it's like you are happily disagreeable. it's my favorite thing. sunday night. steve: exactly 9 eastern. >> sandra: that's it for us. back on tv tomorrow at noon eastern and here is harris. >> harris: this is happening right now. we are awaiting the start of the white house press briefing as bipartisan senators are set to release their immigration plan despite push back from the president and a government shut down looming. we're going outnumbered overtime now. i'm harris faulkner. as they bring up that picture, you will see that the room is filling up now where they will hold that white house press briefing. the logjam over immigration is expected to be a hot topic at today's briefing. which could kick off at any moment now so we are going to stay with that. this as demonstrators are calling for dreamer's bill to dissend upon capitol hill, so-called gang of six. three republicans, three democrats. look at your screen. there they are. they are set to unwrap their immigration fix which they

say addresses dreamers and border security. dreamers have to border v. that border security too. the wall. democrats saying they will vote against the proposed stop gap measure to keep the government open past friday if a daca fix is not attached. each political side blaming the other, watch. >> it makes no sense for democrats to try and bring us to a shut down to try to cut off chip funding for states running out of money like washington and kentucky and other states. i hope cool heads hopefully will prevail on this thing. >> only person in washington i believe said would be good to shut down the government was the president himself. i don't think that's what the american people want. it's certainly thought what the democratic caucus wants. >> harris: chief white house correspondent mike emanuel joins us from capitol hill. mike? >> harris, good afternoon to you. this proposal out there to keep the government up and running to avoid a government shut down would extend government funding 28 days through february 16th. it would extend the

children's health insurance program for six years and it would hold off some obamacare taxes. the senate majority leader is warning democrat will opposinopposing this plan. >> some have intimated that democrats will filibuster any funding bill whatsoever over the issue of illegal immigration. i find it difficult to believe that my democratic colleagues would want to shut down the government for american citizens and vote down a six year reauthorization of health insurance for american children all over illegal immigration. >> passions are running high on capitol hill. protesters pushing for a deal for so-called dealers. people brought to this country illegally by their parents. senate democratic leaders notes his side has its priorities, too. >> we will do everything we can to avoid a shut down we will do everything we can

but the need of opioid addiction and helping the veterans and social security and rural infrastructure and defense and, of course, the dreamers remain hanging out with this proposal. >> there is also the concern about the impact on the u.s. military, funding the government a few weeks at a time, this would be the fourth stop gap measure since october 1st and the chairman of the house armed services committee says the military is being held hostage for other priorities. >> the problem is you've got some people who will only agree to that if they get their way on some other issue like immigration, daca, or funding for e.p.a. or something else. so, if we could just vote on the merits of this issue, the military would be taken care of and then we could go debate the other issue. >> there is a sense that if this continuing resolution can pass the house it would be difficult for a number of senate democrats to oppose it when you consider this big children's health

insurance extension definitely running high, harris. >> harris: yeah, six more years for chip, tough for democrats, i would imagine, to walk away from. but we shall sees a you said. mike emanuel, thank you. for more, let's bring in my first guest, principle white house decket raj shaw. good to see you today. let's get started with where the president is on immigration deal. you have a bipartisan gangs of six about to roll out. if that doesn't look like the answer, will the president back a continuing resolution? >> well, we are supportive of the continuing resolution that's going to be introduced in the house of representatives. we think it's very important to fund the government, to fund our national security priorities make sure the government is kept open. on the separate issue of the bipartisan deal that you are saying is being proposed, we feel like it doesn't meet our standards. there was a meeting last week in which we came together, bipartisan house

and senate, democrats and republicans, talked about the need to engage four issues on any kind of immigration deal. that was daca, that was also ending chain migration, ending the visa lottery and real border security. and, frankly, this proposal only handels one of those issues. it doesn't give us real border security. it doesn't end the visa lottery. and it doesn't have significant chain migration reform. so it's not one that this white house can support. >> harris: well, and we saw representative or excuse me, we have seen some in the republican party that i that the president night not sign this cornyn of texas i'm pointing to. does the president like the house version with bob goodlatte better than the senate version? just looking for some answers, some way to go forward here. women, look, we like the proposal these two sides republican democrats and republicans came together on last week in the early part of the week. some of those proposals are seen in the goodlatte 34erb. measure. we want to see something that ends the visa lottery.

