good morning. this is "up." i'm joshua johnson sitting in for david. the partial shutdown continues for the 16th day. the president departs the white house heading to camp david. pence is staying in washington

to meet with staffers. acting chief of staff signalled the president wants to make this work. >> if he has to give up a concrete wall and replace it with a steel fence so that democrats can say, he is not building a wall anymore, that should help us move -- >> you want the headline to be the president no longer wants a wall, he wants a fence? >> the president is going to secure the border with a be barrier. >> speaker pelosi will not budge on the $5 billion demand. >> $1. $1. yeah, $1. a wall is an immorality. it's not who we are as a nation. >> neither pelosi nor mitch mcconnell will be at today's talks with pence. in a contentious meeting this week, pelosi interrupted kirstjen nielsen reciting statistics related to the border. pelosi said, i reject your facts. she hit back saying, these

aren't my facts. these are the facts. try to wrap your head around 800,000 workers furloughed or working without pay. according to "the new york times," that's more than double the work force of target or four times gm. even if you take say the treasury department, with more than 72,000 people on unpaid leave, that is three times the work force of facebook. the furloughs at the interior department are more than ten times the staff of netflix. we, however, are fully staffed around the table this hour. eddie glaud, a professor at princeton, rena shaw, a republican strategist, iesha mootd moody mills and nick ackerman. we begin on capitol hill. still no sign of progress, i presume. but pelosi says she's pushing ahead this week. >> reporter: wasn't that a

striking sound bite from nancy pelosi. it's an immoral wall. you could say she's driving a hard bargain. there doesn't seem to be any bargaining going on. the upshot of the meeting yesterday, two diametrically opposed readouts from the re k respective signs. the president himself went off message and tweeted that nothing really much happened. they didn't make much progress. democrats say, the republicans, the president won't come off his $5.7 billion whatsoever. negotiations don't seem to be going anywhere. seems like more of an elaborate photo op. the speaker of the house controls the legislation that passes through that chamber. she put out a statement promising that in this coming week, joshua, she says next week house democrats will begin passing individual appropriations bills to reopen all government agencies, starting with the department of treasury and the irs.

this action is necessary so that the american people can receive their tax refunds on schedule. of course, we learned yesterday that if this situation, this partial government shutdown isn't resolved soon, $140 billion of american taxpayer refunds could be in jeopardy, delayed indefinitely until this situation is resolves. the moving parts today, of course, the president any minute now set to depart for his staff meeting up at camp david in the mountains of maryland at 1:00 p.m. today. we expect a resumption of the talks between top level administration officials led by the vice-president and congressional staffers. the same talks yesterday that appeared to yield very little progress. >> we will monitor that going forward. thank you, mike. let's come to the panel. i want to start with our two strategists. give me your sense what the strategy should be going forward to move out of this and create a

solution that's both politically expee expedient and gets the government open. >> we wouldn't sit here if real republicans were in congress. they are holding on to their seats. they understand the man in the oval office has no plan. what he wants to do is run the clock out. there's no clock he made known to us. it leaves us in a place where i think he just wants to target the democrats. he doesn't realize speaker pelosi's plan to reopen is going to make them look so much better, them being the democrats. what he is doing is essentially letting his staff handle this. last night on fox news, they spoke to kellyanne conway. they are changing. she's saying, well the wall might not be a physical one throughout. it may have high tech parts. it might have some parts that

are sleet slats. she went back and said, we have to make sure they can't get over it, under it, through it. it's confusing. they are changing their semantics. that's the strategy. i think they are closer to compromise. it's no thanks to trump. >> part of the strategy is s semant semantic. >> i think reopening the government is number one. they are trying to put people back to work. pelosi can do that in a piecemeal way. essentially going appropriation by appropriation to get each agency rolling again. the other piece is message. donald trump wants to talk about this wall, this wall, this wall, because it riles up his base. the reality is is that immigration reform is the real conversation that needs to be had. the wall is such a minute pete of that. the truth is that most of the immigrants who are here that are undocumented came here legally. they didn't come here because they were running across some border. if a conversation wants to be had about how we manage our country with 4% of the

