Return to Transcripts main page


NYT: FBI Open Investigation on Trump Possibly Working for Russia; Trump Meetings in May with Lavrov, Kislyak Worried FBI; Miami Airport Closes Concourse Early Due to TSA Shortage; 45 Percent of FDA Workers Off Job Due to Shutdown; Lindsey Graham: Democrats Hate Trump More Than They Want to Fix Problems; Trump's Main Argument for Border Wall to Stop Flow of Illegal Drugs; Interview with National Border Patrol Council Spokesman; Missing Teen Jayme Closs Found 87 Days after She Vanished, Suspect in Custody; Democrats Castro, Gabbard Announce 2020 Presidential Run as Warren Tries to Build Momentum. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired January 12, 2019 - 15:00   ET



[15:00:50] ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: It's 3:00 eastern, noon out west. I'm Ana Cabrera, in New York. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thanks so much for being with us this weekend.

Right now, the government shutdown passing a disturbing and historic milestone, with hundreds of thousands of American families hugely impacted. It would take something pretty explosive to move the spotlight away from that. And this is it. The "New York Times" reporting now that the FBI investigated someone in the White House because that person's behavior made them seriously concerned that he was working for Russia. That person, the president himself, President Donald Trump. Things President Trump said and did made the FBI start investigating whether or not he was working against America and to benefit Russia. This is not collusion during the campaign. The election was over. Nothing about hacking or exposing e-mails. All that had been done already. We are talking about the president, while in office, possibly knowingly working to help Russia and hurt the United States.

CNN's Boris Sanchez joins us now at the White House.

Boris, it is so strange just to say those words. The FBI opening a counterintelligence investigation of the American president. What is this behavior that the "New York Times" article mentions that raised such red flags at the bureau?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, there, Ana. Both of them have to do with the president's behavior surrounding the dismissal of former FBI Director James Comey. According to "New York Times," there were two separate incidents that raised flags at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. One of them is that interview that President Trump did with NBC's Lester Holt, in which the president was asked about his reasoning for firing Comey, and the president revealed there that he was going to fire Comey regardless of what he heard from the attorney general's office, who, of course, recommended to the president in a letter that he fire James Comey. The president at that point saying that this Russia thing with Trump is a made-up story and sort of justifying the firing of Comey as a way to clear up the accusations being made about his campaign and collusion with Russia.

The second incident is apparently a letter that had been drafted in May that listed some of the reasons President Trump wanted to fire Comey. This was, of course, before the firing. That letter, according to more than a dozen sources that "The Times" spoke to was angry and meandering. And at one point, the former White House counsel, Don McGahn, threatened to resign to block the release of the letter. We know that letter is in the hands of Roberts Mueller and it's part of his investigation in the potential obstruction of justice on behalf of President Trump -- Ana?

CABRERA: What is the reaction from the president?

SANCHEZ: Well, late last night, we got a statement from Press Secretary Sarah Sanders calling this "New York Times" story absurd. The president on his behalf sent out a barrage of tweets earlier today. The president attacking current and former members of his Intelligence Community. You see there, he brings up Hillary Clinton yet again, suggesting that the investigation into her e-mail server was rigged. The president going as far as to suggest that Robert Mueller is protecting James Comey. And in a separate portion of his tweet storm, the president at one point suggested that no one has been tougher on Russia than he has. Many would suggest that that is certainly not the case -- Ana?

CABRERA: Boris, I'm going to put up another full screen for our viewer, a picture of the president and the Russian ambassador, the former Russian ambassador, to the U.S., the Russian foreign minister also there in that May of 2017 meeting inside the Oval Office. Now, remember that was the day after the president fired James Comey from the FBI, called him a nut job. And he told the Russians that sacking Comey relieved great pressure on him. He was also at this meeting in which the president said -- he was said to have given the Russians classified information, that was provided to him by Israel.

SANCHEZ: That's right, Ana. That meeting with Sergey Kislyak and Lavrov as well raised quite a few eyebrows, the president offering references to American intelligence assets. And also his comments about Comey there suggesting that pressure would be relieved by firing Comey also is very questionable. It leads to a pattern of behavior on behalf of President Trump that would directly draw into question his claim that he has been tough on Russia. Let's not forget that press conference that he held with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki failing to confront the Russian leader over election meddling.

