president s sign-on, to get the house to act? i think that s probably right. and the house conservatives are very upset about what they see as paul ryan s inaction on a bill authored by bob goodlatte, the judiciary chairman. a bill that s very conservative and has no chance of ever becoming law, no chance of getting through the senate. so conservatives in the house and immigration hawks are not in a good place. and they will say that the republican leadership hasn t done enough. but if and when, and i only give it a 20% chance of coming out the senate. i know i m very i seem very dark at the moment, but that s kind of where i am at this moment. if a bill does emerge from the senate, it will need the president and some sort of presidential leadership to say, i want to vote in the house, i want paul ryan to put this on the floor. and that might not even quell anger from the right. that still might not be enough. paul ryan has said, we need to take this issue seriously. we need to sol
straight-up one for one trade, which is some sort of permanency on daca, traded for some sort of package on border security. the key here will be finding that sweet spot where democrats can feel like there is permanency on daca and republicans can say, yes, we ve begun to build a border wall. we ve begun to increase border security. and the president could be happy with that package, as well. i just i m very skeptical, based on a long time up here and seeing this effort flail for many years, that some sort of broad-based package has any legs and any life whatsoever. and that s what many of these packages on the senate side look like. they look like comprehensive and somewhat sweeping immigration reform. so what do they need to do to get the house to vote in line with them? does it need to be an order from the president, a directive from the president that says, i m onboard with this? do senators, republican senators, democratic senators need to go to the white house in order to get
comprehensive immigration reform. so when he says he wants to get this done, it comes with a decade of history of wanting to see this problem solved and trying to solve this problem with democrats. so people should kind of take his word, probably a little bit more seriously than they are at this moment. from your sense, what are the democrats going to be willing to compromise on? it s difficult to say. i mean, democrats have been kind of optimistic on a one-for-one trade. i think they want to see this issue solved in any way, shape, or form. i don t think anything limiting, seriously limiting legal immigration is going to be something that they would sign on for. so i think we have to wait and see. 60 votes is a really tough threshold in the senate. let s talk about 2018 politics really quickly and what this means for republicans in the house who are running in tough re-election districts or campaigns for 2018. if they don t get a comprehensive immigration bill done or at the ver
we explained the process last week. the white house personnel security office staffed by career officials received information last year in what they considered to be the final background investigation report in november. but they had not made a final recommendation for adjudication to the wlouhite house because t process was still ongoing. in the view of personnel security office, the fbi s july report required significant additional investigation todayer to field work before personnel security office could begin to evaluate the information forred a jude kagtadjudication. information was still coming to the personnel security office in february. so just to be clear, the july report, if not back to march, was there information contained in those reports about the allegations about rob porter? i wouldn t have access to that information. i wouldn t know the answer to that. i want to drill down on one
significant for this wlouhite house. they very publicly said they don t believe in giving enemies thought or by as mitting mistakes. tell us who you are apologizing to. we were listening to what you said and couldn t believe a spokesman, press secretary for the president of the united states would make such a statement. so just specifically tell us who you want to apologize to. clearly anybody who, not just suffered in the holocaust or is a descendant of anybody, but frankly you know, anyone who was offended by the comments. as i said, i m not, you know, in any way standing by them, i was trying to draw comparison for which there shouldn t have been one. it was insensitive and inappropriate. i m not looking to quantify this in any way. it was an attempt to talk about, i should have stayed focused on the assad regime and the