we want to make sure that people who come in this country are the best and the brightest. that's why we want to end chain migration. we want the best and brightest regardless of country of origin, regardless of race or any other consideration. we really want the folks that have the best educational standards, the best skills to help improve our economy and meet skills gaps and employment gaps. we need workers in this growing economy. we believe our reforms are the best way to do that. >> harris: all right. you may know or may not know now but i'm going to tell you senator lindsey graham, of course, hot on this issue of trying to get a deal. he is talking about two trumps in the white house doing a daca deal. one one direction and the other in the other direction. he said steven miller the advisor in the white house is really running things. what do you say to senator graham? >> that's ridiculous. it's because you saw two different reactions from the white house because have you two separate deals. one was a strong deal that

actually provided border security, provided serious reforms to move us toward merit based immigration, which is what we had at the beginning of the week. then at the end of the week, senator durbin and graham's proposals did none of that i will give you one example. look at the issue of border security. the department of homeland security says they need $18 billion to get started on the border wall, which is necessary to secure our southern border. this deal only provides $1.6 billion. that's less than 10%. how is that serious? so, with respect to senator graham, he is proposing something that is a fraction of what we actually need to get the job done and secure this country's border and protect us from public safety threats or terrorism threats or other issues that could happen. and, frankly, we're not going to support something that doesn't get the job done and doesn't fix the problem. >> harris: i want to quote him directly senator graham that the president is getting bad advice among his staff. we will move on. that spending gap measure, by the way, only gets you another 30 days, february 16th.

that again is why it is so critical to have these conversations and not let the democrats bust the deal up by not coming to the table on friday. let's talk about steve bannon if we can. the associated press raj is reporting today there was realtime back and forth while steve bannon was testifying in house committee meeting yesterday and defying the questioners whether he would take any questions about the white house or transition period there was open line of some sort of communication back with the white house. who was on the white house end? >> well, our white house counsel's office will always talk to folks from various congressional committees or talk to potential witnesses or their attorneys. let's just step back and look at the facts here. for decades now, administrations from both parties have used -- have made sure that when congress asks for questions and information that can come upon areas of confidentiality, that they discuss it with us before hand and we accommodate them through the process. that didn't happen in this

case. the committee went ahead and asked questions about issues that frankly they hadn't discussed with us. the white house did have communications with mr. bannon's attorneys and said that we want the scope of these questions to remain in the areas that they had discussed and we discussed these issues further with the committee. this is what we have done with other congressional committees. it's what we have done for years on other investigations. >> harris: you know, you kind of have a weird situation here though. steve bannon already talked to an author and it's in a book what many of those questions would have been about. they are going to get another bite at the apple u does the white house, is the white house's position that you will continue to block him on asking things about the white house in transition or has your attorney pool there had a chance to talk with the house intel committee about where they want to go and then right the ship on what you are saying is the protocol? >> our position is that we want our attorneys to be able to talk to the committee and get them all the information that they're requesting. the principles that we're

talking about are constitutional. they go back decades. they are going to go forward decades. they will don't matter just for this investigation or for this matter or for this congressional committee or for this president. these are long-standing principles that we need to observe and we are asking these questions and working with congress. >> harris: raj, we anticipated and we don't know if it's going to happen yet the fake news awards. are those still coming today from the president and especially asking on the heels of that senator flake speech on the senate floor today? >> well,. >> we are very excited about the fake news awards. i know there has been excitement for weeks now. few more hours there auto will be an announcement a little bit later. i don't want to get ahead of it. >> harris: okay. winners or losers i don't know what category you put them in. they will be announced later today. i do want to get the white house response to senator jeff flake which, by the way, votes -- i was looking at the traffic service

today, upwards of 90% along with the policies of the president. yet he is on the senate floor lamb bassing the president and comparing him to joseph stalin. the response from the white house? >> well, frankly, we find that senator flake's comments disappointing. they are frankly bordering on outrageous. in a country that is totalitarian somebody who is opposing the president couldn't write a book. couldn't go on a media tour and couldn't sit on the senate floor and attack the president of the united states. we live in a free country. we disagree with those who criticize us but they are free to speak their minds. and, you know, senator flake was free to speak his mind only a few weeks ago when he went down to cuba and actually offered words of support for that oppressive regime. so, frankly, we reject senator flake's criticism. >> harris: all right. because the news is still coming, in i want to circle back to what we talked about at first with the friday deadline on government shut down what was the tone on tenure been like since last week? we had a 55-minute long meeting and then we kind of

had melt down mode and next meetings with lawmakers. where are we now with the president, with the white house, and leaders on capitol hill actually going forward and keeping the government open? >> well, let's make sure to separate conversations about immigration from conversations about the budget. the budget is something we need to fund. we need to make sure that our government stays open. we need to fund our national security and intelligence systems. we need to make sure that our military is monda funded whn you have threats overseas and issues to contend with. we are confident we can come together. enough democrats in good faith who can work with us and get this short-term funding that way over time we can get a two-year window where we can fund our military and make sure that it's not held hostage to these fights in congress. >> harris: raj shaw of the white house press team we appreciate you as a principle member being with us today. thank you very much. >> thanks for having me on. >> harris: absolutely. now the democratic response to all of this. new york congressman joe crowley chairs the house

democratic caucus. thank you for joining us, sir. we appreciate your time i we have run a few sound bites of you during our coverage here and you have been talking about what it will keep the government open. continuing resolution on the table. it gives you six more years of chip, healthcare for children. where are you now? >> i think that's very admiral. we support chip. we support long-term funding for the chip bill. but there are more things that democrats are interested in. we certainly are concerned about the dreamers and daca. we're concerned about the assistance to puerto rico and to the virgin islands american citizens suffering right now. well over 100 days past the songs and 40% of the island is still without power. unacceptable in the mainland seems to be acceptable to the american government as it pertains to puerto rico and the virgin islands. we have an opioid crisis in this country that needs to be addressed. we have pension protection that needs to be addressed