population being here that's undocumented, that's a bigger narrative the democrats can reclaim to move away from this wall, wall, wall conversation that's only benefitting him. >> the point of the narrative, the president has been tweeting as is his want, one of his latest tweets about the wall says, quote, the only reason they do not want to build a wall is that walls work. 99% of our illegal border crossings will end, crime in our country will go way down and we will save billions of dollars a year. a properly planned and constructed wall will pay for itself many times a year. >> that's a total lie. that is the biggest scam. this whole business about the wall was started by roger stone as a political stunt to give trump a basis to go out to his constituency and rev up the national base he is trying to push. there's no factual basis to say this wall is going to do

anything. >> and yet here we are. >> that's right. this whole thing is one big scam that he is trying to get a $5 billion down payment on that ultimately is going to cost $70 billion or more to the taxpayers. it's no different than what he did in moving the troops down to the southern border, to sit there and play with barbed wire for four weeks that had no purpose other than to try to rev up his base for the election. >> in the meantime, professor, you have reports of the impact of the shutdown, including reporting on how it has nearly shut down u.s. immigration courts among other things. there's a quote from one of nbc's latest reports. you are shutting down the immigration court over the issue of immigration says the president of the national association of immigration judges, had is the union for those judges. you have these multiple impacts of the shutdown, including on the immigration system that the president says that the border wall is designed to bolster. maybe that, professor, is where

this begins to break. when enough of the american people can see, feel, experience the impact of the shutdown and demand change. i wonder what that line might be. is there one particular impact that might break this through? >> i'm not sure. it seems to me when republicans in the senate in particular begin to feel the pressure -- we have seen susan collins and others come out and basically try to push mcconnell. we will get to him later. what we know is this. we need to unpack what speaker pelosi meant by calling this an immorality. one, is that it's predicated upon a lie. we are talking about 5.8 or $7 billion based upon a lie. people are not getting paid based upon a lie. two, the whole idea is rooted in a deeply white nationalist notion that we have to keep this country white. unless we get at the core of what's driving the wall, what's driving this immigration policy,

then we will find ourselves dealing seriously with the person who is engaging in bad faith. part of what we could talk about the politics, talk about the cascading affects. until it all is something deeply insidious. right? it reveals something about where we are in this country right now. i don't even -- we can't -- >> is there any way to get to that? one of the hardest ways to talk about white nationalism with white people is to point it out to those white people. i'm speaking from experience trying to have these conversations. i hear you. you are right. the problem is that engaging in that from a policy perspective immediately makes people shut down. that's the end of the discussion. >> yeah. >> even if it is true. >> even if it is true. i don't mean to pivot, because look, i'm a woman of color. i'm the daughter of legal immigrants. i have numerous family members here who we paid thousands -- my parents invested thousands to

get these people here legally, following the law. we take great prides in being americans. we're patriotic. we believe in coming here legally. we hold our noses up to the fact that people come here and break the rules and take what we have. but we understand people. compassionate conservatism is dead. we have to recognize that. in my heart, in my family, it's well and alive. what i can tell you going back to the issue of how this border wall is being messaged out of the right, one thing to look for this week is that the messaging from the right is going to talk about policy for once. it's going to talk about drugs. coming over the border illegally. that's what they're going to do. it's started. they are talking about the opioid crisis. being from west virginia, it's been called the epicenter of the opioid epidemic. it burns my heart to think that. what this administration will do this week -- watch it -- is frame it through that. they will move away from the race and they will take it to our border is unsafe because