[15:05:15] And one of the men in the meeting, there are many questions about his contacts with former NSA director, Michael Flynn, during the transition period, and even during the 2016 Republican convention. His conversations with Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general, were scrutinized by Congress. Some accusing Sessions of lying to Congress about those conversations. Of course, for his part, the former attorney general saying he couldn't recall some of those conversations -- Ana? CABRERA: Boris Sanchez, at the White House, thank you.

Joining us now to discuss, former senior adviser to the national security adviser under President Obama, Samantha Vinograd.

Sam, according to the "New York Times," Trump's actions before and after the firing of James Comey was really what triggered this new investigation, the counterintelligence investigation into the president of the United States. Also a criminal investigation because of obstruction of justice probe that they were looking into. Here is the thing. The paper says that the FBI believed that if the president fired James Comey to stop the Russia investigation, that would endanger the national security of the U.S. Why? Do you see it that way?

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I do. The counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, separate from the criminal investigation, would be looking at whether the president was acting on behalf of a foreign government or a foreign intelligence service. The whole purpose of any counterintelligence investigation is to see if any U.S. asset, any American is acting on behalf of a foreign power. If the president was firing James Comey because he wanted to thwart the Russia investigation, and he wanted to really discount the fact that Russia was actively attacking our country through a coordinated intelligence operation, that would be a major counterintelligence flag and is probably why the FBI launched this investigation.

CABRERA: We talked about the significance of that Oval Office meeting right after James Comey was fired, in which he was laughing, and apparently sharing information with the former ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, who I know you know personally. This is where he bragged about firing Comey. And the FBI, according to "The Times," this really validated this investigation.

VINOGRAD: It did. And this whole episode is kind of like a case study for Russian intelligence officers on how they would want an Oval Office meeting with the president to go. Ambassador Kislyak is a trained diplomat. I worked with him when I was at the White House. And he got the president of the United States to share classified information with him and to throw a member of his own team under the bus. That is the bread and butter of what Russia intelligence is really after. And President Trump just handed this all to him on a silver platter. And the question, of course, is why.

CABRERA: When you look at Trump's actions as president then, suggesting a cybersecurity unit with Putin, his reluctance to impose new sanctions on Russia, now the latest, withdrawing troops from Syria, does it seem as though the president is just continuing to validate this investigation?

VINOGRAD: He certainly is. And let's not discount the tweets that he issued today, which really just looked like they were taken from Putin's own play book and that the Kremlin scripted them. He continues to do everything that Russia wants him to do, to spread division, undermine the credibility of our institutions, and remove U.S. influence from the global stage. While the president goes about drafting these tweets and thinking about his next steps around the world, it is unclear whether he's making these missteps because he is so manipulated by the Russians unwittingly or whether they had some kind of a bribery point on him and have a quid pro quo established where he is in some way a witting asset of Russian intelligence.

CABRERA: I think it is important that we note we don't know for sure if this counterintelligence aspect of the investigation is still under way with Mueller's team. That's one of the outstanding questions here after this report dropped.

Thank you, Samantha Vinograd --

VINOGRAD: Thank you, Ana.

CABRERA: -- so much for coming on and offering your expertise and perspective.

It is officially the longest in history, 22 days of a government shutdown with no end in sight. What Miami's main airport -- these are live pictures there -- what this airport has been forced to do as a result of this shutdown.

Plus, President Trump calling out Congress for leaving town without a solution. A California Democrat is going to respond when we come back.

And a miracle in Wisconsin. A teenager missing nearly three months escapes from her kidnapper. What we are now learning about her capture.

[15:09:31] You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.


CABRERA: What is now the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, won't end this weekend. Congress is gone until Monday. But today, President Trump tweeted that he has a plan to end the stalemate. Yet, instead of offering specifics, he immediately pivots back to his campaign platform of building a wall on the southern border.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is thanking DHS workers who are on the job while confirming nearly 75 percent of those employees are not getting a paycheck.