as well there are a myriad of issues that democrats are concerned about. republicans have been able to demonstrate they can pass short-term spending bills. we know that. >> harris: are you saying you wouldn't support it? >> i don't support this bill. it's not reflective of the needs of the american people. it's not reflective of the democratic office. >> harris: excuse me. i want to step in with this question. i want to remind white house press briefing is coming up at any minute. i want to make sure i get the hot points with you, congressman. how do you talk to your constituents if you walk away with a six-year deal on chip and a continued resolution? i mean, that is hitting some of the children that are caught between medicaid and their parents being able to pay for health insurance six years on that. that's one question. >> american people know squarely where democrats are when it comes to the issue of healthcare and providing for healthcare. >> harris: yeah, you have to provide it you have to give it to them. >> republicans control both the house and the senate and

the white house. they have total control of government. they can pass whatever bill they want without democratic support. we know that but if they want to pass the bill that has the support of -- broad support of the democratic caucus, it needs to be reflective of the values of our caucus. reflect the values of the american people. we believe this bill falls short. it has good aspects to it the chip funding is good. keeping government open. we want to keep government open. but it's the responsibility of the majority party or the republicans. the only person who has said that there is any good to a shut down is president trump. he said a good government shut down would be good for the american people. i don't believe that to be the case. >> harris: he didn't say that about friday. he didn't say that about this cycle. >> he has said that consistently about using the threat of shutting down government. we'll don't believe in that politics. >> harris: in the recent cycle and i don't know if you were able to hear or watch raj shaw who is the principle deputy press secretary who just joined me, he says the president supports this continued resolution. so that would not be the case that the president would want to see a shut

down. one thing and tell me if i missed it, congressman, because i want to know if you said it. military and spending for that. are you concerned if you can't separate out daca by friday and get a bill on that after the spending bill goes through. if you are concerned at all about spend on the military. >> certainly we believe our national defense is critical. we also believe that spending domestic solid critical as well for the folks and the values that we hold dearly. we want to keep government open. we want to see that government stays open and if republicans need democratic votes to do that, they will talk to democrats. they are not talking to democrats right now. they are simply -- they announced the bill last night without talking to a democrat. >> harris: all right. i'm going it step in here. congressman joe crowley from the great state of new york. appreciate your time. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> harris: white house press briefing with white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders. let's watch. >> pro-jobs, pro-worker,

pro-growth economic agenda. thanks to the passage of the trump tax cuts, agent k will be now be able to expense 100 percent of the investments they make in the year they buy it investments back into the company will be 50% higher than this time last year that means millions of dollars will be invest growing their business rather than propping up the bloated government in washington. when they buy more trucks and equipment for rental fleet they hire more technicians to service them, buy more service vehicles to trap transport those techs from customer site to customer site and buy more parts from suppliers to keep rental fleet going. all this economic activity spurred by the tax bill will result in more jobs, higher wages and a brighter future. the president looks forward to spending time with. so workers who are reaping the benefits of the tax cuts and reforms and we know this is just the beginning. on friday we're excited to announce that the president will become the first sitting president to address the march for life from the

white house live via satellite. this will take place from the rose garden. the president is committed to protecting the life of the unborn and he is excited to be part of this historic event. now we have a guest here with us today from the department of justice ed owe callahan is here to discuss the section 11 report which was released yesterday by the department of justice and the department of homeland security. i won't steal mr. call handle's thunder the report highlights the need for congress to adopt the immigration reform identified in the administration's priorities. i will bring him up now so he can make a statement, answer a couple of questions, and as usual, i know you will all be on your best behavior and ask him questions on this topic only and then i will be happy to come back up and answer other questions on news of the day. ed? >> thanks. >> good afternoon. my name is ed o callahan i'm the assistant deputy

attorney general in the justice department's national security division. in my capacity as principle deputy, i assist the acting assistant attorney general in the supervision of the 350 dedicated investigators and prosecutors who carry out the department's highest priorities, protecting the united states from threats to our national security. i have been with the national security division since november of last year. previously from 1999 to 2008, i was an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york. from 2005 to 2008, i was co-chief of the terrorism and national security unit in the southern district of new york and some of the cases i worked on, of course, during that time included the investigation into the 9/11 attacks that occurred while i was assistant united states attorney in the organized crime and terrorism unit in the southern district of new york. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about yesterday's release of the department of justice and department of homeland

security section 11 report. the report titled after section 11 of president trump's executive order 13780 protecting the nation from terrorist entry into the united states was a collaborative effort between the doj and dhs to respond to eo 13780's directive to provide information to the american people regarding the number of foreign nationals charged with or convicted of terrorism-related offenses or removed from the united states based on terrorism-related or other national security reasons. the justice department's national security division maintains a list of individuals convicted of international terrorism related charges u.s. federal courts between september 11th, 2001 and december 31st of 2016. as indicated in the report, as of december 31st, 2016, there are 549 individuals on that list of convictions of

