Return to Transcripts main page

S.E. Cupp Unfiltered

President Donald Trump Is Proud To Shut The Government Down And Will Keep It Shut Down For Years If He Has To; FBI Was Investigating Whether The President Was Actually A Russian Asset; Two Democrats Announced Their Bid In 2020 Presidential Election; Congressman Steven King's Latest Rounds Of Racist Comments Sparked Both Sides Of The Aisle; Aired 6-7p ET

Aired January 12, 2019 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:37] S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST: Welcome to UNFILTERED.

Buckle up, guys. There's a lot of news to get to tonight. I'm going to do my best to get to all of it. We have some great guests standing by to help break it all down.

There's that bombshell report in the "New York Times," the FBI was investigating whether the President was actually a Russian asset. We will talk about the latest to two Democrats who just announced they are going to run for President. I have a member of the congressional black caucus on later to discuss Republican congressman Steve King's comments on white supremacy and much more.

But first, tonight's headline. The shutdown has shut down the President. It is the 22nd day of the partial government shutdown making it the longest in American history. Yesterday, thousands of federal workers received paychecks for zero dollars as a wave of anxiety washed over countless families who wonder how they will pay their bills. No problem for Trump, though. He says he is proud to shut the government down and will keep it shut down for years if he has to.

Earlier this week, in what looked like a hostage video, he gave a stilted scripted address from the oval office laying out his case for a deal with Democrats on border wall funding. They did not budge.

Hindered but undeterred he began floating the idea of declaring a national emergency to fund his border wall, but he faced a lukewarm response from Republicans who rightly worried about the president of using American taxpayer dollars and maybe even the military to, you know, get what Congress won't give you.

Well, that doesn't seem to work. OK, what next?

Well, the White House reportedly started looking into whether or not Trump could fund his wall with $13.9 billion that had been allocated last year to hurricane victims. Boy, this guy is desperate, isn't he?

OK, seemingly out of options, the President finally said, screw it, let's see if this works.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When, during the campaign I would say Mexico is going to pay for it, obviously I never said there and never meant they are going to write out a check.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Yes, you did.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

Mexico will pay for the wall.

And who's going to pay for the wall? Who's going to pay for the wall?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: OK. But don't count him out just yet. Trump is a real estate guy. He know how to negotiate. What do you do when your $5 billion wall isn't selling? You lower the price, of course.

According to FOX and Friends host Steve Doocy, Trump will now quote take anything in the twos. Got a big wall, lots of light prime border location in the twos. That's a bargain, Democrats.

OK. Here's the deal. This is what losing looks like. Mr. President, you have lost this one. You are not getting your $5.7 billion border wall, not from Mexico, not from Congress, and I'm willing to wager not from taxpayers, either. It's a shame, too, because when you had the opportunity, the public support, Republicans in control of Congress, Democrats against the proverbial wall, you couldn't get it done. Why? Too much tweeting, too much rallying, not enough governing.

So now it's time to accept the loss and move on to what's next. I have some ideas. I happened by your tweet from earlier today.

I just watched a fake reporter from the Amazon " Washington Post" say the White House is chaotic, there does not seem to be a strategy for this shutdown, there is no plan, the fakes always like talking chaos. There is none. In fact, there's almost nobody in the White House but me.

You know, I have always found my alone time to be some of my most productive. Use this me time, Mr. President, get back in touch with you. Try meditating, get centered, yoga helps clear the mind, or how about a vision board where you paste pictures of all the things you would like to accomplish this year.

I got you started. Here is a picture of a wall. And here is a picture of you signing a bill into a law. Put those up on your vision board. Think it. Whatever you do, the most important lesson is, when you fall off a horse or fail to deliver on a keep promise despite having total control of Washington, you get back on the horse. You don't declare a national emergency and make taxpayers pay for the horse. Good life lesson.

OK. Let's discuss the latest on the shutdown and the border fight with Maryland senator Ben Cardin.

Senator Cardin, let me start with that idea that the President would take anything with a two in front of it for the wall. I don't know if that's true. "FOX & friends" host Steve Doocy said it was. I will ask you, though. Would you support $2 billion-something for funding for a border wall?

[18:05:43] SEN. BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND: Well first, let me say government needs to be open. What the President is doing in shutting government is hurting people. It is hurting our country. He is holding America hostage.

I met yesterday with a large number of government workers who are really hurting with not being able to get a check. It's affecting their family. It is affecting their credit. It is affecting their lives. This is serious business.

CUPP: Yes.

CARDIN: So government needs to be open. So your answer is how do you reach a compromise with President Trump? It's difficult when he is holding America hostage. It is difficult when he undermines his own negotiators. But clearly, we believe in border security. So yes, we are willing to talk about border security. We know that we need additional resources spent on border security. The President has got to get away from the wall. But there is a way in which we can work out border security issues, but open government. Don't hold the government - don't hold our country hostage.

