staffs generally leave each other alone. i think the look back at past presidents and this border situation is something that this president he always wants to say what he s doing is unprecedented, what came before him is bad and what he s doing is good. presidents try to shape things that way but not to the degree this president has. no one has ever in my experience made it as personal as president trump has with his predecessors. i should make it clear stephen miller is the one who said that and i apologize for attributing that to the president. what he thinks we don t know. the president is doubling down, the white house is, defending this emergency declaration. so are others. let s take a look at what s going on out there. the president has the authority. yes, it is an emergency. that s been shown before. i believe at the end of the day, this wall is going to be built. this is an emergency. what are we on now, the fifth
nit-pick some of the details you ve brought to this article, it has been used twice before, first by bush 41, secondly by bush 43. bush 41 during the persian gulf war, bush 43 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. to take military construction funds and reroute them. my point to you, daniel, and charlie makes this, the president is making an in-run around congress. fiscally speaking. to try to get these funds around something they have already rejected, a prospect they have rejected. how problematic is this potentially? well, i think the courts will ultimately decide. democrats will tell you it s very problematic. and i think trump s arguments that there is a precedent for what he s doing are transparently false. you know, he said in his emergency declaration speech obama did this. we re going to use one of his. well, obama, as you said, as charlie said, didn t do anything like this. you know, he was thwarted by congress. he s now using the emergency to go around congress. and so i think
been and appropriations have been violated. asking members of congress to support his resolution to stop the president s declaration. why does hard-liner steven miller suggest the president is willing to veto it. we already have 4,000 troops on the border in light of the emergency, a decision made a year ago as we see an increasing number of people across the border as well as increasing violence in mexico. what the president is saying is, like past presidents, he could choose to ignore the crisis, the emergency as others have but that s not what he s going to do. meanwhile other trump allies rejecting that the president was defeated after the longest shutdown ever was completed without approving the money he requested. the president has authority. yes, it s a crisis in emergency along our boarder. is this moving in the right direction, is it as far as i want it to go?
and was talking about this power being within the president s rights as a national security issue. even though the president undercut his own claims by saying he could do it now. he could do it later. he wanted to move more quickly on building a wall and that that was part of his motivation for enacting this declaration. here is stephen miller this morning, talking about the urgency as he sees it, defending this plan. we already have 4,000 troops on the border in light of the national emergency, a decision made almost a year ago as we see an increasing number of people crossing the border, as well as in creasing violence in mexico. what the president is saying is, like past presidents, he could choose to ignore this crisis, choose to ignore this emergency, as others have. that s not what he s going to do. reporter: when you talk to senior officials in the white house, they have legal precedent they look to to, to defend this decision. they also can describe where within the budget
money stays where it belongs to help the people and citizens of the u.s. can i ask you what you think might be a better use of a national emergency? i m specifically going to ask you if you would want a future democratic president to declare a national emergency on gun control? first of all, that s one of the worst things going on here is just the precedent being set. we don t want presidents calling for national emergencies without bipartisan support. you raise a good issue. i can think of three areas that merit greater attention to be calling a national emergency. one would be the opioid crisis. two would be by the way, that s about 40,000 people dying a year from opioids. second would be gun violence. another 40,000 americans. over 100 americans a day dying from gun violence. third, we ve got to deal with climate change and the long-term implications there. i think there are a lot of other problems all of us need to be more focused on than building a wall and trampling over pr