. >> well, it is a very short window of opportunity. i think we've got about three weeks now to solve the daca problem. the president started on that and he met with half a dozen senators yesterday. we said during the shutdown that we were looking for or we'd enjoyed having discussions about daca before the shutdown. we were going to renew discussions about daca after the shut down, but we would not have those discussions after the shutdown. we didn't importantly and no one mentioned this before and what senator shchumer did was cost u

several important days. keep in mind, even though we have the next cr, the continued resolution expires, ink they'll be in town six or seven of those days. >> that's when the president should be pulling these strings and making these guys meet and meeting in the white house and it worked once and he backed off and he could be doing that. you said the president is interested in daca and what is his position on d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> the president has already done every one of those things that you just listed. he's called members of the house and the senate and he's had them down in the white house, and half a dozen senators here yesterday, particular nickly, numerous republicans stepped away and he was letting them handle it and mitch mcconnell said he doesn't know where he stands on immigration. >> to be perfectly clear, we said we were going to step away if the government shut down. we said we would negotiate before a shutdown and after a shutdown. >> he stepped away and wasn't an active part of the negotiation.

i accept your point. >> and got exactly what we wanted and sometimes not going to the table is what you do in a negotiation. he got the government funded and the c.h.i.p. extension and got the delay in the taxes and didn't have to give anything in exchange for that. moving forward we do look forward to continuing the -- >> what is his position? >> the position is as it has been from the very begin. we are interested in border security. >> that's not a daca position. what's his position on dreamers? >> if you let me finish. >> i want you to answer this question. >> you don't get a chance to pick and choose. we want a large agreement. we want a big deal that solves the reason that we have a daca problem in the first place. if you simply gave amnesty, whatever you want to call it to the folks who are here, but don't solve border security, then you are simply delaying another daca problem 10 or 15 years from now. you have to deal with it holistecly and the entire am gracian issue.

that mean, figuring out under what terms and conditions folks can stay here. those are the dacas and the d.r.e.a.m.ers and what are those terms and conditions and who gets to stay. >> what are his terms and conditions? who does get to stay? >> chris, i know you won't be offended by this, but not negotiating with you on national television. >> i just want you to hear it. >> just say what his position is on it. who gets to stay? depends on who gets to stay. what do we get to a wall. >> he gave the president everything he wanted on the wall. i challenge that. senator schumer insists that he gave it. did he really offer $20 billion in appropriated funds or did he just offer $20 billion in authorized funds? keep in mind, there's border security that was authorized in 2006. >> right -- >> that senator schumer voted for, but no one has appropriated the funds?

where are we on that. >> legitimate issue. the president is not helping by going back and forth about wanting a brand-new wall versus using the wall as a metaphor as most reasonable minds see it meaning offense in some places, censors and increased manpower and it's tomato, tomato. and he said a big, brand-new wall everywhere and mexico is going to pay for it and at least we hope, that's not where he is now. you said something there that i have to go back to. >> sure. >> a wall is an inanimate object and you can bicker about it and about the money and the a prop yag yagz. d.r.e.a.m.ers are human beings and the idea that he will only be as generous or loving because he said he wants a bill of love, as warranted by what he gets in return does not seem like love to me. >> trying to solve the problem, though, is. he's the president of the united states. he's the commander in chief. he's responsible not only for the well-being of the citizens

and he's also now taking responsibility for helping the folks here under daca temporarily through march and he's in charge of making sure drugs don't come in and future illegal immigrants come in. you can't just say okay, i'm going to do a deal on daca and that's it because it doesn't solve the problem. >> is does for the d.r.e.a.m.ers. >> it doesn't solve the problem for you, me and everyone else and it doesn't solve the issue of drugs. you can't do it like that. you can if you want to. >> but that's not an effective way to solve the problem. >> it's an effective way to help the d.r.e.a.m.ers and it's about security and there are things about important, but not the same that the dignity brought in as children. >> fabulous questions, go back in time, ask president obama when he had control of the white house 60 votes in the senate and the house, why didn't they solve illegal immigration? why didn't they deal with the d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> he did the executive action to protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers because the rest of you guys

