Honest with a first for President Trump and a first for members of his own party in congress, his first veto after their first time the egg him know on the signature issue of his presidency. He spelled it out in a oneword tweet late today. Hell do the actual deed tomorrow there you see the tweet, veto. He says hell do it tomorrow, blocking legislation to overturn the National Emergency he declared to get funding for his border wall, money that congress refused to give him. When the senate votes were tallied this afternoon, a dozen republicans, you can see them up on your screen, had broken with the president. Declaring a National Emergency to access different funds sets a dangerous new precedent. It opens the door for future president s to implement just about any policy they want. Each one of news this body has sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. So today i will vote to support the disapproval resolution that is before us. Senator portman and 11 other republicans decided to draw the line, not enough to override a veto, its important to point out, and not necessarily because of policy differences over the border. Rand paul saying he opposed giving the president extra constitutional powers. For senator portman, as you heard, it was concern about what future president s might do, not what this one has done. Others such as alaskas Lisa Murkowski worried about military construction earmarked for her state being used for construction of the wall. All that said incidentally is the biggest setback dealt the president by his own party. Its set limits for him. Keeping him honest, he hasnt been exactly mindful about staying in particular lines in pursuit of the wall. Most republicans to this point have not been eager to call him on it. He has clashed with congress over the sole power of the purse which the constitution clearly states article i, section 9, no money will be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Most republicans werent exactly concerned than. But thats only the latest in a long series of examples of the president crossing lines without facing political consequences in a way that trades directly to tonight, whether its basis for calling the border problem an emergency or his oft repeated and pretty much ignored promises about funding for the wall. I promise we will build the wall. And whose going to pay for the wall . Mexico whose going to pay for the wall . Mexico who . Mexico it will be a great wall. Mexico is going to pay for the wall. Mexico is going to pay for the wall. Mexico will pay for the wall. So that was the promise, of course. Then cost savings from a new as yet unimplemented north american trade agreement, that was going pay for it. Then he want youd to pay for it. That didnt work and there was a shutdown to show for it. But he tried to dodge responsibility for it, even though he is on tape promising to take the blame. And ill tell you what. I am proud to shut down the government for Border Security, chuck, because the people of this country dont want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So i will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. Im not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didnt work. I will take the mantle of shutting down. And im going to shut it down for Border Security. He would take the mantle. Turns out the mantle was heavy, kind of uncomfortable, and he didnt end up taking it, at least not for very long. The shutdown certainly hurt a lot of people, some of whom we met on this program. In the middle of it all, the president promised how easy he could end the impasse. This situation could be solved in a 45minute meeting. I have invited congressional leadership to the white house tomorrow to get this done. Well, he ended up walking out of that meeting, although few republicans ended up voicing concerns about the shutdown. Some even spoke out about the need for the kind of wall the public wants. The gop did not do what it did today there was no rebuke of the president just as there was no real rebuke when he began redefining the word emergency to suit his needs. Whats the current thinking on a National Emergency . Why didnt you announce it last night . Because i think we might work a deal. And if we dont, i may go that route. I have the absolute right to do National Emergency if i want. Whats your fresh hold . My threshold will be if i cant make a deal with people that are unreasonable. Whether or not you can make a deal doesnt cute an emergency. Then again, why quibble about what words actually mean when you can actually redefine reality itself which the president repeatedly does without much pushback from his party. He has described the very real problem of Central American migrants summing here for asylum as an invasion funded by terrorists or suggests by george soros. He and his top officials have lied repeatedly about the policy of separating children from their parents. Thats been outright lies, despite evidence to the contrary, some of it on video from some of those same officials. He has even on numerous occasions and as early as today tried to suggest pieces of his wall are already being built. Were building a lot of wall there is a lot of wall going up. I dont know if you see it. I dont know if you want to see it. But were building a lot of wall, and there is a lot of contracts being let out actually over tomorrow and the next week for additional many, many miles of wall. Now we and others keep checking that claim. It continues to be false, although some new work is expected to get under way some time later this month in texas. For now, its only repair and renovation, as we have pointed out time and time again, and have others. But the president , as you know, has been making that false claim for months, including today. Even after seemingly admitted its false, as he did just last month. And we have renovated a tremendous amount of