this many drugs -- there's an increase in drugs coming over the border. >> i wonder if you think this debate would be going differently if we heard from more conservatives of color, more republicans of color like yourself. i have heard from some who said what you said. my family arrived legally at great cost, took years to get done. we take a great deal of pride in our legal citizenship status. we believe the law should be upheld. that's a narrative i can go, okay, i understand where you are coming from. there have been some conservatives of color who have told that story and then it's almost like their stories were never told. does that strategy have any currency these days? >> frankly it doesn't. the republicans party as a whole wants to silence those of us who talk about it from a place of i think practicality. we can win more hearts and minds if we talk about it perfect this vantage point. frankly, they want to go about it in such a way that they are covering up for the mistakes of

trump. like you said earlier, this is -- this was fabricated. he wasn't interested in talking about immigration anyway. >> the drugs is an excellent comparison. that shows you why a wall doesn't work. having prosecuted drug cases for a number of years, they get it over the walls, they get it under the walls, they bring it around the walls, they do everything. you have never been able to stop drugs with a wall. >> exactly. all of this is built on a lie. the democrats would be wise to go in and say, we're not going to pretend it's about drugs, because drugs come here through shipping vessels that are not going to be blocked out by a wall. the republicans don't actually broker in facts. they broker in scare tactics. >> i grew up in south florida. anyone who grew up in miami in the '80s can tell you there are other ways to get drugs into the country where there are no walls. ports are a big part. more to discuss as we continue. it's day two of warren's campaign stop in iowa. who might democrats pick to face president trump in 2020? what about the three bs?

bet that's nech. that's nech. hey, darryl! hey, thomas. if you were choosing a network, would you want the one the experts at rootmetrics say is number one in the nation? sure, they probably know what they're talking about. or the one that j.d. power says is highest in network quality by people who use it every day? this is a tough one. well, not really, because verizon won both. so you don't even have to choose. why didn't you just lead with that? it's like a fun thing. (vo) chosen by experts. chosen by you. get six months apple music on us. it's the unlimited plan you need on the network you deserve. now buy the latest galaxy phones, get galaxy s9 free. breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh i can breathe again! ughh..

vicks sinex, breathe on when heartburn hits... fight back fast with tums smoothies. it neutralizes stomach acid at the source. tum tum tum tum tums... smoothies...

...and introducing new tums sugar-free. amazon prime video so when you say words like... show me best of prime video into this... you'll see awesome stuff like this. discover prime originals like the emmy-winning the marvelous mrs. maisel... tom clancy's jack ryan... and the man in the high castle. all in the same place as your live tv. its all included with your amazon prime membership. that's how xfinity makes tv... simple. easy. awesome.

democrats in iowa are ready for the 2020 presidential race. ready or not, here it comes. scratch that. it's not even coming. it's here with senator elizabeth warren in iowa this weekend. she's trying to capitalize on the energy of her overflow crowds and to work through some of her past controversies.

>> i want to run a grass-roots campaign. because i believe that's how democracy should work. the only way that we're going to return this government to the people is if all of us are in this fight. >> a grass-roots campaign made bernie sanders a 2016 contender. as for next year, he may be in play for the nomination as one of the three bs getting buzz. what do democrats want in their challenger to president trump? let's discuss it with the panel. i wonder if all of the democratic contenders are going to be in some way or another trying to send a message to president trump. i don't know any democrat in the country that doesn't want the 2020 election to be a repudiation of trumpism. i wonder if maybe the primary is going to come down to whoever does that best. just like donald trump in his

way in 2016 sent the message of his base about what kind of country they want to live in. >> they have to. they absolutely have to say, i can get out there and i can beat donald trump and that certainly we will have an administration and country that's going to reflect the values of the democratic party. >> i don't mean we can beat donald trump. i mean we can whoop donald trump. >> it's going to have to be hard core. it's going to be a nasty fight. here is what i don't want to get lost. the democrats need to remember, we have to not try to play to the middle in the primary and stimulate and play to the base. the truth is if you look at florida, georgia, what excites the democratic base is a progressive vision and progressive policy agenda and also diversity in the makeup of leadership. the foundation of the message has to be about trump. we're going to throw that fool out of the white house. it has to be about bringing together the diverse rainbow of the party and what that's going to look like moving forward as