terrorism international terrorism-related offenses. a subsequent dhs analysis of those 549 individuals convicted of international terrorism-related offenses, determined that approximately 73% or 402 of these 549 individuals were foreign-born. a further breakdown of the u.s. citizenship status of these individuals at the time of their respective convictions shows that 254 were not united states citizens. 148 were foreign-born naturalized and received u.s. citizenship and 147 were citizens, u.s. citizens by birth. i will point out that one the cases that's highlighted in the section 11 report refers to a defendant who we convicted in the southern district of new york named uzar parocha. he came into the united states in 1980 as a family member of a legal permanent

resident he was ultimately convicted of providing material support to al quaid, a case that i supervised when i was chief of the terrorism unit in the southern district of new york. the evidence in that trial showed that mr. parocha attempted to assist other individuals affiliated with al qaeda to try to enter the united states based on false statements and immigration documents and, in fact, he assisted and took on the pore zona of one of the individuals who he was attempting to try to get back into the united states to commit terrorist acts here. the individual statements provided by that individual demonstrated that he was attempting to come back into the united states to commit attacks on gas stations in new york, my hometown. and by the fact that we were able to prosecuted him, it stopped that attempt to engage in additional terrorist attacks here in the united states.

additional items included in your report, demonstrate that the u.s. immigration customs enforcement provided information that shows that there have been approximately 1716 removals of aliens since september 11st, #bg 1. a cause of national security concern, designation that is determined by ice within the department of homeland security. obviously there are certain times where although there are national security concerns about foreign born individuals in the united states. a federal prosecution for one reason or another is not the super bowl way to go about dealing with the threat posed by that individual so the immigration authorities have other tools at their disposal, one of them being the removal tool which is cited by ice in the section 11 report. it is the case that the threats to our national security are not showing any signs of relenting in fiscal

year 2017 alone dhs encountered 2554 individuals on terrorist watch lists, formerly known as the fbi's terrorist screening database. those individuals were, of course, attempting to get into the united states. additional importance statistics provided by dhs and documented in the report include the fact that between october 1st, 2011, and september 30th, 2017, a total of 355,345 noncitizen offenders were administratively arrested after previously being convicted of an aggravated felony or two more more crimes each punishable by more than one year, a regular felony. during that same time period, according to dhs, 372,098 noncitizen offenders were removed from the united states after conviction of an aggravated felony or two or more felonies. and between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2017, customs and border protection, cdp identified

and prevented the boarding of 73,261 foreign travelers on flights destined for the united states who may have presented an immigration or security risk. in a statement yesterday about the report, attorney general sessions indicated there are currently thousands of terrorism-related investigations into thousands of people in the united states including hundreds of people who came here as refugees. in addition, citing surveys previously commissioned by doj components, the report noted there are an estimated 23 to 27 honor killings every year in the united states, and that there are an estimated approximately half a million women and girls in the united states at risk of undergoing abhorrent patrol car tell us of female genital mutilation. in october of last year, the trump administration laid out a series of immigration policy objectives to ensure safe and lawful admission to the united states, defend the safety and security of our country and protect --

merit based immigration system. from the cases i have worked on, i know that foreign terrorist organizations transnational criminal organizations and other individuals and entities that wish to harm the united states undoubtedly seek to exploit weaknesses in our immigration system when it benefits them in accomplishing their unlawful schemes. president trump's immigration policy is designed to serve the interest of national security. enhanced vetting and screening and continuing screening promote the discovery of information that would help immigration and law enforcement authorities identify foreigners who may pose national security threats to the american people. rather than basing admission decisions on programs that lack accountability like diversity visa lotteries and extended family chain migration. adopting a merit based system rewards skills and

qualities that include but are not limited to education, english language proficiency or fluency. and/or job skills. as a prosecutor tasked with the protecting our nation's security i know some of our cases have involved exploitation of vulnerabilities in our current immigration system. the attorney general is committed to restoring law and order in our immigration system so that we can address and work to eliminate the vulnerabilities that can be exploited by those seeking to undermine our public safety. those are my brief remarks. i'm happy to take some questions. sir, in the middle? >> thank you. do you find it alarming that more than 25% of people convicted of international terrorism related charges were natural born u.s. citizens and what is the administration doing to address that issue? >> so, there is a department of justice's enforcement of the international terrorism laws are focused on the conduct of that found to be committed by individuals no

matter, you know, where they are born. the statistics that you have for the first time compiled in this way in response to the executive order and directives therein demonstrate that the international terrorism offices that we have prosecuted in the national security division achieve convictions on that there is 73% foreign-born. we're going to prosecute. anyone that we can make cases against that are posing threats to the national security of the united states. the statistics that are brought before you in the section 11 report respond directly to the directive in the executive order about international terrorism offenses and those are the statistics that my division in the national security division keep. >> in the middle here. >> thank you, sir. >> my question is. >> okay, you are next. >> very simply this. has there been any change in the administration's stated policy about using

guantanamo in dealing with international terror at all? >> i'm not aware of any change in the administration's stated use of the guantanamo. the administration is committed to enforcing our terrorism laws and any law that we can against anyone who will present harm and threat to the united states. there are considerations as to how any potential case may be addressed so that any threat that is posed by any individual is neutralized. the administration and attorney general sessions are committed to consider all options as to how we can neutralize any threats posed by anyone that may fall into a terrorism category. >> so guantanamo is still going to be around for a while and there is no plans to close it at all? >> i'm not aware of any administration plans with respect to guantanamo. can i tell you it is still around.

