jeanne moos, cnn. ♪ stand by your man >> reporter: new york. >> thanks so much for watching us. don't forget, watch "outfront" any time, anywhere, on cnngo. "a.c. 360" starts now. good evening, an hour from now president trump will speak from the oval office about the border. this will be his first time in that setting and the setting is significant. it's where john f. kennedy told americans about soviet missiles in cuba, where george w. bush spoke after the 9/11 attacks. when a president speaks in primetime from behind the resolute desk, it's always serious, and frequently it's worse. it's often when a president wants to calm the nation or at least provide them with facts. the mere act of asking networks to make time for it telegraphed the gravity of it, at least it has until now. in the past, with only rare exceptions, you might disagree with what a president said from the oval office without wondering if you were straight-up being misled. or lied to. keeping them honest, sadly, that's not the case tonight.

now, it's not our job to advocate for or against a given policy, it's our job to call out the dishonest pursuit of it. so as we wait for the president to speak about what he calls the crisis on the border, we're starting with the crisis of credibility he's created for himself. if what his vice president said today is any indication, the dishonesty will continue. so consider this a kind of prebuttal or at least a viewer's guide for what may be coming tonight because the white house has continued to fudge the facts as late as today. >> with regard to terrorists, we've seen more than 4,000 known or suspected terrorists attempt to come into our country through various means but on the southern border -- >> let me stop you on that number. it's a misleading claim that's been fact checked as i believe you're a ware. >> look. >> the number is for all ports of entry including airports. >> that's what i was saying. it is from all ports of entry but on the southern border, last year, alone, 3,000 special interest aliens were apprehended trying to come into our country. those are individuals whose travel patterns or backgrounds

represent the need for additional screening and represent a potential security threat to the united states of america. there are two different categories and they often get conflated. >> well, that last sentence is actually correct, they are two different categories, and they get conflated when you conflate them which is what the vice president just did. that 4,000 figure refers to people stopped mainly at airports or applying for visas, not at the southern border. while 3,000 so-called special interest aliens were stopped at the southern border, according to u.s. officials, many were stopped at points of entry. the term, special interest alien doesn't mean they're terrorists. meaning someone who comes from a country where there is terrorism. the state department says in a 2017 report, there is, quote, no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through mexico to gain access in the united states." just last night, we learned that between october of 2017 through october of last year, federal

officials say they encountered roughly a dozen people on the terror watch list. of that number, around half were apprehended crossing the border illegally between ports of entry. it's according to administration official familiar with data from customs and border protection. so six or seven people caught who are on the terror watch list, and even one might -- even one might even be an actual terrorist, but we don't know that because the administration wouldn't say if. if it were an actual terrorist, it would be one too many, obviously, but would be a far, far cry from 3,000 or 4,000. the president and people who speak for him also like to claim that most americans support the wall, the fact is, they don't. cnn polling shows a majority, 57%, are opposed to it and even if you don't believe the polling or the statistics, the u.s. government actually keeps, there's the larger point that the president is ex. e expected to make tonight this is a crisis because of the sheer numbers coming over the border. that, too, is misleading at best. in fiscal year 2017 according to pew research, border agents apprehended about 310,000 people trying to enter the country.

they refer to all borders but the vast majority are in the southwest. in any case, that is down 1.3 million from the last major peak which was in 2000. in fact, the numbers have not been this low since 1970. and yes, there are migrants waiting in mexico hoping to day ply for asylum and they are in camps but that's at least in part because the u.s. has made getting asylum much more difficult even if you're fleeing threats on your life or abuse. the number of people able to apply for asylum each day at a legal point of entry, that's been slowed intentionally to a trickle. one intelligence official has had enough of what he or she says as all the misrepresentation telling cnn, "no one is saying this is a crisis except them. they're playing the public for suckers. it's exactly what used car dealers do." there's also the president's claim that some former presidents told him privately they support a wall. none have. all the former presidents who are alive have denied doing so. but before we show you how the vice president tried to explain it today, here's exactly what the president said.

>> this should have been done by all the presidents that preceded me and they all know it. some of me have told me that we should have done it. >> so there he is, the words are clear. "some have told me." it kind of makes you think, you know, some have told him. well, apparently not to the vice president. >> well, you -- i know the president has said that that was his impression from previous administrations. previous presidents. i know -- i know i've seen clips of previous presidents talking about the importance of border security, the importance of addressing the issue of illegal immigration. >> it's different from telling the president, though, right? >> look, you know, honestly, the american people -- the american people want us to address this issue. >> well, he's right about, again, that last point. the american people want the government to address this issue. honestly. more now on what the president is expected to say from cnn's jim acosta at the white house. jim, what are you learning about the president's speech tonight?