At one of the nation's busiest airports, they're starting to feel the impact.

There at the security lines -- we're talking about Miami International -- where we have Rosa Flores this afternoon.

Rosa, part of that airport is closed this weekend. Tell us why.

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there are not enough TSA workers to operate all of the 11 checkpoints at this airport. So they've closed partially temporarily Concourse G. So this is the one that you're seeing on your screen right now. You see the no entry sign. The desks are clear, right now. They're just picking up the trash at this point. Because all of the flights that normally leave from this concourse have been redirected, and they're being reassigned to other concourses.

[15:14:59] I want you to walk with me. I want to show you exactly what this means. Miami International Airport is a very big airport. There are six concourses. G is the one that is closed. TSA tells us normally they have about 40 people call in sick and right now they're seeing those numbers increase to 80. All of those flights, because of that, have been reassigned. And you don't see any G flights leaving from the G Concourse in this flight information center here.

And what we've learned, Ana, is not only is this partial government shutdown impacting federal workers. It is also impacting nonfederal workers. What do you do when you check into your gate? You normally get a bite to eat, or if you forgot a souvenir for a family member, you get it at the gift shop? So because Concourse G is closed, there are four dining locations that are closed and a gift shop. So about 20 employees that are not federal employees, these are just employees at these dining locations, they are out of a job for this temporary basis. So they're out of a paycheck, Ana, as well.

So we're here in Miami, we're seeing the trickle-down effect, not just on federal workers but now nonfederal workers -- Ana?

CABRERA: Right, the travelers at the airport.

Thank you very much, Rosa Flores.

And from your safety in the sky now, to the safety of the food on your table. The record shutdown is keeping more than four out of 10 workers away from their FDA duties.

Business correspondent, Vanessa Yurkevich, is joining us now.

Vanessa, we went up through the massive lettuce, the e. Coli scare. How is the shutdown helping or hurting the FDA's ability to spot dangers like that?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. I spoke to multiple FDA employees who brought that up. They said, we're not equipped to handle a big outbreak right now. Those workers are working in labs. They're testing our food, our drugs to make sure it's safe for you and I to eat. When we go to a grocery store, we pull things off the shelf and think they're safe, right? We don't really think twice about it. But because there are about half of the FDA staff not on the job right now, they are concerned.

But I want to give people a little bit of optimistic. The things that the FDA is inspecting for. So anything that is under recall, the FDA is looking at. Any outbreaks or food of really high risk, people are on the job to look at that. Manufacturers with a history of violations. And then foreign imports. So that's things coming into the country. But what's not being regularly inspected, Ana, are things like seafood, bakery products. You have soft cheese, unpasteurized juices and vegetables and infant formula.

This coming week, the commissioner of the FDA has a big task ahead of him. He is trying to bring back many FDA inspectors on the job so they can look at those products that I just mentioned, things like baby formula and soft cheese that many Americans consume every day. But the issue that we are seeing is he is asking people to come back on the job but not pay them. And these are people who are furloughed, who have the option of filing for unemployment, getting a part-time job. So he knows that he has a big task ahead of him. And whether or not he's going to be able to pull that off and get people back on the job, to keep you and I safe and many Americans safe.

CABRERA: A lot of these people have families and they don't have child care or they can't pay for child care, and that is another issue they're dealing with if they're not getting paid.

Thank you very much, Vanessa Yurkevich. We appreciate it.

The president says he is ready to end this, tweeting today, he's waiting at the White House to make a deal. And also, saying this yesterday.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is where I ask the Democrats to come back to Washington and to vote for money for the wall, the barrier. Whatever you want to call it, it's OK with me. They can name it whatever they can name it, peaches. I don't care what they name it, but we need money for that barrier.


CABRERA: They can name it peaches.

The president calling Congress back to the negotiating table, backing away from his earlier threat to declare a national emergency and build the wall without Congress.

Joining us now, Democratic Congressman John Garamendi, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and California's former lieutenant governor.

Congressman, thanks for being with us.

