were probably repeated maybe 20 times. we ll go through and count the numbers for you, but it seems very clear the white house wants to get this messaging point out. they believe this is a humanitarian and security crisis. that will be the main message of the president s remarks. before that happens, the president and secretary neilson will go to the house to brief republicans there. there is also a lot of discussion about paying for real people. you heard there, talking about central workers, and other people will feel as the shut down progresses, and the head of the office of management and budget is telling us there will be tax refunds issued as planned. that was a big issue, right? people getting their money back from the government, and because of this indefinite
course, remembers being on the campaign trail and making this promise to people that supported him and that is almost certainly playing at his thinking now. although the emphasis from white house officials is that this is a crisis, julia might be interested to know, secretary neilson was repeatedly asked about some of the numbers that have come out of the department of homeland security. now, the secretary did talk about how some of the numbers are classified, we re told by her that she is working to get some of that information unclassified to be able to share that, but she also defended her agency s stance. and the report that contradicted some of what she has been saying, she said listen, things have changed. they pointed today what they
it is not uncommon. yes, it is an inconvenience, but one thing, dispushiturbing part the press conference, secretary neilson said they uncovered some bad folks trying to get through the border that she couldn t talk about, and the leadership excuse me. i was going to answer the question. what authority does he have going into the meeting if the president twice has rejected what pence has gone to the democrats with an offer? i think it is an on-going negotiation. all hands on deck, victor. how do you negotiate if the person that s representing the president you know, it is all hands on deck. congressional leaders, senate leaders, vice president. victor, at the end of the day, we don t want another 9/11. if secretary neilson says we need the wall put up, and we have leadership
borders by any means necessary, victor. you know, the bottom line is none of us on the panel are privileged to sensitive information, what secretary neilson and the president talk about and what s going on. this is imperative that we protect our borders. i have to bring you back to the question. right. there are two separate bills. there s one that has to do with funding of the border wall. that s just homeland security. the other bill, hr 21 has to do with opening the rest of the government that s been impacted. why not get other departments open? what s the argument for not bringing that to the floor of the senate, getting the signature of the president, for the other people, agriculture, inspections, state parks, everybody can get back to work. what s the point in not bringing that to a vote? i can t speak for the senate or congress, they re going to come together, hopefully work out something. but i support the president s actions on getting the wall and getting it funded a
from the meeting, you saw vice president pence and secretary neilson going into the building there, they re going to hold this meeting. president trump made it clear you cannot have one without the other. you can t have the wall and you can t have the money, they have to be connected. so ron, i mean, i m wondering, he went so far yesterday as to mention a national emergency. yeah. are you comfortable with the idea and how many gopers would be comfortable with bypassing congress, taking money out of the military budget to pay for a wall? i m sorry, kevin, that s for you. i apologize. kevin, that s for you. i was like that s my question. it is. christi, and ron knows this, he has seen it too, partisan tribalism is a real thing in washington now. so there will be folks that always argued the principles of