we take our country. i hope that the folks who are running recognize that to be central and don't just say, we have to figure out some middle of the road message and some middle of the road ideas to get those other trump supporters to support us. >> with regard to the rainbow of the party, i wonder, with regard to the three bs, you know, two of those are older white guys. no offense. >> that's fine. >> some of my friends are -- >> i understand. >> then one of them is this young upstart guy of color who created this campaign in texas. you mentioned florida and georgia. you have abrams in georgia, gillum in florida who are two young leaders of color that kind of energized the bases there and came fairly close. >> i think what you have to have this time, whoever is the head of the ticket, if it's going to be somebody of color, if it's a woman, then you will find there's going to be a balance on that ticket. it's not two white guys. that's not going to happen this time around. what's really important going

forward here is that the candidates who go in -- there will be many -- have articulate aid vision of where they see this country going. it's not so much get rid of the bad guys, throw the bum out, get rid of trump. it's going to be like what elizabeth warren is doing with inequality, using that as her vision, trying to bring back the american dream. it's going to be like governor -- it has to be about big issues, such as health care. what we need is a robust discussion about the issues that make a difference in people's lives. have a vision that's set forth. the big problem that hillary clinton had was, she never really articulated why she wanted to be president of the united states. >> o'rourke is fourth generation irish-american. >> let's not give a man of color

by trope because he is not. >> can i get to a quote? "the washington post" reports on february 3rd of next year, the day iowans convene for caucuses, the early voting window will open in california which moved up its primary from the june date. i feel like there are other structural factors -- i covered california for six years before i moved to washington. the way that we pick people -- this idea that iowa and new hampshire are the bellwethers for an increasing brown nation feels outdated. california could be one of the states to watch in terms of picking a candidate. >> i agree with that. i'm not much interested in the horse race. i will leave that to the strategists. what i do know is this. there's an opening -- as a citizen, there's an opening to break the back of the fundamentals of reaganism.

1980, it introduced a way in which this country has operated in terms of privatization, deregulation, eroding the social safety net, the tax code. all of these things have functioned as oxygen since reagan's election. they have come into view as the substance of the problem of the country. democrats, whoever is running -- i don't want them talking about likability. i want them to hammer home the contradictions at the heart of reaganism. it's not just trumpism. we have an opening. california is starting out the blocks helping us do that. iowa and new hampshire, not so much. >> california is an increasing fascinating state and orange county. a whole state is going to be much more of a democratic strong hold. i will be fascinating to see how much turns into policy or whether california remains the atm for the big political parties to raise money and

leave. from a concrete wall to a steel slat barrier to a fence, the president and his team have been i h talking about the border wall. what will this barrier be? that's ahead. the day after chemo shouldn't mean going back to the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their day back... to be with family, or just to sleep in.

strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.

ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. at booking.com, we can't guarantee you'll good at that water jet thingy... but we can guarantee the best price on this hotel. or any accommodation, from homes to yurts. booking.com booking.yeah

who is going to pay for the wall? 100%. 100%. >> this is "up." i'm joshua johnson. that was president trump repeating one of his core campaign promises. it's the reason for the shutdown, aimed at funding that wall. he still claims mexico will pay for it. >> what we save on the usmca, the new trade deal, what we save on that with mexico will pay for the wall many times over. >> however, the money would need to come from the u.s. treasury. the trade agreement says nothing about mexico refunding the u.s. the president also said at a recent cabinet meeting that 30 to 35 million undocumented immigrants live in this country.

