this. >> you're still working, carl. go ahead. >> we got 10 seconds. >> i'm still working, why, the context of this is that it is impossible in this country today to have a real bipartisan fact finding investigation by the congress of the united states such as happened in watergate and one of the reasons that everybody is down in the trenches in this instead of trying to find out the best attainable version of the truth is the failure of both parties, to be able to have a real investigation. so now we need to hear from mueller. >> i have to go because chris is going to punch me. carl, thank you, happy birthday. jeff as well. cuomoprimetime starts right now. >> it's valentine's day. thank you, anderson. >> congress has just gotten enough votes in the house for the shutdown deal. now, they should get the votes. it is supposed to be a

bipartisan bill, but now there's a new fight. forget about anybody coming together. now the battle lines are just redrawn. the president is still going to declare a national emergency to solve his manufactured crisis. two questions, can he, should he? democrats are vowing to step him every step of the way in congress and the courts. we have both parties on this fight for and against. might they be unified in the effort to stop a president from clearly running around congress? will this declaration set a terrible precedent for future administrations? will it backfire politically? questions for a great debate. happy valentine's my friends. remember it's all for the love. let's get after it.

they hammered out a deal, nobody was happy but they got it done. they did what was better for the country. however, that's been overshadowed by somebody who decisively refuses to surrender the me to the we. the president says no, got to keep the promise. i will declare a national emergency and that will allow me to build more ballard fencing. now that will probably be announced tomorrow when the president signs this bill that they just passed. but what promise is he going to keep? he already broke the core promise to you that mexico would pay for it. so you have the can he do it and should he do it? now let's deal with that, democrats like steve cohen say they're going to try to stop him. the house judiciary member joins him now. welcome to primetime. congratulations on doing your job.

it's nice to see you guys come together and make something happen for the rest of us but now you're presented with a new challenge. do you believe that legally you could stop this president? >> we definitely can. one way is legislatively and representative castro of texas has introduced, and i'm a co-sponsor, a joint resolution to put the national emergency off and to say that it's not proper and congress can do that through joint resolution. it can also be challenged in court and i feel sure that there's going to be lots of challenges and they can come from several different areas. this is clearly a violation of the separation of powers, article 1 says congress is supposed to appropriate the funds, the president is supposed to administer, that's article 2 and he's not supposed to take these funds because he loses a fight and finds a way to claim victory. >> the sourcing of the money is your strong point. i have new reporting to add to your thought process. a white house official says

president trump tomorrow has been expected to announce executive action. now that could be a national emergency. it could not be. it could be something else, in that he's going to draw on a variety of administration funding sources to help finance construction of the wall somewhere in the area of $8 billion. no specificity on where. no specificity on whether the action would be a national emergency or just an executive order. does that change your calculus? >> well, a little bit. i know there's a lot of republicans that think this was a mistake. this president condemned obama for breathing and he condemned him for actions he took were over the power of the executive that he shouldn't have done, overreach. this is the biggest overreach in histo history. >> each one you're going to see litigated. if he does it as a national

emergency under the 76 act that has to be a dangerous precedent because what's the chance the next democratic precedent doesn't use exactly that act to declare global warming a national emergency. >> exactly. it plays for both parties and we fought the revolutionary war not to have king george and this is the actions of a king and no matter which route he takes it's a challenge for the courts because it's a violation of separations of powers. he went through the her -- cherade. there is no national emergency. border immigration is down, to a 40 year low. there's not a problem with drugs coming in through the border he used sub marines, trucks, cars,

tunnels, he never went through texas. this is a false narrative. it's a political issue for the president, and this is his ego and his political capital and he wants his base to say that they have quote, unquote, finished the wall. they haven't even started the wall. i'm surprised he can put two ls in it and spell it right. >> if he declares a national emergency then you have this joint resolution path and he has a better chance legally there. it's never been successfully challenged. i don't think it's ever been challenged in terms of any declaration of a national emergency. if he goes straight executive order then it's a little bit more dicey. do you have the option of a joint resolution no matter which path he takes? >> no it's only on the national emergency but the national emergency, there's never been a president that's gone so far, just unquestionably not a national emergency. this has been -- nothing happened urgent. the national emergency is supposed to be for a disaster or military situation that