What do you tell the federal workers who aren't getting paid right now with no end to the shutdown in sight? Most of your colleagues aren't even there in Washington right now.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (D), CALIFORNIA: First of all, significant sympathy for them and the situation that they have been put in. This is totally unnecessary. Which is the other thing I tell them. This didn't have to happen. This is a situation in which there was a compromise. There was an opportunity to keep the government open. And at the very last minute, after the president heard from his favorite talk show hosts, he changed his mind and refused to go along with the compromise that he had agreed to some 12 hours earlier. And now, we're in this situation. A situation that is totally his doing. As he said, he will take the blame. He will shoulder it. And, indeed, the actual shouldering of this blame and this problem is by the American workers, some 800,000. And now, we find mothers who want to be feeding their babies infant formula and not be sure it is properly inspected. This is outrageous.

[15:20:21] The president has got to sign the bills that are in the Senate. The House of Representatives have passed bills first on January 3, to open the entire government and give time for negotiations. We did so again this last five days. Those bills are sitting over in the Senate. And unfortunately, the Senate is taking their clue from the president, not from their constituents.

CABRERA: Those bills do get some bipartisan support with a number of Republicans also voting for those bills.

Congressman, why do you think the president though is now pulling back from his national emergency threat, which would allow him to raid the disaster relief funds to pay for his border wall?

GARAMANDI: Just for that reason. We appropriated some $15 billion, the second piece of disaster relief money, last spring. That money has been allocated for projects all around the country, for Florida, Texas, California, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, on to four other states. Those are projects that are necessary to protect the citizens of America from floods, from hurricanes, from other kinds, from the disasters that have happened that are almost certain to occur again. And he discovered that he put his hand on a very, very hot stove. Don't touch those projects. That leaves him with no place to get the money. And therefore, no way -- well, even though he does many stupid things, I don't think he is so stupid as to go ahead and sign that national emergency declaration without any place to get the money.

CABRERA: I wouldn't push him. He's done a lot of things that a lot of people have said are unconventional or not the way most people would do, may not be smart.


CABRERA: Here is the view from the Republican side. I want to read you something from Senator Lindsey Graham. He says, quote, "Democrats don't want to make a deal and will never support border wall barriers on President Trump's watch, even though they did so in the past. They hate President Trump more than they want to fix problems, even problems they acknowledge to be real and serious in the past."

Congressman, is Senator Graham wrong?

GARAMANDI: Absolutely wrong. And Senator Graham has been changing his tune about as much as the president has changed his tune. The reality of the matter is the that the Democrats have consistently, for decades, supported strong border security. I remember a situation when I was lieutenant governor of California, on the State Lands Commission, the Customs and Border Patrol needed to get permission to build a wall on the beach between Tijuana and Coronado in the San Diego area. We gave them that permission. That was perhaps 20 miles of wall in that region alone. Show us a wall that is necessary, one that is effective and useful for dealing with whatever problem there may be in that sector, and we funded it in the past and we would do so again. To this day, we don't have that kind of detail. We want a comprehensive solution to this problem. But, first and foremost, reopen the government. Get this government up and running.

CABRERA: I don't know if Nancy Pelosi agrees with what you're saying when you say, we will give money for some of the wall if you tell us exactly where he wants it. And I have heard from Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, say, we can agree to other aspects of border security, when it comes to technology, scanners at the ports of entry, when it comes innovation across the border to detect those crossing illegally, but she has offered zero dollars. She said she won't even give a dollar for his wall.

GARAMANDI: Well, given the information that the president has presented to Congress, she is absolutely correct. No, no wall. But we need -- if he wants a wall, be specific. Why would it be useful in that particular area? What's it going to cost? What is the impact on the property owners? Is this the best way to spend money? We don't think so.

I know -- I'm the ranking member of the Coast Guard Maritime Committee. And we know that if we fund the Coast Guard that is responsible for 93,000 miles of the United States border, that we can significantly interdict drugs. In fact, the Coast Guard interdicts 10 times the amount of drugs as the Border Patrol on the Mexican border.