couldn't get it done. that's what a leader does, right? >> you ignored the fa accouct t ignored the senate and the house. >> i know you said it wasn't determined to be illegal. >> it never finished that process. >> the deferred action against parents was determined to be illegal by the courts for the same reason daca would -- >> but the litigation would finish it. >> if the president had allowed the president to go forward and the court his undermined and overturned daca it would have been instant. what the president does is he gave congress six months and keep in mind, general kelley was actually talking to the senate as early as december of last year. 13 months ago, daca is a problem. you know it's a problem . i know it's a problem and you need to overturn it and the congress does nothing. you cannot say this is the president's fault that daca has

not been fixed and he's been trying to shine a light on it, and it's been congress and the senate democrats have been dragging their feet on this and we do look forward if you want to find something positive to look on and having the next three weeks to focus intensely on daca. >> right, but it will only be as generous to the d.r.e.a.m.ers as it is what you get in return. that's what you said, right? >> the president represents every person, every citizen of the united states of america. you can't say i'm going to fix daca and not illegal immigration. that's not being presidential and that doesn't solve the problem. it's what we pay a president to do. it's why we hire a president to do to try to get the best solutions that we can to many of our problems. simply waiving a wand and giving am ne amnesty to 12 and 15 million people. >> they're not a problem for you, the d.r.e.a.m.ers. >> it solves a problem for you. >> they're not a problem to you. this imaginary crisis that immigrants pose to the united states, d.r.e.a.m.ers are not a problem.

they're a benefit, and in fact, according to the center of american progress if you got rid of them you'd cost us $433 billion over ten years and $43 billion in u.s. gross domestic product. you'd cost us money by getting rid of them. >> you're not going to get me to disagree on the value of legal immigration. illegal immigration is a different topic. i'm not going to debate -- >> you don't believe the numbers? >> center for american progress? seriously, let's find a couple of different studies on both sides of the argument. i can find some right-wing that has the -- >> you're the budget director, do you believe it wouldn't cost the country money if you got rid of d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> i think it's bad for the nation to have bad illegal immigration policies and that's what we have right now. -- >> do you think if you got rid of the emdrd.r.e.a.m.ers we'd l money. >> you need to solve the immigration on. >> why won't you say yes, we'd lose money. why not say something that's

positive about these people? why can't you do it? >> why won't you just agree that we need a holistic immigration solution so that we don't have this problem so your kids and my kids don't have the problem. >> you're lumping an xij enzi with a human cost right now with things that are not on the same sphere of importance. the border matters and you guys talk as if it was wide open. it isn't wide open. it's disrespectful to the good men and women who are keeping it safe. >> i can say this in good conscience because i was accused of the same thing. lumping in xij enzi, and i got accused of the same thing for lumping obamacare, that's taking something that's not related. border security and the stautus of folks who came here are inextricably linked. you have one because you have the other.

taking daca and whether or not we will pay the troops or american workers. >> the democrats offered to put something on the floor to keep the military paid and mcconnell wouldn't put it on the floor. what about that? >> those were a bunch -- you and i both know those were procedural motions that both sides objected to and mr. mcconnell asked for quicker considerations and we could have opened the government as late at saturday night and early sunday morning. i absolutely there was a political motivation to deprive the president of the opportunity over his anniversary weekend, his first year in office of the ability to talk about all of the successes the administration has had in the first year and they denied the ability to do that. i think that was a political motivation. >> there's always political motivation in a shutdown and it was the same with you guys in 2013. you had a senator reading "green eggs and ham". >> the difference is this time we won this time. >> if you see it as winning you have 16 days and the incredible