sir? >> thank you. i'm hoping you can explain some of your logic here a little further because you talked about the immigration system and reforming immigration system to protect americans in the united states. but a lot of the crimes you are using as examples to justify changing immigration system are crimes that were, you know, attempted crimes or would have taken place outside of the united states, people wanting to travel outside the united states to by providing support to fighters outside of the united states. and i understand there is a nexus there with u.s. forces in those regions. but, the point is to reform the immigration system to protect americans. can you provide more information, more statistics that show doing so would have prevented people from coming in who committed more

crimes inside the united states? do you have maybe better examples than what you are trying to say? >> so,. >> this is the first iteration of this report. we in working together with dhs certainly expect to have more statistics and address some of the issues we weren't able to address in this initial report in future iterations of this report. in terms of the cases that are reported, i mean, if you do look at the cases, some of which are included in this section 11 report, there are certainly cases that relate to conduct that has been committed in the united states. conduct that is in support of, for instance, al qaeda or isis. so there are plenty of examples of conduct that was actually committed in the united states which would in a way that we define it qualify as international terrorism investigation because it relates to a foreign terrorist organization or terrorism conduct. so, secondly, i mean,

thirdly, i would say, of course we're trying to prevent through any way we can, the administration, of course supports this. we are trying to prevent terrorist attacks. and so the most successful prosecution that i have ever been involved with are ones where we actually are able to stop it at a conspiratorial stage so there are individuals who clearly through their conduct and activity and what they are saying are agreeing to commit a terrorist act in furtherance of the goals of a foreign terrorist organization. but we in conjunction with our law enforcement partners are able to prevent it, convict them and they will be included in our international terrorism. >> i'm just trying to figure out and maybe i'm not understanding this, how preventing people from coming in who were conspiring, for instance, to go fight in syria would have protected people in the united states?

is international terrorism crimes and they weren't all -- they weren't all, you know, planning attacks in the united states. they were planning things overseas? and you want to reform immigration system it seems to be focus on people did to people in the united states. >> so, the administration immigration or reforms focus on getting more information. enhanced screening, enhanced vetting, more information, more agents, more officers asking more questions, proper prosecutors, prosecuting more cases. all of that in conjunction with all the other national security efforts by the administration will lead to a safer -- a safer united states. i firmly believe that. and i know the fact that there are individuals here in the united states that

are willing in support of -- in support of isis-related philosophies engage in and talk about engaging in committing acts here in the united states that we're able to prevent. i think that makes the american people safer and i know the trump administration does. >> given the discussion today is focused on national security. i would like to ask about national security as it relates to the arrest of that exfbi agent released. can you talk about why action was not taken against him sooner? >> so i will say that that is a very important arrest as demonstrated in the complaint. that was unsealed related to that case that former cia officer retained classified information. as that case proceeds through the courts, i would expect more information about the conduct that underlies those charges in the complaint will come out. but, as of now, i have just -- that case was

investigated before. i came to the national security division. it's an important case. it goes to illegal retention of classified information and so he is going to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. >> one more on the r0r9. yesterday when the report was released the white house put out a fact check that found that approximately three out of four individuals convicted of international terrorism related charges in the time period studied are foreign born individuals who entered the united states through our immigration system. my understanding was that this -- that those numbers that you cited to us included people who had been extradited here to face trial, which is they didn't enter through our immigration system. so my question is, is that correct and if so how many of the three quarters were actually immigrants? >> so the data that is included focuses on foreign born individuals -- all the international terrorism. just to be clear the

international terrorism offenses is something that is cat gore rised by the national security division based on specific provisions of the united states attorney's manual, i don't want to get into too many details but there are two categories of offenses. category 1 offenses that list code -- sections of the federal criminal code that are -- in and of themselves labeled international terrorism offenses. and then there are category 2 offenses that are not -- that do not qualify as category 1 offenses. but those offenses are committed and individuals are convicted of those offenses like false statements or obstruction of justice that are committed in the course of an international terrorism investigation. so those are the ones that are reported in the 549. some of which include foreign born. some of which include foreign born but naturalized u.s. citizens and some that include u.s. citizens. there is, undoubtedly because i have within involved in a lot of the cases. certain number of those foreign-born individuals who have been brought into the united states by extradition