>> i used to hear 11 million. would stay at 11. does it increase or go down? no. nobody knows. it's probably 30, 35 million people. >> but according to the latest data, the u.s. has less than 11 million undocumented immigrants. let me play a quick clip from sarah sanders. here she was on "fox and friends" on friday. she claimed 4,000 suspected terrorists had been apprehended at the southern u.s. border. here is part of what press secretary sanders said. >> last year alone, there were nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists that came across our southern border. >> contrast that with a fact check of that statement. the department of homeland security prevented nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists from traveling to or entering the united states. no immigrant has been arrested

at the southwest border on terrorism charges in recent years. there's that old mark twain quote, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. i wonder if all of this is immaterial to the idea that the wall is intended to send a message. the president has said so. his supporters have said, it's about sending an impression that the united states is impregnable. if you want to come in, you better find a door and you better knock. all of these statistics, i wonder if they are immaterial to the deeper debate. >> not really. what you pointed out with these clips is this is the definition of demagoguery. think try to appeal to people's emotions. it has nothing do with facts or data. this whole wall is build on one big lie. it was created by roger stone.

basically, trump has been using to demagogue to people out there making promises, 100% the mexicans will pay for the wall. you knew that wasn't going to happen. jeb bush, running against him at the time afterwards said, there's no way this wall is going to be built. that's because he knows as well as all the other republicans know that this wall is total nonsense. >> one more fact check from the associated press regarding whether the trade deal could pay for the wall. trade balances depend on too many factors, consumer tastes, exchange rates, overall economic performance and the choices of thousands of companies, for example. some are well outside any government's control. trump specifically promised in his 2016 campaign that mexico would pay for the wall. it is not doing so. the facts are against this wall. the president's base is for this wall.

is this a debate that has to proceed factually or do we have to deal with the emotions? >> the emotions. that's where we are. we are in a place where this administration shows no care for facts. therefore, the base no longer does. republicans in congress also are not checking or doing anything to say, hey, hey, hey, we don't have to go down this route. look at the rose garden press conference from thursday. that was the most scary thing i have seen in a long time from trump. there have been a lot of things, don't get me wrong. but this to me was very scary. him saying he has the power to declare a national emergency. he doesn't seem to understand the constitution. if you want mccarthy's face, his facial expressions tell you everything. these people are perplexed by his words. they're not willing to stand up. nobody is willing to stand up. >> is there a -- i know we have to move on. is there a way for republicans and democrats to go to the american people, particularly

those who support the wall and say we know you are concerned about border security, we're all concerned about this, we hear you, here is what we could do that will make you safer? is there a way to work around the wall? >> i'm hopeful there may be. in this moment, i don't think there is. what republicans have succeeded in doing this moment and trump, the so-called republican in my book has succeeded in saying this is about national security. he knows that riles up the republican base everywhere, even those who have buyers remorse for their vote for trump. that's what republicans are doing right now in this moment. that's the way to combat the massive gains from democrats in the past midterms is to say national security, we have you, we are your people, keep us. >> it may be democrats have other things on their minds. that's what we will discuss ahead, tax returns, business dealings, stormy daniels, the travel ban and more. the new plan from house democrats to check the president is next. 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.

as the new congress kicks off, house democrats are looking to question members of the trump administration. cummings wants testimony from wilbur ross. democrats claim that ross gave misleading testimony about a decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. the acting attorney general will be questioned as democrats look to protect the mueller probe. there could be fireworks when and if democrats hear from

interior secretary ryan zinke. they are looking into whether he lied about his real estate dealings. i want to start with you, nick. if there's one thing that i keep hearing from folks, at least from the public that we speak to about the investigations, there's a certain measure of fatigue that can set in. a lot of americans just want the answer. they don't want to know all the blow by blow. they want to know, is this person corrupt and should we fire them. how do democrats manage this without it feeling so wired and so jacked up that people tune out? >> what they have to do is center it around the major issues that are involved. whether it's immigration, whether it's health care, it's voting rights. whether it's plain honesty. they have to focus these things. you have committee es with differing jurisdiction.