>> reporter: well, anderson, as for the big question as to whether or not the president will declare a state of emergency tonight in this oval office address to try to secure funding for the wall, we are told as of this evening that he's not expected to do that, though, we don't believe that is the final answer from the president as to whether or not he'll declare a state of emergency. just to shed a little bit of light on that, anderson, i will tell you, i talked to a source close to the president who advises the president from time to time who told me earlier this evening the president over the last several days has been reaching out over the phone to friends and aides and advisers and so on, sort of sounding them out on this possibility of declaring a national emergency down at the border. and that several of these people have told the president that it's probably not going to work from a legal standpoint. and we know that the special counsel -- or the counsel's office, white house counsel's office over here at the white house has been examining that, but the president has been told by several people that he trusts enough to talk to over the phone that it probably is not going to work. that doesn't mean he's not being advised not to do it. i will tell you, anderson, i talked to another source who talks to president, advises the president, earlier this evening who said that the president has

been told by several of his advisers that he should go ahead and do it because it will probably go to the courts, the courts get tied up, and he'll have something to sell to his base, okay, i didn't get a wall but i took it as far as i could. now, this adviser told me, anderson, if the president does not get his wall going into the 2020 campaign, that that is seen as somewhat of an issue that they'll have to deal with, they'll have to explain to their base that the president promised time and get out on the campaign trail and was not able to deliver it. something his advisers are worried about, anderson. >> the president is spoing goin head to capitol hill tomorrow, right? >> reporter: that's right. this is a sign he's not sold everybody on this wall down on the boarder. the vice president was up on capitol hill talking to the house republican caucus earlier this evening. he'll be back up on dlil capitol hill talking to senate republicans and then over here at the white house he's expected to have republican and democratic leaders including the house speaker nancy pelosi who's obviously adamantly against giving the president any money

for a wall then he goes to the border on thursday and so, anderson, time and again this week the president is trying to go around almost tin cup in hand trying to find money for this border wall, and so far, democrats are not biting and increasingly, anderson, and this is a worrying sign for the white house, republicans are starting to say, re-open the government, lisa murkowski is one who told manu raju that earlier this evening. re-open the government, we'll talk about the wall later. other republicans like mark meadows, house republicans close to the president has been saying, you know what, this national emergency thing, it is a possible tool the president could use but it should only be used in a last-resort kind of situation. when republicans, conservative republicans that close to the president are urging the president, hey, you know what, maybe don't do a national emergency on this, anderson, that is a sign that people are starting to back away from the president on all of this. anderson? >> jim acosta at the white house, thanks, jim. joining us now, a senator whose state as a border and all that goes with it, maine, independent

senator angus king joins us. thanks for being with us. do k you believe there's a national security crisis on the border? >> no, i think there's a problem, not a crisis. really interesting report. september of 2017 by dhs. president trump. analyzing exactly what the situation is on the border. all the indexes are down. >> right. >> recidivisms, arrests, people coming across, all of those -- the graphs just go like this, and to say that it's a crisis would imply that something special is happening that hadn't happened before. in reality, it's a lot better than it was. >> all the trending is in the right direction. >> yeah. but i started by saying there is a problem. and by the way, i've got to say at the outset, nobody in congress is for open borders. i've never heard anybody say that. i've never heard anybody advocate it. everybody on both sides of the aisle is for border security. this question is really all about is the wall, a wall, which we don't even know what it is, we'll talk about that, is that

the right answer in all cases? along a 2,000-mile border? of course, it isn't. and so i think it's really important to frame the discussion. we don't even know what the president is proposing. >> some of what the, you know, supporters of the president, folks in the white house have been saying, they've been pointing to the opioid epidemic, to the horrific death toll that's taken place over the last couple years and say the wall will stop heroin, fentanyl, from coming in. truth is, most of that, heroin, fentanyl, comes in through legal points of entry. >> fentanyl comes in through the mail. >> through china. >> through the mail. and the problem is, they come headlong into the facts that have been established by their own administration. the dea says most drugs come across at points of entry hidden in trucks, hidden in cars, hidden in people. >> i think that's most -- i think marijuana still comes often carried over in bales, but, yeah, hard drives, heroin. >> here's an example of why this is a misplaced priority.

we can only interdict one-fourth, 25%, of the boatloads of drugs that we know are coming by water from latin america because of lack of resources. only one in four of the boatloads we know about. that's what's so inexcusable about this. we have the intelligence. four boats leave, we can stop one of them. that's where we ought to be spending the money in terms of return on investment. as opposed to building a wall which may or may not be useful. >> in terms of just even getting more border agents, that takes a lot of time, and they are in general, i mean, the numbers have been rising, but there's still a lot of border agents to hire. >> sure. >> they have spots for. >> and, again, as i said at the beginning, one of the real problems here is as far as i know, we've never been presented with a plan of what the wall means. he wants a $5.5 billion -- by the way, that's a down payment. the real price is in the $20 billion or so. we don't know what that's for.

