It. The only question for me is the Intelligence Committee in and of itself alone the appropriate entity, particularly since much what have they will do will be in secret, and i think that there rellments of the whole russia scandal that deserve to be in public view. This is a question here because there are so many politics as you would expect around this. Some democrats concerned that even a Bipartisan Committee would not be aggressive enough. From your point of view, do you think there needs to be an independent commission, something along the lines of the 9 11 commission . I think the question of russia trying to undermine our democracy, a direct attack by zeier, this is a new world, and we have to be prepared and know whats involved in the process of not only that but what happened in the aftermath. We have a National Security apparatus thats stuck and mired in the muck of russian connections. We have a set of circumstances where russia is engaged in trying to do this in elections in western allies this year, in france and germany. And so it seems to me that knowing the who, when, what and everything that transpired deserves an independent commission. I know my colleagues are going to work at it really hard. I dont question their commitment but theres so many different elements. Foreign relations where i sit on could be looking at Russian Foreign policy visavis russia and the effects that it has in this regard. You could be looking at it from an intelligence angle, from a judiciary angle as it relates to the election processes in this country and how russia tried to affect it. Instead of having disparate elements, a commission thats committed ultimately i think would be the the greatest course. In the absence of being able to create one because i think those calls have been rebuffed by the Republican Leadership in both the house and the senate, then we need to vigorously pursue it through each and every one of these avenues. Russia or ties to russia ended the career of a National Security adviser this week. As you know in an interview last month with the fbi general flynn initially denied discussing u. S. Sanctions with the Russian Ambassador before President Trump took office and thats not true. Hes lost his job now but do you think general flynn should face legal repercussions for potentially making false or incomplete statements to the fbi . Well, that will be for the Justice Department to pursue, but let me just say this this is not a did i minimus factor. Some have tried to brush it away. Here we are trying to get russia to understand that there are real consequences for trying to affect our elections, and i know that President Trump doesnt want to hear that. But its not a question of whether they succeeded in affecting our elections or not. The question is the mere effort of russia through Cyber Attacks and engagement trying to affect our relationship should be an issue of outrage for every citizen from the president on down and also were trying to get russia to observe the International Order which msnbc stop invading countries like ukraine, stop indiscriminately bombing civilians in aleppo, and you cant get them back into the International Order if theres a wink or nod that says dont worry about the sanctions so this is incredibly important, and i know that the president is focus ted on talking about the lying press but he should worry about those in his National Security apparatus that lied to him. Strong words. I want to turn now to to immigration, big issue domestically. Probe m when he was in office he signed an executive order that made it possible for 750,000 young people who were brought to the u. S. Illegally as children to stay and work in this country without fear of deportation. During the campaign President Trump vowed to repeal that order and he now says he finds that situation to be very difficult. Listen to his words just on friday. The daca situation is a very, very its a very difficult thing for me because, you know, i love these kids. I love kids. I have kids and grandkids, and i find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do, and, you know, the law is rough. Listening to those words it sounds like President Trump may want to find some sort of accommodation for these d. R. E. A. M. Ers as they are known. Have you reached out to him and spoken with the president on this issue . I have not, jim, although i believe the congressional hispanic caucus, the hispanic members of congress of which i am one has i believe reached out to the president. Look, i hope that that sentiment of the president has maybe the only heartfelt element of his immigration policy. These are kids who came to this country through no choice of their only the only flag they have ever pledged allegiance to is that of the United States and the only National Anthem they know is the star spangled banner and they are some of our greatest students, valedictorians, salutatorians in their schools and colleges so we need to take advantage of their human intellect and capacity to help america, so i hope the president is committed to that and sternal if he is well work with him, but i am concerned about his broader immigration policy. The latest reports that ive read of whats being proposed in essence is a mass deportation effort where you indiscriminately pursue any immigrant, not criminal immigrants which i certainly support the deportation of, but ultimately anyone who is found in an undocumented status would ultimately be apprehended and deported with due process totally eroded under the proposals that im hearing about, and thats not only going to lead to massive deportations that are going to affect every element of our society and our economic sector. Weve seen in the past in immigration raids of u. S. Citizens and legal permanent residents being unlawfully detained in violation of their constitutional rights, and the broad discretion that is being talked about giving i. C. E. Agents is going to be a real challenge in our country. Senator