CUPP: So five years ago, I know you know this, Democrats supported a bill that required the construction of 700 miles of border fencing. Every single Democrat voted for it including you. So it is just now that the politics has shifted. Democrats hold more cards and can get more for what they want?

CARDIN: Of course, as you point out, that wasn't fencing. It wasn't a wall coast to coast.

CUPP: Yes.

CARDIN: It was part of an overall border security issue. It dealt - we were dealing with other issues as well in regards immigration reform. So there was a lot more involved in what we were trying to get done. And we are willing to talk about that. We want comprehensive immigration reform, absolutely. But you can't do it while government is shuttered. You can't do it when people's lives are being adversely affected by the President's arbitrary decision not sig bills that pay us both the House and Senate. We asked Mitch McConnell to do is pass bills that are already passed the Senate in order to open up government, and some agencies - most agencies are not even involved in this fight. It's ridiculous. CUPP: So why I think it's safe to say that the American people as of

now hold the President responsible for this shutdown, he asked them to, but I do think that they will tire of this game of chicken eventually. Do you think that Democrats at some point will say, enough, we will come to the table, we will fund a wall and get this government funded again? Or do you not see that happening?

CARDIN: I just think it's impossible to negotiate with President who is holding you hostage and changes his mind every few minutes, undermines his own negotiators. We want to get government open. We will do anything reasonable to get government open. But clearly, the President is the one who is stopping it. And we could have open it up already if Mitch McConnell would have allowed the voting before the Senate.

We think we have the votes in the Senate not only to pay us the bills we previously passed, but by margins that would be enough for a veto override. So there's a way forward that Congress acting as a coequal branch of government, doing its work, we could open up government, and yes, we will provide border security.

CUPP: Senator Ben Cardin, thank you so much for coming on. I appreciate it.

CARDIN: Thank you.

CUPP: Now, some perspective from the other side of the aisle, Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger.

Congressman, before we get to the shutdown, I want to quickly start with Syria and Tulsi Gabbard's announcement on my colleague van Jones' show. That full interview is coming up after my program. So I want you to tune in.

You know, she is running for President. I saw your tweet in response. And it was sitting high above his torture cells in Damascus, Assad is giddily crafting his wish list for the Tulsi campaign.

I know what that means. I'm wondering if you might tell our audience what you meant.

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R), ILLINOIS: Well, you know, look. I respect that she is taking the lead to do it. It is courageous to run for president. But, you know, now you are in the arena, and your past actions mean something. And you know, Tulsi Gabbard went and visited with Bashar al-Assad, the guy that killed 500,000 people and suppresses his own people.

You can agree that maybe we shouldn't intervene in Syria, you can agree that maybe Assad is the best of bad alternatives. I don't agree with any of that, but to go and meet with the guy is a pretty big deal.

And so, you know, I think, look, once you step in the arena, its fair game. And I think it is important for people to understand as she announces, what her foreign policy is, that includes sitting down with a guy like Assad.

[18:10:09] CUPP: And some Democrats have already pointed that out. Claire McCaskill on twitter point that out. I actually asked someone at the Syrian/American council yesterday for a response. And that body's board member (INAUDIBLE) said Ms. Gabbard is a vital puppet for the Assad regime and we shouldn't be fooled. I think we will probably hear a lot more of that in coming days and week.

OK. I want to turn back to the shutdown. Would you support declaring a national emergency using taxpayer dollars and perhaps even the military to get Trump's wall funded and up and running?

KINZINGER: Not really. I want to see if he does it. I would want to see the details of that, you know, if it's something massive that's different than something like when President Obama declared swine flu a national emergency. It is kind of different levels. I do want to get this wall built. Where I'm disgusted, S.E., is that we are at a shutdown right now as the only way to try to negotiate.

We have quit acting like adults. And by the way there's pocks on both Republicans and Democratic houses. We spent a lot of time saying who is more to blame, who is --you know. And if you are on one side, it's always the other side. And we are in this battle everybody hates both of us but we want them to hate the other side a little bit more.

This shutdown insanity has got to stop. For the Democrats, you have to come to the table and talk about wall. I'm sorry about it. You may not like it. But that's how divided government works. From my side, we have to be willing to come to the table and talk about things in addition to the wall, like DACA, like the dreamer population. We can solve all this if we start acting like adults. But we are acting like kids with temper tantrums who want the other side to look whereas every time we can't get the other side a limp.

CUPP: well, and just what about the criticism of congress, in addition to what you have said. But for the last two years, Republicans controlled both chambers and maybe you should have gotten border wall funding passed then. What responsibility did Republicans in Congress two years ago? What responsibility do they bear for where we are right now?