there's trump's tax returns. you have two committees that could wind up getting those tax returns. there's the one that is the committee that is lookin aing ae russia matter, there's the appropriations committee. what we have to do is take the tax returns and put them in terms of the real issues. one is the ee mclause which prohibits the president from obtaining benefit from a foreign government. the tax returns relate to that. he can only obtain those benefits with the consent of congress. this is a classic area where congress has a responsibility to go in and look at the returns. the same can be said for russian investigation in terms of what is motivating donald trump to conspire with the russian government during the campaign? why is he so involved with the russians? >> adam schiff, the incoming chair of the house intelligence committee, said his top question if he could ask -- if he could get one question ask and

answered, that's the question. do the russians have anything on the president? professor, i wonder how you see the most logical pay forward to deal with this. there are a number of committees who could say go after the tax returns, judiciary, intelligence, any number of them could. i imagine it wouldn't look good for democrats to act or seem like they are pouncing now that they have this oversight. >> there's a coordinated strategy among the committees that we are hearing that the democrats have laid out their priorities with in this regard. i think you have to pursue these investigations, perhaps these subpoenas -- definitely the subpoenas that will come down the pike, alongside a legislative agenda where they are pursuing and trying to implement and legislate to the concerns of everyday, ordinary people. they need to put forward a political agenda and a policy agenda that speaks to the

situation of the country and show they can govern. those things have to happen simultaneously. what's interesting is the standard that we hold democrats by. i'm an independent. i will say that up front. the worry about the democrats pouncing isn't a worry that was -- did anyone say gowdy was pouncing around benghazi? it's always the case the worry about the democrats overreaching. when we have experienced over and over and over again republicans just behaving badly. what we need to see -- just to cut to the chase -- is pursue your constitutional duty, do what you have to do and supposed to do and put forward an agenda to help the country. >> i couldn't agree with. making it rain with subpoenas is something that is going to be a lot of displeasure to the average american. they will see democrats in the same light. resist is not a winning strategy.

>> i will let you finish. we should say even congressman cummings has said he is not going to be handing out subpoenas like party favors. >> i love that. which is great. it's on that line but it's good. here comes the real duty. do something for the american public. that's the way you can go out and win those hearts and minds of the moderates, even some on the right saying that, i voted for trump but i'm not seeing anything change in my life. that's where you move the needle for the average american is by showing them you can impact their daily life. >> can we dig into the idea of the average american? there was a "new york times" editorial called the people versus donald trump. in it among other things he writes, quote, the united states has never had a president as demonstrably unfit for the office as trump. it is becoming clear that 2019 is likely to be dominated by a single question, what are we going to do about it?

i wonder who we mean when we say the people. there are a number of the people who voted for donald trump and who are okay with the agenda and who want to see the president's agenda continue. they would like some of the loudness -- the volume to come down. but i wonder what the people actually want in terms of investigations, subpoenas, oversight as opposed to what the professor said, just getting stuff done. >> right. i think we look at polling numbers, it's 40% of the people on any given day that want the president's agenda to move forward. half of those people think he is crazy in the way he is going about the work. i think that what i'm hearing and seeing is that people want congress and they want the government to actually work. what that means in this case is for there to be a check and balance on the white house. as long as the democrats proceed in a way where they are saying, you guys resist -- it did work in the midterms. the democrats took back the house. they took it back as a mandate

to come in and say, we're going to be a check and balance with this administration to make sure things are being done the right way. as long as they are presenting their work in that way, people will be happy about it. >> it's one thing to say it, but to do it. that's the toughest. no american consumes cable news at the rate of many of us here do. it takes a while to trickle down. even congressman cummings' remark about not making -- handing out subpoenas like party favors, it will take a while to make its way down to the average person working two jobs, a woman working two jobs because her husband is unemployed. white men out of work is one of the biggest problems. >> that's a problem we have to discuss in another hour. talk about consuming cable news. you gave us another subject for an hour of cable news. you can't do that. our time is limited. our time is up with nick.