Spend our money wisely. Maybe that's a small section of wall. Maybe it is repairing fences. But it is the responsibility of the administration to be specific, and they are not. What they have done is to shut down the American government.

Now, you want to give Putin a gift? OK, you can diminish the intelligence. You can say all kinds of things. But you really want to give a gift to Russia? You shut down the American government. The Department of Homeland Security, Food and Drug, Department of Justice, FBI, all of the back offices are not operating. It is unconscionable that this president would continue.

The bills are in the Senate. They are ready to be passed. But the Senators are listening to the president, not to the cry of the American public.

[15:25:12] CABRERA: All right, Congressman John Garamendi, thanks for joining us.

GARAMANDI: Thank you.

CABRERA: Good to have you with us.

The president says build a wall, you'll stop the flow of drugs. But is he right about that? Our Dr. Sanjay Gupta went to the border to find out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPODNENT: This is how it happened. What we're witnessing here is --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happens every day along the southwest border of the U.S.



[15:29:59] CABRERA: A fact-check now on one of President Trump's main arguments for his border wall. He says it will stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. But is that true?

CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta went to the border to investigate.


DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): What you're witnessing here are efforts to stop drugs from coming across the U.S./Mexican border.

SCOTT BROWN, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, PHOENIX FIELD OFFICE, HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT: Almost every car crossing is crossing for a legitimate reason. It is a very small percentage that comes in carrying contraband. But I think when the inspectors pick up on something, their success rate is pretty high. When you saw the dogs sit down at the back of the car, that's how that particular dog alerts.

GUPTA: Special agent in charge, Scott Brown, oversees the Phoenix field office for Homeland Security investigations. And drugs are a big part of what he does.

BROWN: This is how it happens. What we're witnessing here is what happens every day, along the southwest border of the U.S. And you know, the officers at the ports of entry are phenomenal. They're fantastic at identifying fresh tool marks that shouldn't be there, a screw that was recently turned that wouldn't be a reason for that, they can pick up on that. They're experts.

GUPTA: Human art and intelligence together.

BROWN: Yes, absolutely.

GUPTA: What they find, about 24 kilos of hard drugs.

Minutes later, field testing reveals cocaine.

Situations like this were a central tenet of President Trump's argument this week for a wall.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drug, including meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl. Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone. And 90 percent of which floods across from our southern border.

GUPTA: But I wanted to learn just how effective the wall would be.

(on camera): This literally is a physical wall between the two countries that we're looking at here.

BROWN: The vast amount of hard narcotics don't come through at places like this. The vast amount of hard narcotics come through at the ports of entry where we just were.

GUPTA (voice-over): And besides meth, cocaine, heroin or marijuana, it's fentanyl, which is 50 times stronger than heroin. It's the biggest challenge nowadays.

The most recent numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that overdose deaths from fentanyl have skyrocketed, at least 1100 percent since 2011.

(on camera): In the past, cartels might try and smuggle 100 kilograms of drugs across the border. It wasn't easy to do. They were likely to get caught.

Here's part of the problem. Nowadays, they could smuggle across something that looks like this.

This is a one-kilogram bag of flour. But if this were street fentanyl, it would cost about $8,000 to make. Could be turned into a million pills, and then sold for $20 to $30 million on the black market. All of that from a small container that looks like this.

BROWN: The vast majority of fentanyl is produced in China. It comes into the U.S. two ways. You know, it comes into Mexico, where it is compressed in pill form or combined with heroin. The other way is American consumers buying it direct, often times, from vendors out of China. It then gets mailed in U.S. mail, which is the most common. A very small quantity of fentanyl is very hard to detect in the masses of letters that come into the U.S. every day.

GUPTA: How effective is a wall at preventing drugs from getting into the United States?

BROWN: In terms of hard narcotics, no, I don't know that we get immediately safer over hard narcotics. As of right now, the vast majority of narcotics come in through the ports of entry in deep concealment or come in through the mail or express consignments.

GUPTA (voice-over): Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, Phoenix.


CABRERA: Joining us now, Chris Cabrera. He's a Border Patrol agent and the spokesman for the National Border Patrol Council, which represents thousands of Border Patrol agents.