dysfunction of back and forth and dealing with the d.r.e.a.m.ers and not dealing with them and we'll see what kind of progress comes out of it. it certainly avoided a crisis, but for how long? one bill or two? what are we going get? >> quickly, i know you have to go. will it be one bill or two? will one be on the budgetary issues and one separate beyond immigration or will they be conjoined again? >> i don't know the answer to that question. in fairness, i know they'll all be discussed together because they are now sort of linked so there will be discussion about daca and a discussion about raising the caps and whether or not it's one bill or two, it's probably not relevant. >> and of course, that's also up to mcconnell and keeping his promise and we'll see if the february 8th date if they don't make a deal and if he does trigger a vote. >> by the way, you should ask shutdown schumer if that was the same promise that mcconnell gave to make because my understanding was that was going to happen anyway and that was a promise given to flake as a tax

discussion. >> shutdown schumer. it's the same #russianbots is using all of the time. >> i'm not a russian bot, i can assure you of that. >> i believe you, it is good to see you. your always welcome here to discuss what matters to the american people. >> be well. >> allison? lawmakers are expected to tackle immigration reform in the next 16 days so how can a bipartisan deal be reached in that time? republican john finn joins us next. 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.

stay? who gets to stay? >> again, depends on what we get in exchange. what do we get for a border secureity? what do we get for a wall? senator schumer said he gave the president everything he wanted on the wall. i've challenged that. senator schumer says that he insists that he gave it. we'll have a discussion. did he really offer $20 billion in appropriated funds or did he just offer $20 billion in authorized funds? >> that was white house budget director mick mulvaney just moments ago talking about the d.r.e.a.m.er negotiations and now that the government is shut -- the should thedoshut on the shutdown is over, now what? >> the senator of the republican conference. >> good morning, allison. >> you heard mick mulvaney say

the president's position on the d.r.e.a.m.ers depends on when we get in exchange. is that a position? >> well, i think what it represents is a negotiation and what he's saying essentially is there should be symmetry in this negotiation. the president has indicated that he wants to solve the daca issue and so do most members of congress and we can get that done and it does need to be coupled with border security measures so we don't find ourselves in this position in the future. it's hard to negotiate with somebody when you don't know what their position is, or what position they ultimately want. do you know today how the president feels about legalization for d.r.e.a.m.ers versus citizenship, what the conditions are, who gets to stay? >> well, i think part of that obviously, i believe that the president wants a deal on the daca issue. he's made that very clear. >> right, but what kind of deal? >> well, i mean that will depend on the negotiation, but i think what he wants to see is what most of us want to see and that is that they are protected.

whether or not that includes a path to citizenship and some form of legalization and those are all issues that they need to de debate and those people who came here through no fault of their own and are here illegally get protected status. in exchange of that they want to see border security measures that would ensure that we protect against illegal immigration in the future. >> those are big issues to have to tackle and solve over the next 16 days. >> they are. >> what gives you faith that you'll be able to solve in 16 days what hasn't been solved for the better part of three decades? >> there is an intensity behind it now. we have the february 8th deadline so these discussions are really going to intensify and that's good. it will bring some pressure on to get us to a solution, to get us to a result. i'm not sure that this is going to be able to solve all of the issues surrounding immigration, and i think the question really is as they enter into this does this end up being a fairly

narrow solution or are they added in? it will have to be a balanced approach and as one side brings in an issue i think the other side will bring in an issue that creates that sort of structure and that sort of balance. i'm hoping we can get a solution that obviously solves daca and does some border security and what happens beyond that i think is a negotiation and remains to be seen. >> here's the problem with not knowing what the president's position is, as it was spelled out by leader mitch mcconnell. listen to this. >> i'm looking for something that president trump supports, and he's not yet indicated what measure he's willing to sign. as soon as we figure out what he is for, then i would be convinced that we are not just spinning our wheels. >> mitch mcconnell doesn't know where to begin. >> the leader is obviously prepared, as he said, to bring this issue to the fore. when he brings up is the base