it's a blank check. and if -- if the mayor of bangor came to the city council, said i want to build a new school but i'm not going to tell you how big it is, not going to tell you where it's going to be or what it's going to cost, the city council would laugh him out of the park. they ought to come in and say, okay, here's where we need wall, here's where we need fence, here's where we need technology, here's a plan for allocating these funds. right now, it just -- it's not there. >> i want to bring in the rest of our folks. i know they have some questions for you as well. >> senator, is there anything the president can say tonight that you think would convince the country, which anderson said, a majority is opposed to the wall? that could convince the country that, in fact, some kind of wall is needed, particularly independent voters, you're an indent. >> sure. >> is there anything he can say, you think? >> well, the problem is they've been saying it for months and it hasn't worked and as you pointed out, as anderson pointed it out,

a lot of it is misleading or flatly untrue. so what he will say to create a sense of urgency, i don't know. i think, and everybody's speculating now, one way out of this would be for him to declare a national emergency and say, i can do this without that pesky congress, and we'll go ahead and so we can refund the government, we can start the government back up, and i'm going to do it through this national emergency -- >> wind up in court. >> 10usc2808 and wind up in court. at least then he can say, i'm continuing the fight, we're going to do this, but we're not going to deal with congress on this. the problem is this is a guy who's never had to answer to anybody. his corporation didn't have a board of directors, i don't think. it was a family-owned corporation. and i don't think he understands the way the government works, and that if you want to do something like this and spend $20 billion, according to the constitution, it's got to come from the congress.

and you've got to persuade them or you have to cajole them or have to whatever. but holding the government hostage -- >> so is -- >> -- is exactly what this is, is not, shouldn't be in the toolkit. >> is that the only way you see out of this shutdown, him declaring an emergency in order to get cover to then let the government get back to work? >> the original bill that was in the senate that came out of the appropriations committee unanimously had $1.6 billion in it. it had limitations. he could take that money and say we're going to use that to do border security improvements, and we're going to analyze where the wall would be and then we're going to come back and he could say we've got over a billion dollars, and we're embarked upon the process that may lead to a wall. i'm trying to give him -- >> cover. >> right, but he had that opportunity 17 days ago. >> yeah. >> and very overtly and in a very big way said he didn't want to take that. so, you're a senator now, you

were a governor. you're one of the grown-ups in the senate right now. putting that -- >> you just got me in trouble. >> sorry. sorry about that. putting that, you know, idea that didn't work aside, if you were to go to the president and say, okay, let's make a deal, where do you think there is a deal to be made? or is there one at all? is there any give on border wall funding? >> well, i think the president's so deeply dug in on the issue, and it's really -- >> aren't democrats dug in also? >> they are, but there's deeper issues here than the wall. this is about are we going to have to do this over and over? if he gets what he wants by holding the government hostage because he's got to sign all appropriations bills and budgets for at least the next two years, this is going to become a tactic. >> so don't give an inch. >> i think that's -- i think that's part of the reason, and i can't speak for the democrats, there has not been a caucus meeting on this. but for me, one of the problems is if the precedent is established that the president can hold the congress and the government hostage to get some

policy that he wants, then i don't know where it stops, and it will continue and this is not what the framers intended. they intended there be checks and balances. >> who blinks? who blinks? will the president speak tonight? will that fortify republicans or will more republicans say, you know what, mr. president, we can't sell this back home? we have people who work for the federal government who are furloughed, who say they can't pay their mortgage, can't pay their tuition. stop. or will the president just polarize people, bring the republicans back over, leave this in this polarized environment, where nancy pelosi says no, i'm the new democratic speaker, you get nothing for the wall, and the president says i want $5.7 billion, and here we go. 18 days turns into a month or more. >> well, he's demonstrated just in the last couple of days that he can turn on a dime. syria is an example. i think he can say, we're going to keep fighting for the wall and in the meantime, one out would be to allow the six bills that have been passed by republicans and democrats that

fund most of the government, agriculture, treasury, the fbi, allow them to go through, sign them, hold out dhs which includes the wall. gives you another 30 days or whatever number to fight about this. but it gets us out of the majority of this -- of this shutdown scenario which is now, you know, injuring a lot of people across the country. and we always talk about the 800,000 federal workers. there are tens, probably hundreds of thousands of contractors who service those workers, who serve those agencies who probably will never recover from this. will never get their money back. so i think there is a way out by saying, okay, park rangers have nothing to do with the wall. food stamps have nothing to do with the wall. let's fund those. we'll fight about it in the context of the dhs budget and, you know, we'll live to fight another day. >> let's get one more -- >> that would be one way to

actually -- >> senator, you say that people feel like the president doesn't know what he's proposing. you don't know what the president is proposing but some people say they don't really know what democrats are proposing, either. you talk about border security, it's sort of a vague term. what are democrats, and you obviously caucus with the democrats, what are they proposing? >> in the appropriations bill that passed was $1.6 billion for border security and there were a lots of pieces of it. anderson mentioned more border patrol people, technology, fencing. there may be, in fact, a wall could be part of it. a portion of it. there's wall down there now. i've seen it. . i've been to the border in texas. but to -- that's why i say i keep getting back to we don't really know what's proposing. the bill that passed has $1.6 e billion. the one that passed last year had $1.3 billion. that's a lot of money and does specify a whole series of things but, again, part of the burden on the administration is to come forward and say these are where we think the money -- this is where we think the money could be most effectively spent to give the maximum protection to

