Were hearing from the acting defense secretary on whether he will approve a 3. 6 billion for military Construction Projects to build the president s border wall. That includes figuring out which military projects to defund and whether a border wall is even needed. Heres what Patrick Shanahan said late yesterday. You have not determined that a specifically a wall is required to meet that National Emergency. There have been no determinations by me. We always anticipated that this will create a lot of attention. Very deliberately we have not made any decisions. Weve identified the steps we would take to make those decisions. This is the important part of that we laid that out so we could do it quickly. We dont want to fumble through the process. Meanwhile, a House Resolution condemns the National Emergency declaration. This as republican senators close to the president are defending him after he said this i could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didnt need to do this. But id rather do it much faster. Senator Lindsey Graham had encouraged the president to declare the National Emergency. Hasnt he opened himself up to even more legal challenges . I really dont think so. I think the president s been making a persuasive case that the borders broken. I support his decision to get it done sooner rather than later. Im disappointed that my democratic colleagues would wouldnt give him the money. A congresswoman whose district includes portions of the border wall is outlining whats really needed to improve security. There should be a milebymile analysis of what the needs are. A large portion of the border that i represent is rural. Its remote. One of the large needs is personnel along the border. We dont have the resources that we need in terms of sufficient internet to process claims, the transportation, and even health care. Making sure that we have an agency thats able to adapt to changing circumstances, as we see different trends in in immigration and migration. Joining me, julie grace brufky, capitol Hill Reporter with the hill, and senior political reporter with the center for public integrity. Thank you very much for joining us. Good morning. Mark meadows, close to the president , made this argument last night on fox news. Take a listen. The president did a shrewd thing before they signed the bill and sent it to him, before they voted, he said, im going to declare a National Emergency. He put them on notice, and yet congress didnt act. I think the Supreme Court will look at that and say why did congress not act. What do you make of that . Is congressman meadows trying to make a public case to the conservative Supreme Court justices . Ive spoken to congressman meadows and a number of members of the House Freedom kocaucus w have been dissatisfied with the 1. 375 billion spending bill passed. They were the catalyst for what led to the Government Shutdown for 35 days. Now, i think hes making a case there. Obviously theres going to be a ton of democratic pushback. Im not sure that republicans could have gotten a much better deal for the border wall given the loss to the house. They lost a lot of their leverage. Did you see this narrative being part of the administrations argument when it eventually goes to court . Sure sorry sure. And go to court it will. Of course, theres a cavalcade of lawsuits that are going to be facing the president from special interest groups, nonprofits, likely from different states around the country, led by california. At least at this point. One question, too, is whether there will be enough republicans to also give the president trouble here. Of course, democrats are aghast at this and say theyre going to fight it. Theres already a resolution put forth to basically try to block congressionally this marshal emergency declaration. Its something that the president would veto, and whether the house and senate could get together and get twothirds of a majority to block this, a big question, probably not. But the same time, too, you have a lot of institutionalists in the senate who are republicans. And some members of the house who say this is setting a terrible precedent for republicans. Just imagine if a democrat was president and trying to declare a National Emergency for any of a number of things, that would be an awful situation. We dont want to be the ones who set that in motion. Lets talk about those republican senators. Theyre going to be the ones who will soon have to decide whether they want to support their resolution condemning the president s declaration. Lets listen to republican senator ron johnson from wisconsin talking with Nbcs Chuck Todd about how hes going to vote. Where would you vote that . Im going to liook at the cae the president makes and look at how quickly this money is going to be spent versus what hes going to use. If hes not going to be spending it this fiscal year or early in the next fiscal year, i would have my doubts. Nothing too definitive there. What are the odds at that resolution will have enough republican votes in the senate . Is this mainly a bicycle vote . I mean a symbolic vote . I mean, i dont see enough republicans going on board to have a vetoproof majority there. I mean, i dont see a lot of senators that are constitutionalists, somebody like rand paul getting on board with the National Emergency. Overall, i think most of them are going to stand with the president on this. Dave, help us get a sense of the political equation here facing those republicans in congress on whether theyre going to back the president s declaration, especially ahead of the 2020 election. Yeah. You have a couple of republicans