threatens the country's security. it's not for a political whim of the president and no president has ever used it in the way this president has. so that's the reason it will be challenged because this is just going beyond anything that anybody ever thought about doing. >> now where do you get the confidence? i get the precedent rule. i'm old enough to remember when mitch mcconnell said to harry reid, you better not blow up this filibuster rule for these nominations. it's going to come back to haunt you and of course it did. but even though a will the of republicans remember that, remember the power of precedent and say they don't like this, asked the president not to do it, do you really think they would vote against him? >> well, there's not democrats to vote against him in the house. the question is in the senate. he's already come out against it and of course john cornan is in texas where they want to take people's property. you can't do that. harry truman tried it and you can't take, according to supreme court rule, people's private property, even if it's national

emergency and most of that property is owned by private individuals. there will be other senators on the republican side that see it as congressional authority. mitch mcconnell, he totally was just -- just fell down on the deal. he threw in the towel. he's up for election in 2020 and i think he's concerned. >> how fast do you think action happens if, indeed, tomorrow the president declares a national emergency and what happens if he doesn't? if it's just an executive order. >> well, if he declares a national emergency, we got our bill. we'll have to wait until we come back from recess which is about 9 days before it can be introduced an then referred to a committee. i think it goes to the committee and then the floor and there's a certain time limit and it's pretty quick. there might be court action immediately. i think there will be a restraining order asked for immediately by different groups and i think i read that the justice department gave a opinion that they thought a restraining order would be ordered and it would be temporarily restrained.

trump is thinking he can win on appeal because he named some of these appeals judges and he hopes it gets to the supreme court. but i think justin roberts will not go for it. >> our latest reporting is he's going to declare national emergency and take additional action. he's probably trying to get the biggest pocketbook he can together. >> we need monies for so many things in this country for education, for health care, research. and he wants to put it into a useless wall that won't do anything for this country at all. he has his priorities missing. children's cancer research should come first. this wall shouldn't even come. >> i hear you on priority. i never understood the democrat position that walls are immorale or that they're useless and

won't help as you well know congressman, they say that physical barriers would help. they don't think they're the number one priority. they don't want it as much as the president does and they list other things that he ignores but you can have both. you can do money for physical barriers and still have other priorities. >> and there's different barriers, there's pedestrian barriers, there's vehicular barriers, there's the urban areas like in san diego and el paso and mostly it's fencing. texas has the rio grande river. that's a pretty good barrier and that's a different situation and it's private property owners. president bush never thought about putting up a wall in texas or more fencing in texas but he put it in new mexico and arizona and california. you'll see a lot of push back in texas and understandably so. >> he did think about using the

declaration of a national emergency to justify getting people working on katrina fixes to work for lower level of pay but he with drew it before it could be tested so we don't have any precedent out of that situation. thank you very much. please keep us in the loop of what you're going to do based on what the president does tomorrow. >> always good to be with you. >> pleasure is mine. i know it's a busy night. thank you for taking time. the congressman is right, there's republicans that aren't happy about this. they believe it will come back to haunt them but congressman matt gates from florida ain't one of them. he's thrilled. why he thinks this is a good move. why he thinks it works not just for now but for his party later, next.