the american people including the american taxpayers. >> senator king, always good to have you on. thank you very much. >> thanks, anderson. a lot more to talk about as we wait for the president's remarks which are going to take place in about 40 minutes from now. coming up next, a story that would be the lead on any other night. our first direct indication the special counsel robert mueller is linking the trump campaign to russians. in this case, a piece of a court filing that frankly the public was not meant to see. we'll explain there plaplainlat point. the shutdown, the president says people will make adjustments. some are warning the shutdown could cost lives. we'll speak with a mom whose young son, sadly, could be one of them. we'll be right back. what makes this simple salad

the best simple salad ever? great tasting, heart-healthy california walnuts. so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org. [[clap, clap]] ♪

hey, jen, which tie says, "trustworthy but also fun"? gold down, oil up. oil down, gold up. this is too busy. we need to make sure people can actually use this stuff. which one says, "hours of free live streaming coverage without cable or subscription fees"? aluminum, aluminum? you ready, zack? oh, we're ready. welcome to the show. let's make finance make sense. ♪ went to ancestry, i put in the names of my grandparents first. i got a leaf right away. a leaf is a hint that is connected to each person in your family tree. i learned that my ten times great grandmother is george washington's aunt. within a few days i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. this is my cousin george. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com

we used to play so beautifully together. now... we can barely play anything... even cards with the girls. (vo) if you have bent fingers and can't put your hand flat, talk to your doctor. it may be dupuytren's contracture. (hand) isn't it time to do something about this? (vo) your hand is talking. isn't it time you speak to a doctor? learn more about dupuytren's contracture... at factsonhand.com. more information is within reach.

at the top of the program i read a quote about the border from a current intelligence official who said, i'm quoting again here, "no one is saying this is a kri crisis" except them meaning the administration, they went on to say "they're playing the public for suckers." beyond the question of whether it's a con job, is tonight's oval office address a distraction from things like the russia investigation? tonight, there's a major new development from team mueller, a somewhat accidental revelation linking paul manafort during the campaign to a suspected russian intelligence operative. cnn's sara murray joins us now with details. so what exactly went on here? >> well, first of all, we're learning this information from paul manafort's legal team on accident. they filed this document, they redacted a bunch of sections, but they formatted it incorrectly so a lot of juicy details were public. >> they forgot to redact some parts. >> if you copy and pasted the information, you could popcop. pypy and paste it. what we learned is paul manafort was in contact with konstantin

kilimnik, a russian associate of his who investigators say has ties to russian intelligence, while he was the campaign chairman. they talked about ukrainian peace deal. at one point, paul manafort actually shared campaign polling data with this russian associate and this relationship continued into 2017 after donald trump was elected. the two of them met up in madrid and mueller's prosecutors said this is one of the things that man manafort was lying about during these interviews where manafort was supposed to be cooperating. >> so it's not just that he met with -- shared this information with this guy, he then went on and lied about it to mueller's team. >> that's right. now, manafort's attorneys said in this filing he didn't intentionally lie. he just misremembereded a couple of these things along the way. the interviews are very long. these things happened a long time ago. he may have mangled a couple of the details. >> i think they said he would wake up early in the morning to do these interviews and that was part of the problem. >> they said they would perhaps last all day. this is a guy who's leading the trump presidential campaign who was in contact with a russian,

that prosecutors believe was in touch with russian intelligence and was sharing information about what was going on in the campaign, was talking about foreign policy at a time when donald trump's campaign was starting to make foreign policy. foreign policy that they hoped to make in the white house and p apparently paul manafort saw nothing wrong with this. >> of course, you know, for a lot of democrats already today have been saying this is sort of the definition of collusion or this could certainly be called a collusion. >> it's certainly the closest thing we've seen publicly that suggests there was some kind of coordination between a member of donald trump's presidential campaign and a russian. and, again, in this case, a russian that they say has ties to russian intelligence, so it's not very hard, you know, if you are mueller's people and have all this information to say, okay, was paul manafort giving this polling information to this russian who was then giving it to russian intelligence who then used it to help direct their troll farm? that's not in the documents. . we don't know everything that mueller has. but it is sort of this clear signal that there was at least some kind of collaboration, some

