economy, and job creation. we should be picking the winners and losers and announcing that we are going to resend the previous legal permits. at everything from technology and cleaner ways of mining and recovery and using fossil fuels, i think we can solve the probl problem. sandra: clearly when you see the polling out there in the response on the campaign trail, there is a growing appetite to climate change. how are republicans responding to that? that s an important point because i think you are right. there is a demand to do it, both sides are trying to do it. but i think there are solutions
plan to harden security along the border and provide legal status for the 11 million or so aliens already living in america illegally. the u.s. cannot seasoned them all home but need no necessarily give them a path to citizenship butch the government could will theize them and ensure and make sure this in exchange for a long-term immigration solution. perhaps the way out of today s impasse is to enlarge the probl problem, not shrink it and proceed strategically instead of doesn ting another short-term fix. it occur there was great reporting inside the white house about what this deal was going to look like. you have jared kushner arguing
up. mcconnell says he won t take them up unless the president approves them. that s not how the government works. we passed more bills to open on more federal agencies. we are doing everything in the house to get people working and paid to pay their bills. democrats are not offering anything in terms of money for the wall. republicans are saying if they were to do that in some fashion, some exchange for concessions on daca for example, would you be open to any of that? look, republicans had two years of controlling the government to get this done. what we want to see is realistic border security. most of the problems we have come through ports of entry. we shouldn t be worried about a wall that is a fourth century answer to the 2st century probl problem. does this mean you are not willing to put up money for the
that is the proposal. and if it is good then, it is good now and it won t shutdown the government. and chuck, we can build a much bigger section with more money. okay. let s debate in privacy. and we need the border security, and we all agree that we need border security. we do. we do. see, we get along. thank you, everybody. mr. president, you are saying border security and the wall. and can you have border security without the wall? you need the wall. the wall is part of the border security. and can you say what it means to have border security? the wall is part of the border security, and you can t have very good border security without a wall. that is not true. and that is a political promise, and border security is a way to effectively honor our are responsibility. h and the experts say that you can do border security without a wall and solve the probl problem. it does solve the problem. and this is spiraling downward when we came at a place
probl problem. if he s whispering sweet nothings in the ear of the president, that makes him disqualified three times over. how would it happen when it comes to disqualifying, as far as limiting his power, removing him from his post? what can congress do when it comes to that? it s a little unclear. certainly democrats, particularly in the senate, are looking at whether there are ways they can act basically they d have to sue the administration over this appointment by bringing up some of the legal issues that were just mentioned. but the real concern here is that any type of litigation over this, any process to try to stop this is going to take a while and wind its way through the courts. in the meantime there are serious concerns about what could take place that could be detrimental to the investigation. for example, since whitaker is now overseeing it, can he go to special counsel robert mueller