or otherwise to face charges. but the underlying important fact about those cases is that we were able to prove that those individuals committed terrorism offices against the united states and are now serving either life sentences or very long sentences that will neutralize their threat to the united states going forward because we were able to convict them under an international terrorism statute here in the united states. >> thanks so much. >> thank you, all. >> thank you, mr. o' callaghan. we will jump into questions today's. >> there have been suggestions in the media today that the president does, in fact, suffer from heart disease, his weight indicated yesterday. does the white house stand by dr. jackson's report? >> absolutely. dr. jackson has been a white

house physician for the last 12 years trusted by president bush, president obama, and now president trump. he is the only doctor that has weighed in on this matter that has actually examined the president and and so i think a doctor that has spent the amount of time with the president as dr. jackson has is not only the most qualified but the only credible source when it comes to diagnosing any health concerns. and we support what he said yesterday 100 percent that the president is in excellent health. and i think he exhausted just about every question that you guys had and showed probably that he is in pretty good health, too. to stand up here for an hour and take questions. john? >> not too long ago senator jeff flake of arizona took the senate floor to again denounce the president, this time likening him to stalin in his approach toward the media saying he has inspired the dictators the world

over. this is of a pair with a statement from senator john mccain saying that the president should stop attacking the press. at some point today you are supposed to give out fake news awards. what do you think of what senators flake and mccain have said and what's up with the awards? >> in response to senator flake specifically, i found it quite interesting that he is coming out to attack this president considering he is one that was recently defending an actual oppressing regime. he went to cuba a few weeks ago and served as mouth piece for the oppressive cuban government. he is not credit siding the president because is he against oppression. is he criticizing the president because he has terrible poll numbers. and he is, i think, looking for some attention. i think it's unfortunate and certainly i think our position here at the white house is that we welcome access to the media every day. i'm standing right here taking questions. the president does so

regularly. and to act as if we are anything but open to that back and forth exchange is utterly ridiculous. >> following on what senator mccain said the awards. >> i haven't had a chance to hear what senator mccain said. >> the awards. >> will it be later today. >> we'll be looking for that. >> i know you are all waiting to see if you are big winners, i'm sure. >> indeed. there have been frustration from both republicans and democrats who were in the room yesterday with steve bannon when he was being asked about some of the claims that he has made about this administration and the president's family. specifically from the criticism aimed at the white house because of guidance that has supposedly been given as to what can and cannot be said, specific topics that are off limits and the scope of executive privilege. without getting into the details of that, can you at least define for us what the white house is telling

attorneys fall into the scope of executive privilege. >> yeah. i can tell that you this white house is following the same practice that many white houses before us have, that have gone back decades, that there is a process that you go through any time you have congressional inquiries touching upon white house, the congress should consult with the white house prior to obtaining confidential material. this is part of a judicial recognized process. we want to follow through that. we have been fully cooperative with the ongoing investigations and we are going to continue to do so and we encourage the committees to work with us to find the appropriate accommodation in order to ensure congress obtains all the information that they are looking for. but there is a process that this works through. it's not just isolated to this instance. executive privilege is something that goes back decades because it's something that needs to be protected, whether it's during this administration

or one 20 years from now. we want to make sure we follow the process and the precedent and that's all that's taking place here. >> the scope of that executive privilege not just the time in the administration but time after and transition is broader than it has been in past administrations? >> i can't speak to the specific details of that can i simply talk about the process and we are following the same process and past practice of previous administrations. >> are there categories. >> again, i can't get moot details. can i only discuss the process. ashley? >> thank you, following on that question, there is a report out today that steve bannon's attorney was relaying the questions asked by the defendant in intel committee in realtime to the white house. so my questions are who was he relaying the questions to? is that something the white house specifically asked his attorneys to do and if so why did the white house think that was a necessary step in handling bannon's testimony? >> that's the same process that is typically followed. sometimes they actually have a white house attorney present in the room, this time it was something that

was relayed via phone and, again, was following standard procedure for an instance like this and something that will likely happen again on any other number of occasions not just within this administration but future administrations. jordan? >> thanks, sarah. the house republican leadership is proposing a funding bill that would provide the government funding through february 16th and reauthorized chip for six years. is that a proposal that the white house supports? >> we do support the short-term c.r. however, that's not our first choice. we would still like to see clean funding bill, a two-year budget deal, but we do support the short-term c.r. but we're going to continue moving forward in that process. >> sarah, does the president think it's acceptable for republicans or democrats allow a government shut down at the end of the week and obviously different options here but does he think it's acceptable for a shut down to occur? >> the president certainly

doesn't want a shut down. and if one happens, i think you only have one place to look and that's to the democrats who are holding our military and our national security hostage by trying to push through other policies that have nothing to do with the budget. we would like to, again, get a budget deal done a two year budget deal a clean budget deal and then focus on negotiations. following that, that deal with finding a permanent solution to daca and responsible immigration reform. we have said that many times before. our position has not changed. >> republicans control congress, they control the white house. >> it takes 60 votes and republicans don't have 60 votes. so, democrats either need to decide that they are going to come here to do their jobs and they are going to govern and they are going to put our national security ahead of their own personal political agendas or they are not. it's really simple. and that's a decision you're going to have to ask the democrats what's more important? national security or political agendas? i can't answer that for you.