bill is yet to be determined and i think that will happen as a result of consultation with the administration and of course, with the house of representatives and the leaders john corn in, steny hoyer and the house and the bicammeral discussions and be able to put something on the president's desk that he will sign into law, but the thing you have to remember, allison is not just something that we have to get through the senate. we have to get it through the house and it's important that everyone has a buy-in in these initial stages of the discussions. >> listen, this sounds like a catch 22. mitch mcconnell can't put together something without knowing what the president wants and the president isn't going to say what he wants, until mitch mcconnell puts something together. the president has not yet indicated what measure he's willing to sign. what does that mean? do you start with legalization? do you start with citizenship? what? >> i think the leader does want, obviously input from the white house. he wants to know what the

president will sign into law and now these discussions will get under way in earnest and i think right now with the deadline approaching it will bring a new, as i said, intensity to these discussions, and these ney goschitigosch yagzs and it will lead to a result. it's one of many issues in addition to others, budget caps and other things that we have to get done here in the next few weeks and so this is -- this is a process, and i don't think we can probably ordain at the beginning of the process what it might look like at the end. >> is this the first order of business now that congress -- and the government's reopened? >> is what? >> is the fix for d.r.e.a.m.ers the first order of business now? >> well, it is. sure, it is. of course, coupled with, again, budget caps and a few other things that get into this. there are several things that are unresolved. one of which is the daca issue, and i think that it will be teed up along with some other things and hopes that we can take a be in of these issues off the table and get to work on the other things that we need to do on the

american people's agenda. >> from what you're hearing is, the latest thinking on capitol hill that you will find in the next 16 days a way for legalizing the d.r.e.a.m.ers who are here permanently? >> think we will and if we don't, that means what the leader said is he's going to put a bill on the floor. if the bill goes on the floor of the united states senate obviously and there's an amendment process and what likely happens is whatever can get 60 votes passes the senate, but again, you don't have a guarantee that it passes the house, and i think there's real value in having the discussions in advance between the house and the senate republicans and democrats that would get a consensus position or bill that we could put on the floor that would get a big bipartisan majority and be able to pass the house and be signed into law, and that's what we will find out in the next few days and it ends up being more of an open free for all on the floor of the senate. >> i want to get it resolved and i think most members of congress do, as well. >> yes or no?

will we see more threats of a shut down in 16 days? >> we're open for business again. the shutdown was in my view, a big waste of time, but we're at least back at the table and that's where we need to be. >> senator thune, we appreciate you taking time out of the day. >> thanks, allison. what will we see in terms of cooperation? will democrats and republicans be able to come together? will they find a solution on d.r.e.a.m.ers? susan collins says i am part of the common sense caucus and we helped end the shutdown. we can work together. a special talking stick may be the key next. new year, new phones for the family. join t-mobile, and when you buy one of the latest samsung phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included. so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free.

all on america's best unlimited network. 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.

open, but it runs out of money again in 16 days. between now and then, senators have a lot of work to do, and it's going to have to be bipartisan. they're going to have to take on big budget issues. they're going to have to deal with immigration, on defense spending, and it's not just how much. it's when and how. so will they be able to do this? one person who definitely says yes is republican senator susan collins of maine. she led a bipartisan group of senators and talks to reopen the government and she used a now-famous talking stick. senator collins, good to have you. thank you, chris. good morning. >> what is a talking stick? >> well, i can show it to you. >> whoa! >> and as you can see, it's

beautifully beaded and it was given to me by my friend democratic senator heidi heitkamp of north dakota, and it is originally from africa, and it is used to help control the debate in a meeting when you have a large number of loquacious people, and it was very helpful in making sure that everybody's voice got heard when we were doing the discussions in my office day after day after day. >> they use the same thing in my kid's kindergarten class. >> now, now -- >> is it true -- is it true, senator, that someone threw the stick during the meeting? >> i think a more accurate word would be that there was usually i would pick up the stick and take it from person to person, but sometimes it was tossed, and