(indistinguishable muttering) that was awful. why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum- just to help you improve your skills. boom! mad skills. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade.

at least there's no shutdown and at least the business of government will continue. however now we got a new problem. republicans are bracing for what is going to happen tomorrow. the president is expected to declare a national emergency and take other executive action. certain republican lawmakers don't like this. they're big on separation of powers. they didn't like it when obama did it. they're worried about precedent going forward. congressman matt gates now says it's a great thing to do. welcome back. >> happy valentine's day for everybody sad enough to be watching us tonight. >> you were concerned about this. that's a fair word. about a month ago you were concerned congressman that you don't know that this is the right way to go. now you love it, why? >> i think there's different authorities that can be utilized and i have been educated on them, specifically section 284 of title 10 does not require the

declaration of a national emergency, simply the designation of the u.s.-mexico border as a drug trafficking corridor and then the president can unlock between 2.5 and $3 billion to be able to do border wall construction. additionally there's 5 to 600 million in treasury forfeitures that the president can use. these are people that did not claim their tax returns and refunds so he can use that money and then there's also north of $3 billion in military construction money that the president can use. so you can get pretty close to $8 billion without declaring a national emergency. >> but they say he's going to. >> that's what you're reporting indicates and certainly in my discussion with the president earlier today he was willing to do anything it took to secure the border but when you look at the specific authorities and how the funds were intended to be used, obviously if we build a wall it's going to help with drug interdiction and so that

leaves me with less concern than just a blanket declaration that would allow the robbing of resources from anywhere. >> so you still believe the president should be wary of declaring a national emergency because of what it would mean for you guys going forward. >> any president should look at executive action as a last resort. we have been through a shutdown and congress committee. every tool has been deployed. i think the missed story in the bill that i just voted for and that we just passed was that the president was able to get north of $20 billion for border security without having to concede any form of amnesty. i thought certainly democrats would agree to any deal that didn't include a path to at least legal status for daca recipients or tps recipients but turns out that was not something that the president had to give on so in many ways he's getting a lot of what he wants. >> hard to call it a win. they kept their word that they would stick with this appropriation measure and not make it about anything else and

he did not keep his word. now it's not just about this deal. he's going to do something anyway. all of those categories of pockets, they come with strings attached. you have to make legal showings. you're going to wind up diverting assets. with the military construction, you're going to have to make a show and you're going to take away from projects that were already seen as valuable. if he does it my national emergency, he's going to pick and choose winners among communities that have been ravaged by storms. there's going to be political costs and strings attached. are you worried about that? >> when you move resources from one pot of money to the other it is zero sum by nature. i think that's why the work going on at the white house, you know, the last few days and it's going on right now is so important to make sure that we don't deprive a critical mission in the military or critical other element of government it's resources, but specifically to the 284 authorities in title 10 those are drug interdiction resources and one thing we

continue to hear from border patrol agents. it's something that you echoed moments ago, if we build a wall it will help the people trying to secure our border and may make some of the other challenges that we have easier to solve by creating a choke point that gives us an opportunity to stop drugs from coming in the country. >> the problem you'll have there is that dhs says themselves in their assessment that the bulk is their word, of drugs that they stop come through the ports of entry. not on foot traffic. >> yeah but that's one of the reasons why the bill we just passed was worthy of voting for. there's a lot i didn't like about it obviously. right now points of entry are the mayor area where we interdict drugs but of course cartels won't give up. they'll seek other routes that may not go through those very ports. >> they never made it a main

priority. and you have will to have say that. >> it's not true that they don't go through more wilderness areas. they absolutely utilize human mules. >> but not in the kinds of numbers. the quantity and quality of drugs by the way to the extent that that's relevant. they put their more extensive packages in more likely and more effective and efficient ways through. >> you're saying that the president is going to say some of the money i can use is because this is a big time drug corridor. it isn't. and you're saying well it may be in the future. >> no. look. the u.s. mexico border is a major drug trafficking corridor. they will all confirm that the drugs are grown largely in peru and columbia and venezuela. >> but they don't say the fence stops it. >> in honduras and are

trafficked over the border and i think that having a physical barrier there in addition to the technology, the drones, the ports of entry enhancements, all of that makes us safer. >> but you already do have physical barriers in many of these places. you could use more but this is about how much and where, not just -- >> my expectation is that the 1.3 in change that we approved tonight will be enhanced by an additional $6.5 billion. and you'll see them kind of round out the major contributions to that fund and at the end of the day, you and i both know the country doesn't want to go through another shutdown and the country does want the border secure so despite the fact this has been painful and showed some of the worst elements of washington, we may end up getting a government that's open and working and more border security and do it