wall, making it just as good as new. Thats where a lot of the money has been spent on renovation. In fact, were restricted to renovating, which is okay. But were going run out of areas that we can renovate pretty soon. Aged we need new wall. So he is admitting there theyve just been renovating existing wall. Now hes gone back to saying that theyve been building new wall. This kind of serial dishonesty, on that and virtually, well, at least many other aspects of the president s signature issue hasnt generated much pushback within the president s own party. Finally did to a very limited extent today and well talk tonight about how significant that may be. Lets start it off with jim acosta who is at the white house. Im not sure ive ever seen a oneword tweet from the president before today. Just that word veto. Thats right. Part of this game weve been playing here in washington, follow the bouncing wall for President Trump. He did put out another tweet later on in the evening, anderson, saying that he values the strong republicans who stood with him. You know, anderson, despite the fact you mentioned this a few moments ago that they dont have the number of votes needed to override his veto, which is expected to come as soon as tomorrow. They were doing a lot of arm twisting here at the white house, trying to rein in these wayward republicans, and they were able to get thom tillis, the senator from North Carolina to do a major backflip on all of this. But anderson, what i thought was striking, and you touched on this, was despite their efforts to do some arm twisting, you had 12 republicans, nearly all of them basically saying that what the president was trying to do was circumvent the constitution, that he was essentially trying to violate the constitution, and that is something that a lot of trump critics have been saying he is doing ever since he came into office. I thought it was pretty striking to see the republicans, who have been very, very loyal to this president , and they prize loyalty at the white house, challenging him on that front. I understand there was a lastminute trip to the white house last night. What do we know about that . Thats right. Lindsey graham came over here, a major trump ally up on capitol hill. The senator from South Carolina along with ben sasse and ted cruz. They were trying to talk the president into accepting some kind of compromise by barging in to a trump family dinner over here at the white house. But something to address these constitutional concerns coming from some of these republicans like mitt romney, who is up on capitol hill today saying that essentially he felt it was his duty to try to protect the constitution. Again, this is the kind of language were seeing coming out of republicans that a lot of trump critics have been waiting for a very long time. And the president is expected to veto this in front of the cameras, is that right . Thats right. We think that could happen. I talked to a Senior Administration official earlier today who said that aides behind the scenes are starting to hash out plans for the president to do this in front of the cameras as soon as tomorrow. He wants to make this a public spectacle, vetoing this resolution. And according to this official, it would be unusual for the president not to do that. And i talked to a gop source close to the white house who said listen, whether the wall goes up or doesnt go up, this remains a potent issue for energizing the president s base. So of course he wants to veto this in front of the cameras. Again, as we said, as soon as tomorrow, anderson. Jim acosta, thanks very much. Perspective from david irving, also cnn political analyst Kirsten Powers and former utah congresswoman mia love. So mia, the president characterized this vote as not only a loyalty test but as a vote about Border Security and crime. Is this vote what it was about, in your opinion . I can tell you, especially for republicans, this was about this wasnt about border. It was whether they had a loyalty to the constitution of the United States and the platforms that they run on or if this is going to be about loyalty to the president. There is an old saying in law, what was meant to be used as a shield shall not be used as a sword. And the constitution is there to protect the american people. And what the what republicans had to make a choice about was whether they were going to support and preserve the constitution, which when you are sworn in, thats exactly what you do. You hold your hand up and swear to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States. So this was for the president probably about loyalty to him, but at that point, when you fail to actually secure the border through congress, you cannot allow the president or consolidate too much power to the president , because you will not have a leg to stand on if another president comes in and does the exact same thing, especially when were going to see this debate i promise you on Second Amendment rights. David, is there any other way to characterize the vote as a projection of President Trumps Campaign Promise or concerns about president ial abuse of power in the constitution . Look, i think its a little bit of both, anderson. So there are i think most of the votes in the Republican Party today were cast because of the continual erosion of congressional power, the abrogation of authority by a coequal branch of government. And i think that they were rightfully concerned as former congressman love points out that there could be a president beto or a president somebody down the road who doesnt like the Second Amendment, who doesnt like single payer and says i want to do this. You heard that repeatedly today in the lead up to this. So a lot of this was a rebuke for the methodology more so than the actual underlying policy. I think the Republican Partys unified on wanting a secure border, a secure southern border and defending