in this case, the toss went slightly amiss. >> with enough force to break a glass elephant on your shelf, is that true? >> it only chipped it. it wasn't -- it wasn't a disaster by any means. >> we'll take progress where we find it. not the stick throwing, i'm done with that now, but what did having the senators come together tell you about the prospects for the next 16 days? >> it tells me, chris, that there really is a commitment to moving forward, to come up with a solution for the d.r.e.a.m.ers, and give them a path to citizenship since most of these children were brought to this country at a very early age through no decision of their own, and they should not be penalized for the decisions that were made by their parents. it also tells me that we

probably -- or we absolutely will have to have a border security piece to that legislation, but there are many different people working on this all over the hill, and i am optimist take our group of 25 bipartisan senators have shown the way forward if you're willing to work hard and listen to one another. >> i know that an x factor is the president, and we have reported on how the position seems to shift around, and i know mcconnell was uncertain as of a few days ago where the president stands, but mick mulvaney said something to me that was troubling. he said when i kept asking him, what is his position on daca? what does he want? under what circumstances do they get to stay? how will it work? >> he didn't answer except by saying what he gives, well, let him speak for himself. here's when he said, senator. >> just say what his position is on it. how do they get to stay who gets to stay?

>> again, depends on what we get in exchange. what do we get for a border security? what do we get for a wall? senator schumer said he gave the president everything he wanted on the wall. i've challenged that. senator schumer says that he insists that he gave it. we'll have a discussion. did he really offer $20 billion in appropriated funds or did he just offer $20 billion in authorized funds? >> does that sound right to you? i get the bickering on the wall, and how much money, how much wall, how much fence and all of that stuff. i get it. i get it, but when we're talking about the d.r.e.a.m.ers, the human beings, are the conditions under which that they get to stay in the country, should those be subject to what he gets in return? >> well, this is a negotiation, but i think there is a compelling humanitarian justification for taking care of the d.r.e.a.m.ers and removing that cloud of uncertainty under which they are at risk of

deportation perhaps starting as early as march. i've met d.r.e.a.m.ers from my state, one of them was brought to this country at age 4. he has no memories of his native land. i feel like he's as american as we are, and he didn't even know that he was here illegally until he went to apply for a driver's license. >> a common story. we hear that from a lot of people. we just heard it from jorge garcia in michigan who was brought here at 10. he'd been here 30 years. he was torn away from his family and is now in mexico city, but do you envision a scenario where the president may have those who are listening to him, say well, they didn't give me as much money that i wanted on the wall so i'm going to reduce the freedoms of d.r.e.a.m.ers and instead of a pathway to citizenship, which i don't even know is on the table, they'll

have to renew every 18 months and i was going to make it 36 months, but now it's only 18, do you envision anything like that? >> it's very difficult to know, but i tell you, i find tremendous sympathy on both sides of the aisle for a path to citizenship for the dreamers. >> that word doesn't come out of a lot of republicans' mouths, unless you're shaking that stick at them. >> the president called me last night to tell me he had signed a bill into law that i authored and we, of course, started talking about an immigration compromise, and i -- i don't want to speak for the president, but i found that he listened very carefully, and that he seemed to understand the issues and be sympathetic to this population while, of course, determined to strengthen border security, and we should do that. we have a tremendous flow of heroin in particular that's

coming into this country through our southern borders. so their reasons to be concerned about border security. i think we can put together a package that can pass. >> he just tweeted, nobody knows for sure that the republicans and democrats will be able to reach a deal on daca by february 8, but everyone will be trying with a big additional focus military strength and border security. the demes have just learned a should thedo shutdown is not the answer. the president tweeted that sometimes he thinks a shutdown could be a good thing any in 2013 he said the same thing about the shutdown and saying everyone will blame the president. his vacillating ideas aside, a pathway to citizenship, do you think that's something the president would go for? do you think that's something that your party would ever go for? >> i can't speak for the president or the house, but i'll tell you, i find tremendous

empathy for the d.r.e.a.m.ers, and a desire to give them a pathway to citizenship as long as they obey the rules and i think we can get there. i really do. >> well, i appreciate the optimism. let's see what happens in the process and senator, you are always welcome to come here and tell the american people how it's going and what your concerns are. >> thanks so much, chris. >> i heard you're the one who threw the stick and broke the elephant. i just want to get it out there. just kidding. thank you very much, senator. >> allison. >> very colorful stick. great to see it. as we mentioned, white house budget director mick mulvaney, said the president trump's position depends on what he gets in return. will the negotiator in chief get a daca deal done under the deadline? the bottom line next.