Chris, thanks for taking the time. This week, we heard that the president say drugs are a big problem for

the wall. But as we just saw there in Dr. Gupta's piece, hard narcotics are mostly coming from the legal ports of entry, as you know. So how is the wall the solution?

CHRIS CABRERA, BORDER PATROL AGENT & SPOKESPERSON, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: Well, you know, Ana, years ago, that may have been the case. It used to be that the only drugs we saw coming through the border in our area was marijuana, and a little bit of cocaine. In recent years, we've seen a lot more meth, a lot more heroin, cocaine. Obviously, marijuana is always going to come across. And it flows right up in the areas where we don't have any barriers. And it is a big problem. Behind me, obviously is Mexico. And you have two rival cartels, the Gulf Cartel and the Sinaloa Cartel, fight for these drug routes. And these drug routes come across the river.

CABRERA: I hear what you're saying. Not to say there's no drugs coming across the illegal portion of the border where people aren't supposed to cross into the United States but, again, the facts from the government Web site themselves, from your own jurisdiction, is that 90 percent of the illegal drugs, the heroin, specifically, is coming through the ports of entry, as we just witnessed in the piece.

But beyond that, I know you are among the people directly impacted by this partial government shutdown, working, not getting paid. Is the wall worth it?

[15:35:33] CHRIS CABRERA: You know, we do need a fix down here. The wall is part of that fix. The wall, more infrastructure, more technology, more man power.

I think one of the other things that is left out of this is the political will to get something done. All too often, people jump on a topic and they ride it for an hour or two, maybe a week, and then they just forget about it and move on. And this is something that affects the entire United States, not just the border.

If you think about it, down here, in our area, we don't have a problem with heroin. Up in Ohio, they do. Where do they think that comes from? It comes from this area.

And to hit your point again, you know, right now, you may say 90 percent comes through the port of entry, and I don't dispute that. The fact of the matter is more and more is starting to come across the border when they realize that it is an easy way to get done. On top of that, we're only about 40 to 50 percent effective on what we're catching. So what else is getting past us?

CABRERA: You're near McAllen Texas where the president just visited the other day. But even the mayor there doesn't think the border wall is the solution. Here's what he says.


JIM DARLING, (R), MAYOR OF MCALLEN, TEXAS: There's a misconception that the major problem of what is conceived as a crisis on the border, and that's this, hundreds of people a day that are coming across seeking asylum.

What really caused the crisis in 2014 and continues to be a crisis, at least from a political standpoint, has been asylum seekers. And that's why I was saying that I don't think a law necessarily solves that particular problem.


CABRERA: Chris, what's your response to that?

CHRIS CABRERA: He is partially correct. We do have hundreds, sometimes thousands a day of people coming in to request asylum or get asylum through the Catch-and-Release system. What that does, it ties our hands and we're unable to patrol the other areas where people are out to avoid detection and ultimately get into the United States. So the wall is necessary down here. There's communities out here that have benefitted greatly from the wall. It's not stopping everybody from coming in, but it is funneling them into areas where we can apprehend them.

And, unfortunately, a lot of politicians down here will tell you one thing on camera, but behind closed door, it is a different story, just because the wall is such a touchy topic that a lot of local politicians don't want to take a stand against the status quo.

CABRERA: Well, when you hear from politicians, there's a lot that both sides agree upon, and that there's a need for greater border security. There's a need to increase the opportunities to catch those people who want to do harm to the U.S., coming across the border, to catch more drugs coming across the border, but there's a disparity on what the solution is.

Let's talk about the bad guys who may want to get across, the potential terror threat. And I want to look at both borders because the data suggests that the northern border is actually more problematic. First of all, the length, it is roughly 4,000 miles -- that's not even including Canada's border with Alaska -- compared to 1900 miles there on the southern border. And when you look at the apprehension of people who are on the terror watch list, here's the data we have. In the 2018 fiscal year, there were roughly a dozen apprehensions, a dozen of individuals who were on that terror watch list on the southern border. And half of those were stopped at legal ports of entry. While up north, there were more than triple that amount, 41, in just the first half of that same period.