kind of discussion. >> this is while he was on the campaign. >> while he was leading the campaign. >> stay with us. i also want to bring in the law firm of cordero and toobin. seen yore fellow at the center for a new american security. jeffrey toobin is a former federal prosecutor and also a cnn chief legal analyst, or the cnn chief legal analyst. carrie, can you think for me valid reason why manafort would be sharing campaign data with someone with ties of russian intelligence allegedly? >> no, i'm a former counterintelligence lawyer. that's some of the work i did at the justice department years ago so this would have been an enormous counterintelligence matter to have somebody who was the chairman of a major political campaign meeting with an individual, that the intelligence community certainly knows has connections to russian intelligence. that's about as big of a counterintelligence issue as one could get. the only question i think at this point from those of us in the public who are observing through the dribs and drabs of what's coming out both intentionally and unintentionally through these court proceedings is whether or not other individuals on the

trump campaign had any understanding of what manafort was doing. i think that's a legitimate question we don't quite yet know the answer to. >> jeff, again, it's not that he shared information, he allegedly lied about sharing information. >> like everybody connected with donald trump. everybody lies about their connection with russia. they misremember. they don't -- you know, well, i -- jeff sessions forgot his meeting with the russian ambassador. jared kushner forgot. they never deal accurately with their dealings with russia and 16 members of the trump campaign in one way or another met with russians. and here's what we don't know about this interaction between kilimnik and manafort. what did kilimnik give manafort? because, remember, we have the intelligence agency saying that the russian government was dedicated to getting donald trump to defeat hillary clinton.

so, yes, we now know, according to manafort's lawyers, that he presented information, this polling data, to kilimnik. what did he get in return? >> well, also -- >> again, i don't know. >> you can't imagine that anyone involved in this is probably all that thrilled that manafort's legal team flubbed these redactions. >> no. i don't think that anyone is particularly thrilled about these things. i'm sure you know mueller's team obviously has been very quiet. they don't want these details out. i think manafort's team is probably feeling a little bit embarrassed that they mangled the formatting of this document and ultimately made their client look even worse in the process. i mean, they were trying to just put out a filing that said you're asking my client about a lot of intricate details, these things happened years ago, he was running a presidential campaign, anyone can misremember these things. then they put out all this information about his conversations and interactions with a russian associate. i can't imagine they're pleased today. >> also, carrie, the other part is manafort's legal team's

explanation, not that he disremembered, he was depressed, they say, suffered from anxiety, suffers from gout. is it likely a judge is going to accept those kind of explanations? >> i don't think those will be legitimate explanations for the judge why he affirmatively lied to investigators. he knew he was under tremendous criminal exposure in a variety of fronts in terms of all sorts of financial crimes. he had an incentive to tell the truth if he wanted to. so i don't think that that will be persuasive. and as far as the redactions, i think what that also underscores just to add on there is there is so much information, there have been other filings made in this case that are also under redacted document and und underscores there's a lot more that both the special counsel investigators and the judges because they see that information. the judges know in these cases. >> yeah, i mean, jeff, that's a really important point. again, you know, we talked abou the tip of the iceberg in terms of what man he has access to. >> americans trying to follow

the russia story, trying to figure out if this is a big deal. stuff comes out every day. doesn't come out in a sort of linear chronological way. i promise, this is a big deal. i mean, the fact that that the campaign chairman is meeting with a russian intelligence agent during the campaign, presenting him with apparently confidential polling material, and then after the campaign goes to madrid, which is not exactly a convenient meeting spot, meeting with him again at a time when the russia policy is under review and russia's trying to get sanctions lifted, i mean, this is the definition of contacts between the trump campaign and russia. >> yeah. >> that's what we've been looking for. that's what investigators have been looking for. how far it went, how extensive it was, we don't know, but this contact is very significant.

>> jeff toobin, sara murray, thanks very much. carrie cordero is going to stick around. breaking news on the ripple effects of the government shut douc down. a dire warning for people's jobs keeping us safe and healthy and in some cases keeping us alive.

. about 25 minutes from the president's address to the nation right now. as we wait, there's more breaking news in the fallout of the partial government shutdown. cnn is reporting that about 41% of the food and drug administration is dark right now. some agency employees are speaking to cnn and warning that the low staffing levels could prove deadly. we just learned of the warning a few minutes ago. after we had already planned to talk to a mom who says her son's potentially life-saving drug

cannot be approved because the fda division that approves this experimental trial is on furlough. the mother is sarah door. she joins me now. sarah, much of the talk about the shutdown has focused on missed paychecks and the difficulties economically that families are going through. that's certainly incredibly important, but for some people, this can be a matter of life and death. can you just explain the situation your family is in right now? >> absolutely. that's correct. what we're facing right now is because the fda is one of the government agencies that is closed right now, our son who has a disease called pekan and he's been waiting for a clinical trial, we were told that that trial would be starting in early 2019 pechnding some regulatory through the fda. because the fda is being shut down, that's been delayed and

our son and other kids with this rare and terrible disease are not getting the treatment that they need. and it's frustrating. >> and, i mean, time is -- time is a big factor here. >> absolutely. it's a degenerative disease. >> i understand that either you are attorneys have contacted the -- or your doctors have contacted the fda, but you literally just get kind of an automated e-mail response just saying everybody's been furloughed. is that right? >> my understanding from the docktors and the investigators who are running the clinical trial is their contact at the fda which has been, you know, supportive up until now, and we've worked closely with them, but that the, you know, bounceback e-mail, you know, reflects that those employees are furloughed. >> your son, max, is 6 years old. obviously doesn't understand the ramifications of all this. what do you tell him? >> he knows that he's, you know,