without a lick of amnesty. >> i don't know why it's a win for him. he has hannity and colter and all of these people in his head, rent free by the way. >> sean hannity has been a friend to me and he is incredibly persuasive and powerful. i would argue that he is without question the most powerful person in the media because what he says the president does. not vice versa. >> sure. >> what hannity says the president does. >> he is unlike anyone else in the media now. >> we have never seen that before. what he says the president does. >> it's not that clear. i have been witness to interactions where they have exchanges and robust discussions and bounce ideas off of each other. it's good that we have a president that bounces ideas off of a lot of different people. he's not just stuck in the west

wi wing. >> how crazy it is that with all the expertise that the president is privy too that he chooses someone like me to listen to about major policy matters is something -- >> i reject the premise that hannity is someone like you. you are very different. >> we are different but when it comes to what either of us knows about national policy and how to lead and how to govern we're at zero. that's why we're on tv. he knows it. he would be in public service if he thought he could do it better than everybody else. he likes this life. good for him. but this is the last question on this. they're going to contest this and i don't think you're going to have to support it just once. you're going to have to support this a bunch of times because what's going to happen is this is going to start coming from other allies and you're going to have to start saying it's okay and it may end upcoming out of the mouths of your constituents. they'll make choices that those

projects are going to have to wait and that's coming on you. >> he released half a million dollars so he's doing his part but i don't think you want to view the national emergency as one moment for the reasons that you mentioned and the challenges that are anticipated, it's very possible that tomorrow the president will access the authorities that i think are most defensible and then in weeks or months he could trigger the release of additional dollars because we couldn't spend $5.5 billion right now -- >> you couldn't spend 1.5. >> so if you unlock a few billion at a time with a series of executive actions, then i think you have a very rapid pace of construction that's manageable and at the same time you don't have litigation about one thing -- >> you will have litigation because you'll still have a president going around congress and appropriating money which the constitution says he should not do. >> not appropriating money if it's already authorized and appropriated for these purposes. that's a question a court will have to address but he's going to start with the authorities that are most defensible and i

think that will build momentum for the wall he has promised. >> matt gates, it's a busy night. thank you for taking the time to make the case. i appreciate it. >> thank you. happy valentine's day, again. >> you as well. that's the politics on this. this is why people are against and that's why they're saying they're for. the law will have a role here more than ordinary in politics. there is an act of congress if he declares a national emergency and other statutory language as well. but it's not the end of the fact analysis. i have it all layed out for you, next. things happen. and sometimes you can find yourself heading in a new direction. but at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. a partner who makes sure every step is clear,

(ala♪m goes off) wake up sweetie. ♪ doctor dave. see ya. ♪ here's your order. ♪ hey. applebee's to go. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

>> the president we're told is

doing it. he's going to declare a national emergency to get his wall and that puts him in uncharted legal and political territory. can he do this? there's two ways to look at this. you just heard matt gates from florida give us something that i would suspect is something he heard from the white house which is code 284 allows the president to do this. this is support for counter drug activities and activities to counter transaction organized crimes. there's a list of things that the secretary of defense can ask for to aid in fighting the drug war. that's where this law comes from and among that are things that you can maintain and repair with extra money, you can preserve the potential utility going forward of something. the only one that would really apply to building a wall would be the upgrading of equipment. but there's a catch. it has to be a compatibility

thing. it deals with technology. almost all of these are about technology and maintenance of equipment that allows the secretary of defense to use other avenues of the government that always costs money because it's labor, to help upgrade technology and keep technology and equipment ready to be used. that's what it is about. it's not about construction. it's not about a wall. that's going to be one legal challenge. the second will be that dhs says that the bulk of the drug interdiction is done at the ports of entry. so then how can you argue that you need to use these extra methods because it's so important what's happening on foot when that's not what dhs says. so it's going to be complicated. all right. so now we have the other legal avenue. the national emergencies act of 1976. the good news for the president is there are no parameters on what counts as an emergency. they define it only as something special and extraordinary. now you could argue the wall is neither an emergency nor extraordinary and special because we already have it and