So again, what makes it a potential national emergency to get this wall along the southern border?

CHRIS CABRERA: Well, ma'am, I would just pose one question to you: How many terrorists does it take to blow something up and make the day a really bad day for somebody? It just takes one. You look in San Bernardino, there was only one, maybe two people involved. You know, just one is too many coming through here. We need more security. And that's just what we've apprehended. In Mexico, the role is cash out there. They don't care who they bring in, as long as they pay to get them in here. The potential for somebody to come across and wreak havoc in our country, whether it is terrorist related or any other crime, it's just not -- it's not worth being relaxed, having a relaxed view on. We have to be serious about this. And we have to secure our border. If people want to come in, great, do it the legal way. Let's find out who they are, what their intentions are, and go forward. But we just can't leave it wide open because there are only 12 or six.

[15:40:02] CABRERA: Right. Let me ask you one last question.

CHRIS CABRERA: One is too many.

CABRERA: Let me ask you one last question. Does it have to be all or nothing? Right now, again, if the president was willing to work with Democrats, and vice-versa, to get all of the things that they agreed upon, to pay for more technology, to pay for more manpower so you aren't having to do it with too few people in terms of monitoring the border, to provide money towards innovation, to have sensors along some of the sections where there isn't currently personnel and there isn't currently a wall, would you say, you need to get to the table, agree, to have money for that, we will deal with the border wall later, or do you think it should be all or nothing?

CHRIS CABRERA: Well, I think we need to get on the topic of this wall, and I think we need to do it now. I think the biggest problem most government employees have -- I know Border Patrol agents have -- with this government shutdown is the shutdown was announced on the 22nd, and Congress went on vacation until the 27th. They came back for a day and went on vacation again until the 3rd. And then they're off this weekend, while our guys -- and there's many, 800,000 people across the United States -- that are either furloughed or working with no pay while these guys are enjoying vacations and getting paid for it. These guys need to get to work and figure it out. Stop fighting back and forth, both sides. Stop fighting back and forth across the aisle and vote your conscience and do the right thing.

CABRERA: Chris Cabrera, thanks so much for joining us.

We'll be right back.




[15:45:33] JEANNE NUTTER, NEIGHBOR OF JAYME CLOSS: She got close to me and just leaned into me and said, I'm Jayme Closs. I knew right away who it was, because if you live in Wisconsin, you have seen so many pictures of Jayme.


CABRERA: You just heard the woman was walking her dog when she came across Jayme Closs and called police. Jayme was found 87 days after both her parents were discovered shot to death in their home in Barron, Wisconsin. Today, she is safe and with her aunt and her family dog. The sheriff tells CNN she woke up this morning with a big smile.

Now, police have arrested 21-year-old Jake Patterson. He faces two charges of first-degree intentional homicide and a kidnapping charge.

CNN's Ryan Young joins us from Jayme's hometown in Barron, Wisconsin.

Ryan, an incredible story. What reaction are you seeing there?

RYAN YOUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Just really unreal. When you think about this, sometimes you have to contain yourself with stories like this one. I was calling all the time to ask the sheriff about this one. The update that we got yesterday about the fact that she was able to escape and find someone to call 911 is just amazing.

And during that news conference, the first one that he had yesterday, when the sheriff was talking, there were people from this community who were showing up who wanted to be in the crowd. They started clapping when he finished talking. You could feel the excitement because people can't believe she was able to survive like this. And everyone that we talked to about Jayme talked about how much of a fighter she is. So you understand this community is taking this personally. You're talking about an area that is less than 5,000 people. There are blue ribbons all over this city. And on the big marquee, you can see, "Welcome back, Jayme."

Listen to yesterday how people were excited about what has happened here.


CHRISTOPHER FITZGERALD, SHERIFF, BARRON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: Right now, we're looking for 88 days of evidence. So we're looking for receipts where the suspect may have been over the last 88 days. Did he take things with her? Did she go with him to the store? Did he buy clothes for her? Did he buy food? Time frame. So we can gather any other video evidence.