who are speaking out right now, tom tillits is an example. You can expect others who might be in tight races, who are going to be more critical of the president at this point, too. I agree with julie grace. The likelihood of this having some vetoproof supermajority in order to black the president highly to block the president highly unlikely. Dont be surprised if you hear more republican voices over the next coming days questioning whether this is exactly the right way for republicans to go. All right. Dave and julie grace, please stay with me for a moment. I want to bring in nbcs Mike Viqueira at the white house with new developments surrounding the u. N. Ambassador position. What can you tell us this morning . Reporter good morning to you. And this is a good oldfashioned nanny problem that Heather Nauert, the state Department Spokeswoman for the last couple of years for the trump administration, she was going to be nominated. She hadnt been formally nominated to be ambassador to the United States for the united nations. We learned yesterday a statement from the state department that she is now withdrawing her nomination and reporting from the Washington Post early this morning would indicate that it centers around the nanny that she employed to take care of her children. Her family in new york. Right now she had hoped to join them as u. N. Ambassador. Thats obviously not going to happen. But some disputes over whether or not the nanny said to be a Jamaican National was here legally or illegally. According to the Washington Post, some say that she was here illegally. There was a vetting process going on. But people close Heather Nauert say she was here legally but hadnt been paying her taxes. Whatever the case may be, we learned from a statement with laudatory praise from the secretary of state and others that accompanied it. Neverthele nevertheless, Heather Nauert is going to be withdrawing her nomination. This question of whether household employees are here illegally or legally obviously has modernday implications with the fight going on now around immigration. But it harkens back to way back in 1992 and 1993, the transition to the bill Clinton Presidency when this first became an issue when two, not one but two of his attorney general nominees had the same problem. It takes on special urgency now, notwithstanding the fact that the president , again, according to the Washington Post, has been employing people who were here in this country illegally at his golf club in bedminster, new jersey. Phillip . Well talk about that in depth in a moment. For now, mike, thank you very much for your contribution here. Back with me, julie grace with the hill and Dave Leventhal with the center for public integrity. Julie grace, given the administrations immigration policies, can you speak about the optics here of nauert withdrawing because her nanny reportedly not authorized to work legally in the country . Well, i think right now the administration, the last thing they need is another scandal. And which im sure probably played a large factor in her decision to ultimately withdraw from the u. N. We saw senator menendez bring up there was a delay in receiving her paperwork. Clearly there was something happening there. I havent heard any updates on other potential names being floated as of yet. Im guessing since its a Critical Role to fill, that will be coming up soon. Dave, how does this fit with our understanding of how the president , his family, and other Administration Officials think of immigrants given the recent reports like mike mentioned that tru trumpowned golf clubs have higher undocumented workers . The president constantly talks about illegal immigration and, of course, the border wall in the south, but has been bes iset beset with things like his businesses and administrations. It speaks to the issue that there are immigrants everywhere, whether legal or illegal in this country. And it reaches a republicans and democrats. This is not exactly a oneparty issue to say the least. But what the president does now is really a major question as to how hes going to deal with the u. N. He hasnt had a representative, a chief representative to the u. N. , for many months now. And this is something that really kind of speaks to his priorities. The u. N. Has never been at the top of his friends list. And it doesnt appear that thats changing any time soon either. Julie grace, quickly here, do you hear about any other names who might be nominated next . I have not. I guess the news just broke yesterday. We will keep you posted. All right. Well give you time then to confer with your sources. Julie grace and Dave Leventhal, thanks to both of you for joining us very early on this saturday. Thanks for having me. Thanks. Now to the other top stories new details this morning about the alleged attack on empire Actor Jussie Smollett. A Police Source says investigators are looking into whether smollett paid two men to stage the assault. Police had been treating the attack as a possible hate crime after smollett filed a report last month in chicago saying two masked men poured bleach on him, put a noose around his neck, and shouted racist and homophobic slurs. Officers had arrested two men in this case, but they were rele e released on friday night. Heres how smollett explained the attack it felt like minutes, but it probably was 30 seconds. I cant tell you honestly. I noticed the rope around my no, sir, and i started screaming. And i said, theres a [ bleep ] rope around my neck. I can only go off of their words. I mean, who says [ bleep ] empire beep, this is maga country [ bleep ] . Ties