it's not something that we need in this enconstant in a winstan would stop a crisis in this incident. that would be an argument and there is authority for the move and every president since the passage of the act has declared at least one and none has ever been challenged in court but that's about to change. section 5 of the law says congress can shut this down. how? democrats as you were hearing from congress, they can pass a joint resolution. the senate has to conduct a floor vote within 15 days. it's in the statute so mcconnell can't do what he does so well for the president which is keep things from happening. >> i continue to believe that this is not what the national emergencies act was intended to be used for. >> the concern that we have got is that we not set new precedent. >> you're going to do that. so the question is what kind of precedent do you want to set with your president?

are you going to stand up against him, something that very few in your party has done at all, let alone consistently. that's the big question about the political stop here. the president's grip on the party, it's hard to see mcconnell doing anything to stop this and get the votes for it. so what's going to happen? well the other way to challenge this is to sue. >> we're prepared to respond to it. >> they have to show what's called standing. that means that you have been arguably agrieved by the action that was taken. it's a little bit of precedent for that. in 2015 when the republican lead house was allowed to sue over obamacare and the alleged spending of public money, not authorized by congress constitution says we have to appropriate the money. not him. >> then there are states attorney general. you see courts willing to let

them take on the president's policies. the most obvious would be the border states. right now california is actively engaged in a fight against the wall but ninth circuit just reje rejected their efforts to block it near san diego. the biggest problem for the president will remain the people that own the land along the border. much of the border land that we're talking about here, especially in texas belongs to private citizens. cdp will likely need to use emotions nt domain to get that land. it ain't that easy. doj is staffing up with lawyers with experience in land condemnation cases. >> during the last shutdown they were in court trying toget five acres. the case has been going on. let's say he does that. if he does, then using tax

dollars is going to be a big part of that. all of that all comes out of your pocket. so the next thing is going to be push back/lawsuits from the communities he might hurt by pulling money from the wall for the wall from projects that they need. like puerto rico, right? storm ravaged folks in florida, texas, elsewhere. they could argue, you're hurting us. there was money appropriated for us that we're using to fix what we need and now you're taking it away. in the end there is a law that allows potus power he seeks. legally he's going to have a delay, okay? politically, he may set a precedent that is almost certain to haunt his party in the future because any president would now have a basis of saying, well he did it. i declare global warming a national emergency. i declare poverty a national emergency and now i'm going to go looking at purse pockets and i'm going to take money away that congress appropriated for other things and use it on this. it's not what the constitution

wanted the executive to do, all right? but that's what this president is doing even though he has been warned of this, why? surrender the me to the we, no way he says. i've got to keep this promise. no matter what it means to congress. so that's where we are and we're going to learn more tomorrow. there's members of the republican party that say no way. we have to make this not happen. it's too dangerous. what will really happen? what will it mean for democrats and republicans? it's a great debate to have and we're going to have it, next.

so now what, nancy pelosi is

expected to come out and address the signing and passage of this bill by the house. what will happen in the congress and then really this is about what will happen tomorrow. this should be a moment of celebration. it was ugly how we got here but you would have to say that this was a bipartisan bill. in the house you saw left and right come together and do something that was arguably reasonable. i know there's nobody watching right now who is completely happy with what was done but i would hope that all of you would say at least something got done. at least they're not going to punish us again. punish all of you if you were effected by the services and the government that got shutdown. you saw the effect of it. so at least you'd be able to say, at least they're still doing their job. but now, with what's going on with the president tomorrow, there's a whole new problem. so when pelosi comes we're going to take it. right now, let's debate what tomorrow may mean. jennifer and rick, without getting too deep in the weeds,