>> cecilia? >> the president certainly doesn't want to shut down last year he tweeted that a shut down would be a good thing so what caused his view to evolve. >> look, it's never been a preference of this duration. it wasn't then. it isn't now. and again, if that does happen, the blame, the fault will all lie at one place because we would like to see a budget deal happen. john? >> thank you, sarah. in the interview last friday max television the ambassador of pakistan, ambassador commented on the president's decision to roll back most of the aid for security assistance to the islamabad government. and he said pakistan aid more importantly and i quote pakistan wants respect. pakistan wants recognition of our work and our contribution and our sacrifices.

regarding the president's comment, pakistan has responded to the aid with, quote: lies and deceit. he simply said we won't dwell on that part because it's not beneficial to either party. your response to ambassador? >> look, our position is firm that we believe that withdrawing that aid is important. i would refer you to the state department on anything beyond that. >> you stand by the "lies and deceit" comment that the president made. >> yes. >> follow um on a couple questions here on negotiations but on the first point about steve bannon. understood your point about process and how this all works. sort of broadly, is the white house afraid of what steve bannon might say? can you hear me? >> not that i'm aware of. i think we have been pretty clear what our position is in regards to this entire process that there was absolutely no collusion. but, in terms of, you know, what he might say, i can't answer that.

i can't speculate on that. i can simply tell you that we are following the procedure whether it was in this committee or any other committee town th down the road. this is a process important to protect and that's what we are doing. >> president talked about wanting to find a bipartisan solution and you said coming to the table if there is a government shut down in, what, three days from now. does the buck stop with president trump? >> i'm not sure how it would. the president has laid out what he wants. he wants a budget deal. he wants to have republicans and democrats agree on a budget. and we're happy to talk about other things but the budget should not be tied to a political agenda that the democrats are driving. those are two very separate things. mike? >> there is legal experts are suggesting that the subpoena for bannon shows this investigation is becoming more aggressive instead of winding down. couple questions. is the president prepared investigation to last into the months to come and

following up on halle, would you encourage steve bannon to tell all like his camp is saying he will? >> look, as we have said regardless of who it is, we're going to be fully cooperative with the special counsel and encourage everybody involved in the process to be fully cooperative. the first part of your question is are we prepared? i think we have been dealing with this hoax for the better part of a year. we have to endure the ridiculousness for another month, we can certainly handle it. do the american people deserve that? no, i don't think they do. >> sarah? , in the interest of clarity white house counsel has been involved in this process. has the white house to this point actually asserted executive privilege or are you talking about the potential. >> i'm talking about the process. i can't go any further than that. >> question on the c.r., you speak of how the president would like to see a short-term cr passed? is he going to lean on the fellow republicans in the house freedom caucus to see to it that they vote for it.

>> like i u.s. is said, we support the short-term c.r. the preference is the longer two year budget deal but we support the c.r. short-term. >> answer is yes he would encourage the house freedom caucus to vote for it. >> yes like i said we support the short-term and think it is certainly better than not having that and having the government shut down as the alternative but, again, our preference would be a longer term deal, blake? >> sarah, when you look at the calendar then, january 17th, budget deal potentially that goes to february 16th, the daca expiration is up march 5th. does the president want to see a daca deal get struck before the next c.r. would end or is he willing to potentially take this up to the deadline in early march? >> look, i think what we would like to see happen is let's make a budget deal by friday and then let's come back to work aggressively on monday and make a deal on daca and responsible immigration reform. we would like to do all of those things and be happy to do them quickfully democrats

are willing to work with us and get on board. >> you also are rolling out infrastructure plan this month. if the daca, if the c.r. gets passed this week, is priority number one next week daca or trying to get support together for infrastructure? >> look, we very much want to get a deal done on daca. that's a big priority for us right now. but we can certainly manage more than one thing at a time as we are used to doing around here. and if infrastructure gets rolled out by the end of the month or the first part of next month, we will certainly be working on that as well. >> sarah? >> >> kristin. >> sarah this month president trump planning to go to florida apparently some celebrations for one year anniversary of his inauguration. is that appropriate if there is, in fact, a government shut down or we consider changing his plan? >> again, we hope that republicans and democrats will come together and that we'll have a budget deal. we still are focused on that being our top priority. if that doesn't happen and there is a schedule change, we will certainly let you

guys know. >> how does he see his role, sarah in getting the ball over the finish line. i know you are finger the at democrats. but bottom line he is the president. how does he make sure the government stays open. >> we are doing everything we can to encourage members from both sides to make sure we get a deal. the president has made very clear his number one priority is our national security and fully funding our military. and that would be obviously something of utmost importance. i would think that democrats should share that same passion and priority as the president and hopefully we don't have to, you know, go through this process come friday. >> sarah, i will take one last question. go ahead. >> thank you, sarah. north korea and south korea marched together during the winter olympics in the opening ceremonies under a unified korean flag. does the president and the white house support both north korea and south korea marching together and coming more closely together during the olympics? >> look, we see this as an