JENNIFER SMITH, JAYME CLOSS'S AUNT: Jayme, can't wait to give you that big hug and hold you tight. Because we're not going to let you go.


YOUNG: Those were the aunts who were talking about that.

But you think about the other piece about this, the investigation, the sheriff was talking about. They are going to try to track back the last 88 days because they want to see where this man was going, how did he end up here. We still haven't learned the motive just yet. And why did he zero in on this home? They believe he used a shotgun to blow open that front door before going in and murdering her parents and moving on.

He'll have his first court appearance tomorrow. We will hear the accusations toward him. And, hopefully, for the first time, we will hear how the FBI and the investigative unit has put together some of the pieces of this puzzle. A lot of questions.

But, of course, you want to focus on the fact that this girl was able to survive and make it out and look for help. And now she's in the arms of her wonderful family, who is happy to have her back.

CABRERA: It is a great ending at least. And much more to learn.

Ryan Young, thank you.

YOUNG: Absolutely.

CABRERA: We're back in just a moment.


[15:53:04] CABRERA: Two high-profile Democrats throwing their hats into the 2020 ring today and launching their presidential campaigns. First up, Julian Castro. He is considering himself to being the anecdote to Trump. He's a former Obama cabinet member. He's the only Latino candidate in the 2020 race so far.

Also today, an Iraq war veteran in Hawaii, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, announcing her 2020 run during her interview with CNN's Van Jones.

Let's get to CNN's M.J. Lee inside the Warren event in Manchester.

M.J., how is Elizabeth Warren trying to build momentum today after last weekend's Iowa trip?

M.J. LEE, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: This was her first visit back to New Hampshire since 2016. Senator Warren told the audience, when you visit a neighbor, you're supposed to bring your whole family. That is a reference to the fact that she was visiting New Hampshire, a neighboring state of Massachusetts, where she's a Senator. So she brought her husband, Bruce, and their dog, Bailey, on stage with her. That was a moment the audience enjoyed.

But proceeding from that, she gave her stump speech that we became familiar with last weekend in Iowa and took a lot of questions from the audience on everything, from education, to criminal justice, to how to protect the environment.

Afterwards, she took a couple questions from reporters backstage. She got a question on why she has not been directly addressing President Trump and discussing him on the trail. Here's how she answered that question.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I think we need to talk about our economy. I'm willing to fight. Everybody knows that. The question is, how do we build an America that works, not just for those at the top, but an America that works for everyone else. I talked serious policy here in New Hampshire and that's what I'm going to keep on doing. (END VIDEO CLIP)

[15:55:03] LEE: Senator Warren is moving full steam ahead with an expected 2020 presidential campaign. All as some of her Democratic colleagues, including in the Senate, are trying to decide themselves whether to throw their hats in the ring, including Senator Kamala Harris, who has launched a book tour ahead of what seems like a 2020 campaign. Julian Castro announcing this morning that he is going to be running for president as well. A lot of questions about former Vice President Joe Biden, as well as Senator Bernie Sanders and whether they are going to be making their bid as well.

It is clear that these Democrats, eventually, if they get into the race, will have to figure out what their message is going into 2020. But it is clear that Senator Warren has figured out her message.

Back to you.

CABRERA: M.J. Lee, thank you.

We're back in just a moment.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The '40s and '50s were definitely an America finding itself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Americans felt very second-rate when comparing ourselves to Europe.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sportswear became the defining style of the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bikini was the biggest thing since the atom bomb.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since the '60s, '70s, our style and fashion represents freedom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you look at hippy culture, it's really oppositional to the Vietnam War.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Disco was really important in terms of people being free to express themselves.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the '80s, it was a lot of excess in every way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had our Calvin Kleins and our Ralph Laurens and our Donna Karans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Public advertising was rather scandals.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His underwear ad stopped traffic in Times Square.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By the '90s and 2000s, things have become less formal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Supermodels really brought fashion into every household.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now what's embraced is being yourself.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Style gives you a voice. It's freedom.

ANNOUNCER: "AMERICAN STYLE" premieres tomorrow at 9:00 on CNN.