there's one obvious proposition that we're dealing with and i ask both of you some patience. if pelosi comes out, let me get to her right away so we don't miss the opportunity. the big problem is precedent. it's one thing if he wants to say this is a drug issue and here's how i make my case. that's one thing. declaring a national emergency is something very different and likely comes back to haunt, does it not? >> well, as you know, national emergencies, i think there's 50 some active right now. >> none like this. >> every president has used it to one degree or another. i agree, one of the things that even when i was running for president what i said was the president has become too powerful and the congress has advocated their responsibility, particularly when it comes to controlling spending. so i actually have serious concerns about the president doing the national emergency declaration and i am absolutely pleased that members of both republicans and democrats are

speaking out about it. democrats were uniformly doing it because they hate trump and they're opposing everything. i just hope they remember the reasons they're opposing trump and do it could be the reasons they oppose a democratic president for trying to do something. >> that's gotten us nowhere. >> i'm just saying i think it's good the congress is fighting back and hopefully that will curve the president's appetite. >> let's see what they say. >> passed the house of representatives and the senate and now will go over to the senate to be signed by the vice president of the united states. it's my honor to sign this. i sign this, they did a spectacular job. my chair of the appropriations committee, the chair of the security subcommittee appropriatio

appropriations. the rio grande valley, from california. all members of the committee, leadership member. >> i'm happy that they're happy they got something done but i want to hear what she says she's going to do if the president takes this step tomorrow. what we're expecting, jennifer, is pelosi to say what she said before which is, hey, we're going to do this too as soon as we can which goes to rick's point. you know? you could very easily see the next democratic president say guess what i'm declaring a national emergency? global warming. >> of course. no i've heard actually some democrats saying hey, you know what, this opens the door for us in the next go around. maybe we shouldn't be so opposed to it. i however do not think it is a good precedent. i was interesting to see what congressman gates said right before we came on because the

suggestion that he's making is that perhaps the president doesn't go that far and instead moves this money around as you were just describing. and that is a different kettle of fish. he's not going to get as much money and by the way, let's just remind ourselves that this whole thing is about circumventing congress. but that doesn't buy him as much trouble. >> national emergency gives him more legal authority but more political jeopardy in terms of what pots he looks into. >> yeah. >> he would wind uptaking from projects meant for people hit by disasters. this would be different but rick, someone like you should have the same argument no matter what he does which is we do not like the executive going around congress. >> i repeatedly expressed my concern about the president using this emergency declaration. he does have some flexibility with some pots of money, as you

mentioned, but some of the pots of money at least that i heard the congressman talk about are pots of money that need to have congress sign off on this reallocation of resources. so that is not going to happen. i mean, the house appropriations committee chairman is not going to sign off on moving money around that requires them to approve it. so i think it's rather limited. i don't know how much it is. i'm sure that the white house has been spending the last several weeks trying to figure out is there money that we can move around that we don't have to declare an emergency on that we don't need congressional approval on and still gets us a reasonable amount of money. i'm hopeful that that's what they come forward with tomorrow. but that may not be enough and they may have to push the envelope one way or another. >> one problem they'll have, just to make how clear how politically optical this is is one of my sources that is involved in the actual planning for this, like on the ground,

like if this actually gets done, this is one of the people who would do it, he said, you know, we will never build anywhere near what we still need in the next 7 years let alone during this term. so this is about optics. this is ant thbout this preside saying i got something done even though it will never get done. >> meaning that logistically you cannot expend that much money but first of all there's $680 million from the last two years that is unspent. so where is the emergency? number one. number two, if he goes to the military construction budgets, you have a lot of republicans as you were pointing out in districts across the country that fought for that money to be put for projects in their district. there's only 50 million of that military construction budget that is fluid, that the president could yank. yeah, there's some treasury forfeiture money that arguably he could spend but as rick points out, this stuff has

already been appropriated. so this is just another way of going around congress and going around the u.s. constitution. >> yeah. that was the mexico pay part, rick? the problem with dropping the mexico pay part is that you know you're guaranteed in 2020 somebody saying, you know, he could have done this for you, bill in the blank, whoever you are, where ever you are, instead he did the wall. remember that. depending on who you are and who you're talking to, that could play different ways, rick? >> i think if you look at the pots of money, i have no doubt that they will take money in areas where there's lots of accounts that have money sitting there that hasn't been spent for three or four or five years and it's going to lapse and they can say no, we're going to take this and it would not have been spent otherwise. so i think, again if they do a good job at this, they're going