waiting for his medicine. that's what we call it. you know, we tell him that we're working on getting for him. you may have heard this the way that this trial has come about has been through, you know, fund-raising by the families of the kids with this disease. so, you know, we've been working really hard since max's diagnosis, you know, working toward that trial. >> what's max like? i mean, you know, i think it's important that people in washington know who they're affecting by not fixing this situation. and they're not just thinking about statistics and large numbers of people. what's max like? >> absolutely. i mean, max, he's great. he turned 6 two weeks ago. he's in kindergarten. he's bright and funny and kind and smart. he, you know, he's got a great life and buddies and he, you know, in a lot of ways his life is pretty typical for a 6-year-old, but the difference is that he has a degenerative

disease. >> if you could say anything to the president tonight, or folks in the white house or on all political, you know, on all sides of the political aisle, what would you want them to know? >> i would want them to know, you know, what you alluded to before, anderson, which is that this is bigger than politics, and i don't want to trivialize the hardship for families who are missing paychecks or things like that, but this is -- for us, this is bigger than that. this is, you know, our child's life on the line here. and it's a nightmare disease. >> yeah. sara, i appreciate you coming and talking with us tonight. i'm sorry it's under these circumstances but i hope someone hears this and i hope it makes some keeind of a difference, no only for you but so many families who are out there suffering. >> thank you so much. >> no matter how you cast it, government shutdowns are painful for millions of americans. obviously, for that mom in minnesota. back now with our political team here in washington. joining the conference, ana navarro, former senator rick santorum. senator santorum, is there a way

out of this? >> i worked with a lot of disease groups and have a child with disabilities. it's crushing to hear that. i hope the commissioner hears that. i hope commissioner gottlieb hears that. there is flexibility. saw it today or yesterday. the administration announced they would pay refund checks for the irs. these things are always more art than they are science. and law. and so this is a good situation where maybe you bring this to the attention of the administration. they can do something about making sure these folks at the fda get back to work. >> by the way, i'm not sure she said that, but this clinical trial, because this disease is so rare, big pharmaceutical company -- >> yeah. >> -- there's no incentive for them -- >> i deal a lot -- >> they're fundi ining it themselves. >> i know all about this area. the fda has done a tremendous job under this administration. it's been a really bright spot in this administration. commissioner gottlieb has done an outstanding job really

advancing, working with the rare disease community, really advancing a lot of these cures and i don't know the ing from w says. they're not working on it right now. if they're not, they need to look at it again and see if they can do something about it. >> ana, i want to play something the president said, it was on sunday, actually. let's play this. >> i can relate and i'm sure that the people that are on the receiving end will make adjustment. they always do. and they'll make adjustment. people understand exactly what's going on. >> he's obviously talking in general about people who, you know, out of a paycheck who aren't being paid right now. do you think people understand what's going on in terms, in way that the president thinks people understand? >> look, anybody who believes that donald trump can relate to the pain and suffering of people living paycheck to paycheck, of the pain and suffering of parents whose kids' fda trials are not occurring, to the pain and suffering of people whose

federal contracts for low-income housing have expired. the pain and suffering of the tsa agents who are showing up to work without pay. frankly, if they think that donald trump can relate to that, i'd like some of what they're smoking. you know, it is -- it is tragic, and i think, you know, you asked rick, is there a way out? i think the way out is by folks, republicans, republicans, talking to the trump administration, talking to trump about the human cost and the political cost. it's both things that are going on all over america. there's restaurants that are frequented by federal workers that are about to close their doors because people are not going to spend the money. >> isn't it the political cost of not following through on the wall promise that the president is -- >> i don't -- i mean, i think that that's a good piece of advice in the regular world when

donald trump wasn't president, and there were persuadable people. that's not the case now. it's just not and you know that. i mean, at some point, something's got to give. we'll see what that is. but i think even at this point, if republicans would go to the president and say, enough already, i just don't know that that would make a difference. you were in the republican caucus, in the senate. you know them. do you think it would even matter at this point? is. >> well, number one, i'm not sure it would matter because the president is really dug in on this, for good reason. i support the president on this. also, the president, we've seen, is not long on empathy. he just doesn't really connect with people. we all have our pluses and minuses. i'm not being critical of him. that's just who he is. i don't think these stories really have that much of an emotional impact on him. it may on members of congress. members of congress understand that what's happening here are the democrats are playing