we appreciate you making time for us. there's one more thing that i would like to discuss when we come back. i am fascinated by this. ellen may have come to his defense, but kevin hart will not host the oscars. how the backlash against this comedian is different from others we have seen. stay close. spending time with the grandkids every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

the 76th annual golden globes are tonight on nbc. that means the oscars are right around the corner hosted by someone other than kevin hart. he pulled out last month after homophobic tweets from his past resurfaced. he used the word gay as a slur and suggested that he would hit his son if he caught him playing with a doll house. last month, he tweeted, quote, i have made the choice to step down from hosting this year's oscars. i sincerely apologize to the lgbtq community. hart said he apologized in the past for making these jokes. vulture found he has yet to actually say he is sorry for telling those jokes. he has said he would avoid retelling them today. now ellen is facing backlash after she welcomed hart on her

show, forgave him and said she personally called the oscars to have him back as a host. joining us now here at the label is lola oganate. what do you make of this? i'm fascinated by this. let me give you run reason why. there's the homophobic homophob >> right. >> there is also the black aspect of this. very few african-americans have hosted the academy awards. take a look at the list. sammy davis, jr., was first to co-host. then richard pryor co-hosted. whoopie goldberg hosted four times. chris rock has hosted twice. this is just a few years after the oscars "so white" controversy. >> right. >> there is a lot wrapped up in this. how do you see it? >> interestingly enough race plays another role in the discussion. the backlash ellen received primarily came from year people of color who felt she was not being an ally for people of color. she was coming from a place of

privilege when she granted kevin hart the proverbial pass saying because you are my friend, we hang out, we ski in aspen, you cannot be a homophobic. you are absolved of all sin. people of color, primarily people in the lgbtq community said there was a problem. >> ellen needs to take four, five, six. i completely echo what you are saying. it reeks of white privilege. here is the thing. this is problematic. they can make it be just jokes but somewhere in america a little boy is getting beaten by his father because the father thinks he's gay or being thrown in a trash can. these are issues that happened in people's lives every day. to joke about it and kind of brush it off like ha, ha, ha is putting young people at risk in

ways that we are not talking about and having real conversations. 40% of the homeless youth population of lgbtq youth are black kids. >> true. >> this is for the black community and we need to take it seriously. ellen, just because she's gay doesn't mean she's an ally across the board. i'm frustrated about this. >> you can't discount the fact that ellen has been a pioneer and has been instrumental in main streaming the idea of being a lesbian and being okay with it. she lost an incredible amount when she came forward and said, yes, i am gay. that said, ellen, as you are saying, is not in a position to absolve anyone from sin. kevin hart hasn't been vocal about his apologies. he said, i have apologized in the past. those have been qualified. >> he's done nothing. he could have worked for g.l.a.d. who is reaching out to him. so if he wanted to humble

himself he could do work with year kids of color. >> g.l.a.d. didn't say he should not host the oscars, but said he should make ab an affirmative state and not even fall on his sword but say, i'm sorry, i have grown, this is where my head is at. the art of celebrity apology is evolving. it's fascinating. that doesn't mean it's unworthy. the way we are talking about it now is different than ever. >> he hasn't evolved. we shouldn't commend him going on ellen. el forgiving him. all of that. i'm a fan of forgiveness. we need more in today's society. we live in an uncivil society. i just think we are in a moment where it was good of ellen to do this. but, again, i'm not a member of the black community. i don't understand entirely. i know as a member of the indian-american community a lot of young indian-american men and women face discrimination within

their own families when they try to come out or supress those feelings. my heart is there. i think it was a step too far when she called and said to reinstate him as a host. that's where she went wrong. >> it's interesting, these words have consequences. you alluded to the fact that young kids have been thrown in trash cans. lee daniels told me about appearing in his mother's high heels and his father being so turned off by it he threw his child in the trash can. kids are beaten, bullied into suicide because of this. it's not okay. this is hurtful. more than 40% of young lgbtq teens have seriously considered suicide. this is deeply problematic. >> thanks for the conversation. we need to make time also for the president. moments ago the president spoke on the white house south lawn before his departure for camp david. as you know, we've got a series of meetings taking place in