just say what his position is on it. how do they get to thai? who gets to stay? >> again, it depends on what we get in exchange. what do we get for a border secureity? what do we get for a wall?

senator schumer said he gave the president everything he wanted on the wall. i challenge that. senator schumer says he insists that he gave it. we'll have a discussion. did he really offer $20 billion in appropriated funds or did he just offer $20 billion in authorized funds? >> that was white house budget director mick mull vavaney on " day" said it depends on what he gets in return. let's go to cnn political director david chalian. that's not a position, that's a negotiation and that's where president trump starts. >> i don't even understand it, guys. what does that mean? either you want to, from a policy perspective, protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers and have them live here legally without fear of deportation and able to work or you don't. i don't understand which side of that matters on how much -- >> he wants all that. >> what you're talking about, he has said if we can believe what

he said, he wants that protection and them to live here with love, and in terms of citizen, and how long will it take? what he gets in return. that's all on the table. >> you know, a negotiation will ensue and this is what it was all about and this is why there are a lot of activists and very concerned with the democrats on the left side of the party because they didn't get a solid deal in place, and so it is up to a negotiation now, and it just seems to me, though, that mick mulvaney is once again putting the president in a position that made it so difficult all along which is not knowing exactly what he wants. >> here's what's unusual. compassion is usually not calibrated, okay? if you care about a group of people, if you think there is a humanitarian or suffrage issue, you usually address that, and yes, you can want other things, but ordinarily your compassion for something is not calibrated to how much you get in return

for helping. >> that is certainly true. i don't necessarily think that the white house is approaching this as sort of a compassion moment as much as they are a deal on. >> bill of love? >> well, that's true. he did use those words, chris, there's no doubt about that, but what i think is -- and what i think mick mulvaney is preserving the space for negotiation for is you guys saw steve scalise's comments this morning, the number three republican in the house. >> yep. >> we are also focused on the senate and how this is done, and there's nothing yet on how house republicans will be brought onboard on this which is where the most ardent opposition deal. >> and he used the hash tag schumer shutdown and that was what the russian boxer was using and he said who? he said that the date that mcconnell offered him for this he was going to do anyway. he didn't even get that. that was going to happen anyway. do you believe that? >> i believe that this date,

this notion of three weeks was being discussed before there was a shutdown. i think the facts bear out. >> but for a vote on immigration, that he was going to put one on the floor anyway. >> that i don't know. i don't think we ever heard mcconne mcconnell say that. that's news to me, but again, the senate reopens the government and the democrats get onboard. this is president trump's signature issue. if house republicans who have been very, very opposed to this are somehow going to follow along with granting legal status to people, that is going to require donald trump providing some political cover there, and what you heard from mick mulvaney today suggests to me that they're not yet clear on how he's going to provide that political cover. >> you heard from leader mitch mcconnell that he's not clear on what to present the president. he said as soon as he gets some clues from the white house then he'll know what kind of bill and so it's this, you know, crazy

catch 22 where nobody wants to start with a position. >> exactly, and i'll add one more thing -- >> democrats have started with a position. >> well, sure. >> this is the kind of stuff that caused john boehner to be ousted from his job, right? how does speaker ryan manage his conference now, too? he's got to get added into the mix here. >> so i have a question for you that nobody seems to answer. do you believe that because of this compressed window and the very different nature of the issues on the table, so many of them are about appropriations and budgeting, do you think this will be two separate bills which is what the mcconnell anticipates and he never said it would involve other issues, as well? do you think it will be two or one? it certainly sounds to me from listening to mcconnell and people around him that this is not going to be included in the big funding bill, that this

