proposing four refugee processing centers in mexico and central america, so people apply for asylum there. again, there are solutions here. president trump knows the democrats are going to do jack all that would benefit him or the american people, and basically help out with the border crisis, this humanitarian crisis. so he went directly to mexico. i don t agree with the tariffs, but if he gets more and more out of mexico and the steel it s a win for him and a win for america, and people know that. andy: can i just think also, though do you know of anything in your life that has a comprehensive solution is there anything we deal with that has got complexity to it, that we expect to get solved comprehensively? it doesn t happen. what we do is deal with emergencies, with the exigencies as they come up pick, we address them. that changes the equation and we have to deal with the equation that is in front of us. the idea that you can resolve
we re in these iterations of what the exigencies of this day and will forestall what might come later. we should remind people in the $5.7 billion the president is asking for is also a red herring because the lowest estimates for the president s wall are in $22 billion range and there are some estimates that put it higher than that so that wouldened even get him where he needs to be. kelly, i m so grateful for you and kasie. we ll stay close to kelly and kasesy as this develops over the course of the next hour. nbc news is reporting president trump was blocking a measure to give back pay to federal contractors who were affected by the shutdown. that was the sticking point in this legislation. remember while some 800,000 federal workers got back pay, some are still getting it, by the way, 1.2 million federal contractors will not unless their employers, who are not the government, choose to give it to them. contractors are people who work
have here. those were about evolving and having more inclusion put into the constitution. this is about congress already deciding to expand and make more inclusive the protections of the 14th amendment as a reaction to dret sco dred scott and other exigencies and this would be undoing the inclusion, it would be shrinking the situation. do we have constitutional precedent for that? no, chris. less rights. your honor, it s contrary to the whole trend of the constitution. chris, why are we talking about gay marriage and dred scott and separate but equal instead of the 14th amendment? because president trump doesn t have a leg to stand on. and it is so reprehensible for our president, our chief law enforcement officer charged by the constitution to take care that it be enforced to use that as a red flag to feed the base, to whip up hate in a week when
going to turn into. and you and i both know it. look, i don t i feel i don t know that, but continue. well, i mean, you said earlier that you thought it was probably going to get ugly, it is. i need to see it, because it will get ugly. that s my point. continue. we re never going to prove it or disprove it. it was 35 years ago, and probably more than anything, they ll walk out of there and nothing will have been proven or disproven. but that s not the bar. and i ll tell you why. the thing is this isn t the court of law. even there, you only know what you show, but there s a burden, we re not going to have that burden here. there s a different one. advise and consent, transparency, those are the exigencies and the expectations of public office in this confirmation process. now, we could have a whole discussion a different day about whether or not the confirmation process lives up to that. i would argue it does not. but you can t have this in closed door, because i wo
then, what s wrong with them doing this on monday? i don t think it needs to be done in public. i think it needs to be done behind closed doors. and we don t need a big spectacle. and that s exactly what it s going to turn into. and you and i both know it. look, i don t i feel i don t know that, but continue. well, i mean, you said earlier that you thought it was probably going to get ugly, it is. i need to see it, because it will get ugly. that s my point. continue. we re never going to prove it or disprove it. it was 35 years ago, and probably more than anything, they ll walk out of there and nothing will have been proven or disproven. but that s not the bar. and i ll tell you why. the thing is this isn t the court of law. okay? even there, you only know what you show, but there s a burden, we re not going to have that burden here. there s a different one. advise and consent, transparency, those are the exigencies and the expectations of public office in this