washington now trying to figure out a way forward to re-open the entire federal government. let's listen to what he had to say before boarding his flight to camp david. >> the numbers were fantastic. the best numbers we have had in many years. it shocked wall street analysts. it didn't shock me. i know what's going on. but the jobs numbers were beyond anybody's expectations. really, hundreds of thousands more than your tops. that was a great thing. if you remember the past administration said you would need a wand to bring back manufacturing jobs. well, manufacturing jobs are coming back at a very high level. we had a tremendous manufacturing jobs report. we are very happy to see that. we have worked hard. we have many companies coming back into the united states. many car companies going to michigan, pennsylvania, ohio,

and other places. they're coming back into the united states. in most cases they have left and now they are coming back in. so we're very happy about that. i'm going to camp david. we'll be discussing many topics. north korea, the china trade deal which is coming along very well -- both of those suggests coming along very, very well. we'll obviously be discussing the wall which is desperately needed, even if you read some of the papers that don't report accurately of which there are many, but a couple in particular. they say the surge to come into our country has never been stronger. it's very unfair to people that want to come in legally. but the search has never been stronger. we have to build a wall or a barrier. the barrier could be steel instead of concrete. that may be better.

i'm willing to do that so our great steel companies which are back in business. they were doing very poorly when i took office. now they are doing well. a lot of steel workers working have never had a chance of getting a job in the steel industry. our steel industry was dying. now it's very vibrant. i intend to call the head of united states steel and a couple of our great steel companies to have them come up with a plate or a design of a beautiful steel product which we now make here and we'll use that as our barrier. so we are trying to do everything possible to get money to our incredible people. but many of those incredible people agree with me and they say make sure you win this battle. this is a very important battle to win from the standpoint of safety, number one. defining our country and who we

are. also from the standpoint of dollars. this wall will pay for itself many times during the course of a year. the money we are talking about is very small compared to the return. you will receive a return many times during the course of the year. that's the kind of numbers we are talking about. most importantly, it's about safety. it's about security for our country. it's about stopping human traffickers. it's about stopping drugs. so we have to have it. got to have it. we have no choice. it's not a question. you think i like doing this? i don't like doing this. we have no choice. we have to have it. >> mr. president -- [ inaudible ] >> i can relate. i'm sure the people that are on the receiving end will make adjustments. they always do.

people understand what's going on. many of those people that won't be receiving a paycheck, many of those people agree 100% with what i'm doing. i will tell you, i just saw a poll. 75% -- it was on fox. i saw a poll. 75% said that immigration is so important. it is. it's a very big issue. >> are you declaring a national emergency? >> i can't hear you. >> what's the point of having the shutdown? >> i may declare a national emergency dependent on what happens over the next few days. we have a meeting -- vice president pence and a group will be going to a certain location. you know where that is. they'll have another meeting. i don't expect to have anything happen at that meeting, but i think we'll -- nor does the vice president. but i think we're going to have some very serious talks come monday, tuesday, wednesday. we have to have border security.

if we don't have border security, we are going to be crime-ridden and it will get worse and worse. it was so sad watching the funeral of the slain police officer yesterday. officer singh. that was a very sad thing. this is going on in many places. over the course of -- if you go back to the year 2000, we have thousands of people that have been killed by illegal immigration, by people coming in to the country illegally and killing our citizens. we can't have it. we can't have it. >> mr. president, will federal workers get a paycheck on february 11? >> we'll see whether or not it happens. we'll see if it's settled. >>. [ inaudible ] republican senators -- >> i will say this. i have tremendous support within the republican party. if you look at congress you saw with all of the numbers you saw