would somehow be dealt with separately, but we'll see. perhaps the negotiations will make it so much that if, indeed there's wall funding and there's a daca deal, if you put it in a must-pass spending bill, perhaps they'll find votes more easily that way. i think we'll have to see that, chris. >> david chalian, thank you very much for the bottom line. >> thanks, guys. tonight we'll dig deeper into what we heard from mick mulvaney, does love come with strings attached and what is the way forward for democrats and a bipartisan deal at 9:00 p.m. eastern. we break down the nominees and the snubs. that's next. (vo) pro plan bright mind adult 7+ promotes alertness and mental sharpness in dogs 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.

it's oscar time. the academy announcing the 2018 oscar nominees. joining us to break them down, cnn contributor entertainment tonight host, the one and only

michelle turner. >> the one and only? >> in our book. so what have you got? what do we want to start with? best pkt snicture? >> the nominations just came down, if you can see the desk over here, i have so much stuff going on, the nominees this morning "phantom thread," the post," "the shape of water" and "three billboards outside ebbing, missouri." the disaster artist, get out and the greatest showman. number one, the greatest showman, a movie that i really, really liked but didn't have a lot of momentum in the best picture category although it go d get a nomination for the golden globe, and that was a surprise "the disaster artist" getting a nomination for best picture and some thought "molly's game would get in there" or the florida project."

it's won every award and i think it will go on to win the oscar. disappointed that "the post" has lost momentum, it is my favorite movie of the year, but it is nominated as well. >> there's a big headline in the director category, right? >> big headline. the female director who was snubbed at the golden globes has been recognized? >> absolutely, and very deserving, might i add, greta gerwig in the directing category is nominated for "lady bird" and the movie is fantastic and jord jordan peele as well, and the african-american to be nominated. "get out" was an anomaly and nominated for best picture and a lot of people are cheering this. this was a movie released last february, if you remember, when movies are released early in the year you usually don't get a lot of fanfare. they're the movies that are

afterthoughts and not really heralded, but this was a social experience and it's a move they got people talking and it has continued on until now. jordan peele told me that he made the movie "guess who's coming to dinner" in a horror film. >> yeah. so it will be really interesting. in the director category, though, a big snub in this category, as well, i -- martin mcdonogh who directed three billboards outside ebbing, missouri, was not nominated which was a big surprise because the movie will probably win best picture. >> but not director. >> exactly. >> what abouta actress in a leading role? >> francis mcdormand will probably win for leading role and my performance was sally hawkins "in the shape of water." and meryl streep getting her nomination for "the post" and

this is an interesting category and margot robbie, she became tania harding and we are happy about that and saaorsy ronan. >> gary oldman playing winston churchill. he's won just about everything that this award season, timothy shalomet, call me by your name, daniel day lewis in phantom thread which he's saying this is the last akicting role. and one of my favorites, denzel, that was a good film. that was very interesting. very different. >> it was a departure for denzel. it's a role we've never seen him play before. he was very, very good. and daniel and i'll -- his last

name. >> calaluya. >> that's a great last name. >> that's fantastic. do we have time to explain mary j. blige? >> just a shout to mary j. blige, a double nominee this morning. think about her. she's the queen of hip-hop soul, and now she is an oscar-nominated actress in mud bound and she was amazing and her song "mighty river ". >> no hateration. >> no more drama, baby. no more drama. >> michelle, good to talk to you. >> cnn newsroom with poppy harlow and john berman after this quick break. see you tomorrow. new year, new phones for the family. join t-mobile, and when you buy one of the latest samsung phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included.

d get g ga8 atch all your netflix favorites all on america's best unlimited network.

i'm john berman. >> i'm poppy harlow. the president fired one fbi director and this morning new reporting that the current fbi director became so enraged he threatened to quit. >> axios said christopher ray fired the deputy director, mccade had been a public target of president trump for months, largely for his role in the hillary clinton investigation. cnn shimon prokupecz has more on this from