opportunity for the regime to see the value of ending its international isolation by denuclearization. we still are very much focused that that happens. this isn't the first time that the two countries have marched together. we hope this experience gives north korea an its athletes a small taste of freedom and that rubs off and is something that spreads and impacts in these negotiations and in these conversations. thanks, guys. >> harris: so that was wide ranging and at the beginning, of course, we heard a little bit about or quite a bit about, i should say, a doj enforcement focused on conduct of people in this country who are committing acts of terror. and what the doj, dhs section 11 report says about that. let's bring in my panel now. zach, former hillary clinton campaign staff and former dnc advisor. alex, former communications director for senator marco

rubio. in fact, the last time we saw each other senator aruba was on outnumbered. >> he was. >> harris: it's great to see you again. we can talk a little bit about why the white house started with a special guest today, the assistant attorney general talking about the subject of terrorism in america. >> yeah. that was a little strange to me. look, i think they are trying to build support for immigration reform around the idea that this -- we have real vulnerabilities in border security and that's why border security has to be part of any daca deal. however, the real arguments that they are trying to make in terms of chain migration and other things is an economic argument. so by mixing national security in with the larger debate, i think it confuses the issue a little bit. >> harris: zach, i don't know if you caught it but democrat congressman joe crowley was on the program with me about 30 minutes ago. you know, i pressed in, there is a continuing resolution. look, we need a budget obviously. the president as sarah huckabee sanders just said

the president doesn't want a resolution that calls for a cr. he would rather have a two year budget deal if not. democrats get six years and i don't say democrats, children in america who need the chip program for healthcare get six years for that why not go along with that what is the sticking point poor crowley and others. >> increasing funding for chip is really important. we have been calling on that for months. the republicans control the white house, the senate, and the house. they can bring that up at any time and they can pass that what we're not going to do is pit one group against a priorities against another group of priorities like increased funding for veterans, like increased funding for the opioid crisis. like fixing the pension plan as well as for providing relief for daca kids. a crisis that donald trump himself created. >> harris: are democrats, alex, in your estimation willing to at this point willing to watch the house burn down if the government closes over an issue that the president has already said is a priority for him? >> it's very bad politics for them to shut down the

government over immigration issues that are not necessary you for the core funding of the government. and republicans in the house are offering a very good deal with the extension of the chip program i think it would be wise for democrats to take that deal and keep the government open and keep negotiating with the white house over daca and immigration reform. >> harris: they have 30 more days to do it. february 16th would get them there. i can see the point though i have to say historically neither party has come to the table responsibly on immigration. so why not piecemeal it and get done what you can. >> we are coming to the table responsibly on immigration there is a bipartisan agreement. >> harris: historically, no. because otherwise we wouldn't be at this point. >> between republicans and democrats it meets the criterion that the white house set out about border security, about family edge congratulation. >> harris: the white house says it doesn't hit everything. >> now the white house also said previously bring us a bill and we will sign it so, you know, the president has to take yes for an answer. if they would like democratic votes on this bill, they need to

compromise with us, otherwise, they need to do it themselves. >> harris: real quickly seconds left is senator graham helpful in this process. >> absolutely he is helpful. a because he has the president's ear and he understands the concerns of immigration activists. we need to find common ground on this. >> harris: trying to find a deal. gentlemen, thank you for being here. we'll be right back. hi, i'm joan lunden with a place for mom every day we hear from families who partnered with a senior living advisor from a place for mom to help find the perfect place for their mom or dad

thank you so much for your assistance in helping us find a place. mom feels safe and comfortable and has met many wonderful residence and staffers. thank you for helping our family find our father a new home. we especially appreciate the information about the va aid and attendance program. i feel i found the right place. a perfect fit. you were my angel and helped guide me every step of the way thank you. the senior living advisors at a place for mom partner with thousands of families every month, listening and offering local knowledge and advice to help find the best senior living communities across the country and it won't cost you a cent. this is a free service. call today. a place for mom. you know your family. we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

can make you feel like noyour day never started.st get going with carnation breakfast essentials® high protein drink. it has 21 vitamins and minerals with 15 grams of protein to help you be your best. try our high protein drink.

>> harris: want to tell you about what's happening a little bit later in the white house today. a representative, or former

congressional representative, bob dole, who i covered very early in my career, represented the state of kansas in congress from 1961 to 1996. he's getting the congressional gold medal. there will be a ceremony at 3:00 p.m. eastern. that's what's coming up later today. i'm harris. here's dana. >> dana: negotiation on capitol hill amid growing fears of a government shutdown. as president trump prepares to face congressional leaders at a ceremony honoring former senate majority leader bob dole, republicans are floating a plan to keep the lights on past friday's midnight deadline. hello, everyone, i'm dana perino and this is "the daily briefing." tensions running high as democrats hold the budget hottage for other priority. house republicans are testing support for another stop gap measure extending into mid february. sarah sanders supporting the gop effort to keep this government running. >> we do support the