to be goring anybody with moving this money around. >> well that's the hope but they may have to deal with congress on it. it's going to be tough for your party. >> i agree. >> i think it's good, i think it's good that the congress fights the president on their prerogative. i wish the congress could actually exercise their prerogative more, not just with this president. certainly i encouraged it with the last one in being much more possessive of the power they have under the constitution. >> i don't think they have a spine line, i don't think there's anything they would stand up against him on. >> the problem is you can't get cooperation. for congress to really assert it's power, they need to work together as republicans and democrats and right now that didn't happen. >> jennifer. >> there are 18 republican members of the senate alone who have expressed opposition to this before -- opposition to a national emergency declaration before the president declares it. 18 of them. they are all going to be put on

notice and have to vote on this if, in fact, he declares it and it comes to the senate for individual votes. you better believe that that is a political jeopardy for someone like the senator in colorado, susan collins in maine. people who are going to be up in 2020 who said they don't want to see this. >> speaking of someone that's up in 2020, mitch mcconnell who said he would support the president on it. so if that's a sign of where republicans are going -- >> i know. >> that may tell you something. >> invertabre. >> just saying, it took a week and guess what we have, the president's physical results. while we're waiting to hear what nancy pelosi may say about what the president is going to do, let's hear how he's doing and make some assessments.

we're going to do that next with one of the fittest men i know. amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. also, in a great-tasting chewable.

whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental! read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor man 1: this is my body of proof. woman 1: proof of less joint pain... woman 2: ...and clearer skin. woman 3: this is my body of proof. man 2: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 4: ...with humira. woman 5: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation

that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the #1 prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman 6: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com where in all of this is the stuff that matters? the stakes are so high, your finances, your future. how do you solve this?

you partner with a firm that combines trusted, personal advice with the cutting edge tools and insights to help you not only see your potential, but live it too. morgan stanley. >> the white house is out with deals of president trump's physical last week and thank god the president is in very good health overall.

blood pressure 118-80. very good. he's on a higher dose of a staten medication. his cholesterol has come down from 223 to 196. last year he was 239 pounds. he's now 243. so, the good news is, the president is reportedly healthy despite terrible diet. bad news is he and i are both officially obese and there's also something weird going on with his height and i have a theory about it. here's the proof. i am barely 6'2". although i got a little bit in that picture but i'm barely 6'2". the president claims to be 6'3". i did not ever think that he was taller than me any of the times that we stood next to each other. let me bring in d. lemon. you're not a particularly tall person so this doesn't really effect you that way but as you see in those pictures, i don't know that he's 6'3". i just know that i am not and my theory would be the taller you are, the better it is for your

body mass index, your weight to height ratio is a function of how fat you are. >> well, he is 6'3" internet inches. so that means he's exaggerating. i'm not quick to go at him. he should not weigh 243 pounds. he should weigh about 220 pounds, 215 pounds. >> can you tell the viewers what you call me all the time? >> rolling thunder? >> fat face. >> never. >> oh, chris. you're going to lie. >> cake pop head. >> you're talking about my cheeks here. >> but your head is the fattest thing on you. >> listen, a lot of americans struggle with their weight. let's get serious about this, even i struggle with mine. i can lose ten, but not -- >> all of us could lose ten. he has a terrible diet, and it's bad for people because to think

you're going to have his kind of vital on that kind of diet is really fantasy thinking. >> let me tell you something, though, and it may shock some people. you know i actually think he weighs more than he says. >> i just go with the numbers we have. >> a lot of people lie about their weight. i'm not going to say gg. i actually cut the guy some slack because it's a stressful job he has a lot of executive time. but to go from 239 to 243 that's not a lot of weight to gain. and men with muscle mass can drop that in two weeks. >> and his cholesterol went done. >> listen, i'm sure they're exaggerating a little bit. the thing that concerns me i think he should get checked is the heart situation that dr. san jay gupta identified which was not originally identified in this health report, and the american people have a right to know. >> 100%. you'd want to know something if