a noose around your neck and pours bleach on you, this is a friendly fight . I will never be the man this did not happen to. I am Federal Reserve changed. Smolletts attorneys denied any suggestion that the actor was involved in his own attack. They say he is the victim of a hate crime, and hes cooperated are police. Neonazis legal msnbc reporter danny savalos joins us. What are the legal consequences smollett is facing if this is true . You cant file a false Police Report. Reporter youve honed in on what is the potential crime here. Its not so much paying folks to beat you up or stage a fight. More concerning is the potential false Police Report. And in illinois, filing a false Police Report is contained under the statute for disorderly conduct. At the lowest level a relatively minor crime. However, a false Police Report in illinois bumps it up in the statute to a classfour felony which carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. This is a very serious potential crime. If its true that a false Police Report was filed. This is something thats very concerning. Of course, smollett, assuming he has no criminal history, would not likely serve three years if he was convicted and if this was actual crime. But its a felony, and felony convictions carry drastic consequences in the United States. Those are the potential consequences for smollett. What about his lawyer, he hired one. Can he be prosecuted here . He potentially could. If smollett put in a false Police Report, he can potentially be prosecuted. But its always a good idea when youre prosecuted to get out in front of it and hire your attorney. It may have bad p. R. Consequences, bad optics, but in terms of preserving your right, i sound like a commercial, but it is advisable if youre a highprofile client or defendant or potential defendant to get your criminal defense attorney on board early, long before the indictment or charges are actually filed. Sounds like good advice to me. Police in chicago now saying they have reached out to smollett to answer some of those new questions that they have. What do you think theyll ask to try to corroborate the stories here . Reporter the most obvious question would be did you make this up. But they need not necessarily ask that direct question. This is assuming that smollett would even sit down at this point. His attorneys may advise him that no longer should you be sitting down with investigators if it exposes you to potential criminal liability, especially if you might give a false an additional false statement to those investigators. Because as weve seen in the trump orbit, anyone who gives false statements to investigators exposes themselves to additional criminality even if the underlying act was not itself criminal. All right. Just a bizarre story coming out of chicago here. Danny savalos, thank you very much. What went on during the president s oneonone meetings with Vladimir Putin . Thats what House Democrats want to find out. How theyre trying to get ahold of the topsecret documents even as the president may have tried to conceal the details. Aaaaaahhhhhhhh ballooned your car. Call meeeee burke a flyby ballooning. Seen it, covered it. We know a thing or two because weve seen a thing or two. We are farmers. Bumpadum, bumbumbumbum [indistinct conversation] [friend] ive never seen that before. I have. I have. Guys go through a lot to deal with shave irritation. So, we built the new Gillette Skinguard with a specialized guard designed to reduce it. Because we believe all men deserve a razor just for them. The best a man can get. Gillette. Check in from afar with remote access, and have professional monitoring backing you up with xfinity home. Demo in an xfinity store. Call, or go online today. There are new efforts this morning by House Democrats trying to obtain details about the president s oneonone meetings with russian president Vladimir Putin. Autho thats according to adam schiff who told politico alongside Foreign Affairs chairman elliott angle discussed with general counsel how to obtain documents from the administration. Danny, we werent quite done with you yet. The Washington Post last reported, reported last month that the president s attempts to conceal these details including confiscated his interpreters notes what do you think the best legal option is now . We all want to know what happened in the meeting with trump and putin. But the prospect of subpoenaing or getting at the interpreters or their notes raises very concerning legal issues. Even though we may want to know what happened in that particular meeting, we want to be careful as a Public Policy issue that we dont make a practice of subpoenaing interpreters or their notes or else any criminal defendant who has an interp debt to speak to their interpreter to speak to their attorney or a situation with confidential or Privileged Communications can suddenly become exposed and something that investigators can get at. So this is a very thorny legal issue. The alternative to the interpreters is putin or trump. And those are not folks likely to go softly into that good night if faced with a subpoena. And of course, putin would never show up, and i dont know how you would serve him with process. So with that, with those three major issues, the congressional congressional folks who want to subpoena this information are faced with some real challenges. I dont genesenvy the situation may have no legal or ethical way to properly get at these notes or what the interpreters interpreted. Could the president be in any legal trouble if he, in fact, destroyed any of his notes from the meetings . That again is a ve