political hard ball with this president and they think they have an advantage and they're -- >> it goes both ways. >> it does go both ways. >> he's playing political hard ball with them. the question is the moment, though, is he going to reach out tonight in some way, and let's listen to the president, let's give him a chance, let's see what he says. is he going to reach out some way? sometimes you raise the stakes to cut a deal. is that what we're going to get tonight or is he raising his own wall, if you will? he's backed into is this corner now. he lost an election. his response was to ask for more from a now democratic congress than he was asking from a republican congress in terms of not only the money for the wall, the money for the bed, the money for border security. that is contrarian. usually when you lose an election, you have to retreat. nancy pelosi is in her corner to dana's point. in her first week as speaker, is she going to give the president the wall? no. >> i have to get a quick break in. stay with us. the president's first live address from the oval office is just aheading. coming up, the very latest on what may happen tonight. what he'll talk about. we'll check in on capitol hill, take the temperature of where things stand in congress on the

shutdown. stay with us. red lobster's new weekday win menu is here: five days. five deals. for fifteen dollars get a different deal every weekday til six pm like endless shrimp monday admiral's feast tuesday four course feast wednesday and more. five days. five deals. fifteen dollars. see you before six. with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. so even when she grows up, she'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only with expedia.

ed gets copays as lowlily go to as zero dollars ontrip. medicare part d prescriptions. ed gets labels clear as day. and, lily.... lily gets anything she wants. ed knows he could just have us deliver his prescriptions. but what's the fun in that? switch to cvs pharmacy. well, less than 15 minutes away from the president's oval office address. new reporting about the president's plans tomorrow. i want to check in with cnn's phil mattingly. so the president is going to head to capitol hill. what's the mood there been leading up to the president's speech? >> reporter: you know, anderson, i spoke to a democratic senator about an hour ago and he was struck by one of the words he used which was unsettled. not because of the content

expected out of the president's speech, but because of the reality of what they've seen from the administration over the last 24 hours and continuing tomorrow when the president comes to capitol hill that signals that the administration is digging in. they're unsettled because they don't see a resolution to this coming at any point at any time soon. democrats have made clear they're not willing to negotiate on border security until the government is re-opened. and the president and his team at the request of republican leaders are making these trips to capitol hill to try and reassure republicans, to try and keep them in line and what i'm told, i was told earlier tonight when vice president mike pence was on capitol hill that he said behind closed doors the administration is staying firm. the administration is not budging off of the president's top-line request. the president's top-line position. and as long as that's the case, there's simply no end in sight to this shutdown. in other words, no resolution coming soon. no resolution coming the next couple days. potentially, anderson, no resolution coming in the next couple weeks. >>? earlier tonight i spoke to a mom whose family is directly impacted by the shutdown.

do we know how much long makers are hearing about the real-life impact from their constituents? >> reporter: quite a bit. i think this is an important point. people say, well, it's just 25% of the government that's currently shut down, or perhaps this just applies to federal workers in washington, d.c., or maryland or virginia. that's just not the case. there are federal and what that generally leads to when the real pain of the shutdown starts to bite and people start missing paychecks and the opportunity for medical research or trial drugs that that's when lawmakers try to figure out a deal. they say, look, we can't deal with this for our constituents anymore. what you have seen is the administration taking great pains to try to mitigate the pain or the bite of the shutdown. you saw it earlier tonight announcing that food stamps would be available through the month of february, which is in question 24 hours ago, tax refunds will go out as scheduled. in other words what the administration is doing in trying to make the shutdown as

painless as possible is almost providing a dissincentive to reach a deal. there will be people deeply impacted on this but the fewer people impacted the less likely it is that lawmakers will be pushed to the table. rank and file lawmakers will tell their leaders, we had enough. they're hearing from it. senate democrats are on the floor as i speak talking about personal stories they're getting from their constituents. but has it had the impact of getting it to the table and forcing it into this? not yet and they're not sure when that's going to kick in. >> i appreciate it. thanks for the reporting. we're about 8 minutes away from the president's speech. back with our political team. >> the fda commissioner just contacted me and he said please tell anderson to have sarah door contact me. nobody should be unable to access a clinical trial so we

will help her. >> that's great. here's the thing, it shouldn't take to be on tv and having you here and somebody that can contact the fda, how many people out there don't have access, whose stories we're not telling. >> he's saying that the delay is not -- he's saying to me that the delay, if there is one, and he's not sure there is one, has nothing to do with that. that's not the issue here. >> that's great news. >> it is. >> can i just say something about what phil said which gives you an idea of the difference here. we were talking before that trump doesn't have the empathy gene. he's never run for elected office before he became president. politicians are all about empathy. they hear from their con stitch yunl yun -- constituents every minute of every day. >> there's constituents on the other side too. >> and you react differently. >> but one thing we haven't

spoken about is that early on he said these people, these government workers didn't vote for me. they're not my supporters. you heard him say that. >> he still believes that. >> he still believes that. so he thinks it's the deep state washington federal government people. not all of the 800,000 and the ripple effect as anna was talking about earlier. the people that serve them, the contract workers, et cetera, et cetera. >> and by the way, it doesn't matter. he's president of the united states of america. not president of my base. >> but no. >> exactly. and no empathy. >> he's the president of an ann coulter and rush limbaugh and he's allowed them to take him hostage. he could have made a deal weeks ago. he didn't because they didn't allow him and my question is what is the political cost. are they going to support elizabeth warren? are they going to support joe biden? >> just from a -- >> i don't know what the other option is, elizabeth warren?