the rule of law. Thats what this is about ultimately. So david, do you see today as a loss for the president , as a blow to the president . Look, obviously, it is a loss for the president. Right, if the president has to veto something thats done by the congress, its by definition a loss. I dont in one hand a loss, and in one hand a victory. The president preserves the fight, which as you pointed out and jim acosta pointed out, the president is going to sign this veto tomorrow some place in front of the cameras to remind the american people, to remind those folks who do care about this issue that he is not giving up, that he believes in the rule of law. Listen, the president s a Firm Believer in immigration. He believes the border needs to be repaired there are large gaps that folks flow across. Listen, its not the only thing that needs to be done, but a wall is part of the solution that needs to be done. And that president has every right to have that done. Kirsten, its interesting, though, because the president , when he was rung, did talk a lot about how much he loved the constitution and would follow the constitution. He focused often on the Second Amendment mostly, but he did kind of present himself as a constitutionalist. It certainly the republicans who are voting against granting him this power certainly would differ certainly on this issue. Yeah, i mean, honestly, i think that more people would have voted against him if they werent fearful of a reelection coming up for them. And i think that thats all you can really take away from this. If you look at the people who defected, the only one thats really up for reelection is susan collins, and she is somebody who is notoriously independent and has been able to have this career as a republican in maine because of the relationship she has with the voters. And so she is able to act a little bit more independently. But i think what this really came down to is anybody who was afraid of the president coming after them facing reelection fell in line, even people who i think would otherwise possibly not. And you look at tom tillis, for example, who is up for reelection, who completely reversed his position from saying in a Washington Post oped how terrible this and unconstitutional this is to now saying that he supported it because the president s going to make some changes to the National Emergencies act, which, you know, im sorry, highly unlikely. In fact, mike lee reached out to him, senator mike lee reached out to him and tried to get him to commit to making those changes, and the president would not make those changes, and thats why mike lee voted against it. I think this is mostly about people who are afraid of the president coming after them in their races. Mia, i think kerstin raises a really interesting point. Bob woodward in his book said that President Trump says real power is fear. Yeah. Do. You see this as fear of, you know, the president getting angry at republicans if they clearly for the president , he sees this as a loyalty test. I see this as if you are fearful of the president , you shouldnt be sitting as a member of congress. You have a job, and your job is to do everything you can to be a representative of the people who have elect youd there. And also, i believe as republicans, we have to make sure that were holding the person accountable to the principles and the platform of the party. Its not just follow the president at all costs. Its one of the things that i think will end up hurting the Republican Party is if they do not hold the president accountable to the principles that they believe in, here is the thing. It doesnt matter who you are. People will let you down. Those principles do not let you down. The constitution is there to protect people. And i think this was a clear mark in the sand for republicans to say im on the side of the platform and the constitution rather than being on the side of protecting and defending the president at all costs. But david, im sure go ahead. I was going say, i might add. You ask if these folks, these members that voted against it fear the president. I think what theyre realizing is they fear their constituents, right . The president doesnt have the unilateral authority to dismiss them from their jobs, but the voters do. And i think theyre listening to their constituents when they decided how they were going to vote today. Its interesting, though, kerstin, you would think that the argument if republicans voted to give the president this power, if there is a democratic president who wants a National Emergency for climate change, you know, they clearly would not want to go along with that. And yet these days the argument that, well, youve flipflop and its hypocritical that you gave the republican president this power. Youre not going give a democratic president. That doesnt seem to really matter anymore. People can flipflop over years and no one really seems to care. Yeah, i do think people are getting a little too used to it and maybe accepting it. So i think that the other big problem here obviously is that there is no actual National Emergency, and its sort of strange that weve gotten away from that as a conversation. You know, that he went to el paso to prove his point and in fact el paso, when the wall went up, the crime went up. So its the actual opposite of what the president claims that he has this need to do this with this National Emergency. Its the opposite of what he says exists. And in fact building the wall isnt going to address really any of the things that hes bringing up, the issues that he wants to address, that i think Everyone Wants to address, frankly. I think people want to address drugs coming into the country. Everyone is united on that. Kirsten powers, appreciate it. Mia love appreciate it as well. David, if you stick around, i want to talk later about something the president recently said and generating debate over whethe