it was material to his duties. this is something that a lot of people have, it qualifies as disease. but that word sounds a little bit worse than what his actual condition is if it's monitored. >> i actually brought up my pictures with the president because i don't remember him being that much taller than me. i'm 6 feet. i we i wish i was 160 pounds. ever since my mom came from christmas it has been downhill ever since. >> really since you don't carry that much muscle mass on you. >> hey, listen, this national emergency thing i think is dangerous. >> and we're still hearing -- our reporting is still that he's going to do it tomorrow. he's not going to find a work

around. >> we're going to talk about that. we have every perceivable person and guest that could talk about this. i actually think if the democrats were really smart -- this is just me talking, go ahead and do the emergency. because you know there's going to be a democratic president in office one day soon -- >> that's what mcconnell did when he said reid was going to take away the filibuster. that's not what the constitution wanted to happen. >> i'm not saying it's right, i'm saying if they were smart because that would be the thing to get folks to go oh, no. >> i'll see you in a second. early valentine's wish, i have more to say about that later. so v-day, valentine's day, a day all about doing it for the love. now, it will forever coincide with an inevent that many hoped would change us, make us more

compassionate, make us see a way forward. what this day means to me and why next. e's the same old way to smooth, and there's new fructis sleek shot, our first in-shower styler. just mix the shot with shampoo, power up with lather. five times smoother hair, half the time. skip the flat iron. new fructis sleek shot. by garnier, naturally! new fructis sleek shot. (ala♪m goes off) wake up sweetie. ♪ doctor dave. see ya. ♪ here's your order. ♪ hey.

applebee's to go. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward.

itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe.

pg&e wants you to plan ahead by mapping out escape routes and preparing a go kit, in case you need to get out quickly. for more information on how to be prepared and keep your family safe, visit pge.com/safety. for the love, valentine's day is for the love. forget the hallmark holiday haters, we need it. it should serve as a hallmark of the effort we need to make with one another. every year if not every day.

saint valentine, beneficiary of many legends but a few things are clear. he believed in the need for love in practice. one of the 'ings he did was sign letters to friends expressing appreciation to them signed your valentine. that's why we say it. we make it about romance. it's fine. but it can be about more and should be especially today. our connection to one another and our passion to demonstrate the same needs reinforcement. we all know that. the political divisiveness, the energy towards driving fear and anger towards others, distracting. it's draining from the love of a collective. a feeling about one another. chocolates and candy, great. but what about compassion and collective action for the betterment of all especially today? you remember what happened a year ago today, right? a year ago we witnessed 17 being shot down in parkland, florida, school kids.

pain and shock, frustration, all familiar. but this massacre would be different. the kids who survived became advocates. they stood for the fallen and they forced us to recognize our lack of resolve. they were valentine. they were love in action. a year later nothing has changed in terms of love. the opposite of love, not hate is the difference. that's the opposite. and that's what we've surrendered. too political, too hard. everyone cares but no one did, not really. we actually had a member of congress say the wall is part of the solution to gun crime. so that's where we are. today of all days remember the need to be better for the love. for the love of the fallen, for the love of progress, for the love of less violence, the love of cooperation and compassion. we may not be a law away from

stopping school shootings but we are one way from taking action. you really think we can't do better? can't identify kids, adults who are at risk? do more to control access to weapons? google the columbia protocol. google that, columbia protocol. it works. brought down suicide rates in the air force, the only branch of service that saw reduction because of that protocol. the only failure is doing nothing. indifference is the opposite of love. remember that today. when we say we do things for the love, remember what it is we do and do not do. happy valentine's day. may it be good to you and may you be good to others. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. happy valentine, my friend. >> you as well. you're so optimistic that i think people h