>> from a legal standpoint, the idea of declaring national emergency, legally, i mean, that would go to the courts very quickly. >> one question that's been proposed is whether or not he's going to announce that tonight. the news has gone back and forth all day as to whether or not he will. he has the legal authority to declare a national authority. he does. congress has passed a law that says the president has wide discretion. >> there's like dozens of national emergencies declared. >> there have over time. usually they're for an actual national security crisis so this takes us into what -- >> some of them are like sanctions on officials or things like that. >> it could be sanctions, it could be hurricanes. but the president has wide legal authority to declare it. that is undisputed. if he were to declare it tonight, then congress, if they had a approved majority could override that bypassing a law or the more likely scenario is that immediately it will be

litigated, but heres the underlying issue. in order for a president to declare a national emergency, there should be a legitimate national security issue and a legitimate national security crisis, an actual emergency. and that is the point that i fear is getting missed, which is that normally when an administration is going to argue for legislation that is national security based, the intelligence community produces assessments. they say, here's why we need this authority. none of that has happened in this case because no credible national security official will tell you that the wall, specifically the $5 billion wall is a solution for a national security problem. >> this is probable crisis or emergency. if the president doesn't declare an emergency he has to try to change the dynamic in the country by convincing more people there's a crisis. a real crisis, a serious crisis, an urgent crisis. can he do that?

immigration has been a problem for 25 years. just like infrastructure and medicare and social security and travel the country with bill clinton trying to talk about it. talk about a different age. when a republican senator travelled with a democratic president and they thought they needed to start focussing on this already. does he want a victory? can he convince the country this is a crisis? this is a painful personal moment for that mom and these federal workers. if this were a national emergency, wouldn't the republican governor of texas be with the president tonight? would the new democratic governor of california or the new democratic governor of new mexico be there tonight? if their people were at risk? if their economies were at risk? the texas governor has been bragging about how they're number one in jobs growth for latinos and women and everybody. if the government is most effected, the biggest republican congressman on the border

district, is this an emergency? there is a problem. >> the president won an election on this and he has every right to tell the democrats i won an election, let's do business, but if you try to make a crisis as opposed to dealing with the p problem. >> if you look at it it was all about the danger on the southern border, folks coming over, mexico in his boards sending murders and rapists. look at his twitter feed. this is what he has been focused on. so this idea that in 8 minutes he can do what he hasn't been able to do in three years, talking incessantly about this -- >> although, what people hear from the president because what he mostly talks about is wall, wall, wall, or depending on the day, recently, wall, steel slats, but the notion of a wall

and the people in the administration are trying very hard to soften that and to expand that, the definition of border security to way beyond the wall. if he can do that, maybe. >> get his facts straight too. my colleague picks up the coverage now. thank you. i am chris cuomo and welcome to primetime live from washington d.c. president trump is about to address the nation as we near the longest government shutdown in our nation's history. it's a big night. let's get after it. tonight, we're going to hear the first formal address by president trump to the nation from the oval office. after the president, the democratic leader, senator schumer and speaker pelosi will respond. it's a big night on the heels of a very big day that brought us breaking news on the russia front. here's the headline. legal papers reveal the

strongest proof of contact yet between the trump campaign and russia. so let's get to our chief white house correspondent. jim, what are you hearing? >> well, what we're hear as good that the president is going to declare that there's a crisis and emergency down on the border with mexico. a crisis and emergency that many americans don't see. they don't feel. a lot of republicans and democrats simply disagree with in terms of the assessment. but in addition to calling for a wall on the southern border with mexico, he's also going to try to entice democrats back to the negotiating table by offering the kind of money they have been looking for to deal with the humanitarian concerns we have been seeing there in recent months. in addition to that, we don't expect the president at this hour to call for a state of national emergency down on the border as a way to secure that funding for the wall. apparently that is something that the president is not going to do in this speech tonight. but chris, i understand, in the last several days the president

has been reaching out to aids, allies, friends, and so on to try to sound them out on this possibility of declaring the national emergency and some of the folks told the president it's not going to work. probably won't work from a legal standpoint, but the president i'm told is looking for a political win right now. he's concerned about what might be unfolding soon in terms of the mueller investigation and what might come out in the mueller report. but there's real concerns if he doesn't get this wall and what he talked about on the campaign for the base. one adviser told me that could be a big problem heading into 2020. >> but it's interesting, this notion that the president may try to redefine what he wants. as you use the word humanitarian aspects of this. not just a wall. that would be interesting. what's the chance that we actually hear that? >> he's going to try to fold