KINZINGER: Well, a couple points. Certainly, we wanted to do that, but there's the whole 60-vote rule in the Senate. That's the fact now. That was the fact then. We also had an opportunity this last summer. We had two bills that fully funded the wall and actually very positively fixed our immigration system. And my friends over in the freedom club on our side backed away even after the President supported one of those. And so we weren't able to get it out. The Democrats, none of them joined us in that. So everybody's to blame here.

And I look at this whole thing. And you know, my issue isn't so much this fight out wall. In 20 years, we are all going to forget about this fight. History books will never even write about it. What it is doing to the democracy, though, this new thing of we are one week into the new term, and we are already talking about the next election. We are already trying to make the other side lose more. And this cycle has got it and all of us bear responsibility, politicians and people who vote.

CUPP: Congressman Kinzinger, as always, I appreciate you coming on, talking some sense to me.

KINZINGER: You bet. Thanks.

CUPP: OK, next. How do we end the shutdown when the politics of the shutdown keep derailing talks?

Coming up, after Congressman Steve King's latest round of racist remarks, I want to know his republican colleagues will finally step up and do what's right?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:17:17] CUPP: Well, while Congress and the President play chicken with the government, the American people have weighed in. A recent poll by IPSOS on behalf of NPR, shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that Congress should pass a bill to reopen the government while budget talks continue. While a full three out of four Americans believe that the government shutdown is embarrassing for the country.

So could public opinion nudge all parties in the right direction? Well, let's talk to CNN political commentators, Democratic strategist Maria Cardona and Republican strategist Kevin Madden.

Kevin, from where I sit, the President has lost this fight. He lost it last year. He is now just continuing to lose. What should he do?

KEVIN MADDEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, he should do his job and start bringing people together, but -- right. That's one of the most important roles of the presidency is the unifying - the ability to unify not only the country, but all of the different warring parties inside Washington, D.C.

CUPP: Yes.

MADDEN: It's just not going to happen because both sides think that they have the incentive right now to continue to dig in and play the politics - to continue to play the politics to their advantage, at least seemingly.

CUPP: Yes.

MADDEN: But you look at numbers like that, right, like in the '70s, like that's what we call the exasperation level. Like the American people exasperated.

CUPP: Yes.

MADDEN: Pretty soon there won't be any real political benefit, because what happens is the American people are going to turn on the institution of Washington -- CUPP: Right, everybody.

MADDEN: And then they are all in trouble.

CUPP: Right. So Maria, as Kevin mentioned, Democrats have had very little incentive to budge, right. They just got control. They feel like they have a mandate. But to Kevin's point, will those numbers start to change things on the Democrats' side?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it is interesting because the numbers you just showed in terms of the American people think that government should be open while budget talks continue, stuff for the wall.

CUPP: Yes.

CARDONA: That is actually how government is supposed to work, right. What President Trump is demanding, in terms of a wall and immigration, and all of that, yes, we can have that discussion, and we have been having that discussion for quite some time, but to have it on the backs of 800,000 federal workers is not the place to do it.

CUPP: No, no, no, I agree. They are agreeing. But will they get to a point where we say, who cares whose fault it is? Just -- someone has got to go.

CARDONA: Well, right. But so here is a thing. Democrats have gone. They have passed several funding bills, many of which, in fact the first several batches of them were Republican funding bills that they were assured Senate Republicans --

CUPP: No, no, I get it. But if I'm just sitting at home, you are making a fine point, that is true, but if I'm sitting at home about to collect a zero-dollar paycheck, I'm going to say who cares?

[18:20:01] CARDONA: No, no, I agree with you. And you have workers who have been On the Record saying, look, a border wall is not going to pay my mortgage. Democrats agree, so Democrats are ready to negotiate on Trump's border wall, but they don't want to do it --

CUPP: They don't want to go first, is what you are saying.

CARDONA: No, no, no. They don't want to do it in this bill to reopen the government.

CUPP: Right.

MADDEN: The other ingredient here is that everybody just came through an election, right.

CUPP: Yes.

MADDEN: So, and the Democrats are saying we were sent here to do exactly this.

CUPP: Yes, right. MADDEN: For ourselves as a bulwark against this president. And then

all the other -- and the President and the Republicans, they are like, hey, we just we are pretty far away from our next election. We are going to wait this out.

CUPP: Right. And also, we were elected to do this.

MADDEN: Right. Now, those numbers, you would think everybody would start to move when you see numbers in the sentence, right?

CUPP: Yes.

MADDEN: But it's going to take a little bit longer time than usual.

CUPP: Who is going to move first, do you think?

MADDEN: You know, I think this ends up with the President declaring an emergency.

CARDONA: We just talked about this.

CUPP: You do?

CARDONA: I don't think that there is any --.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDEN: There is no legislate -- I do not see a legislative off-ramp here. I see this as --.

CUPP: Mitch McConnell said the same thing.

CARDONA: Yes.

CUPP: Paul Ryan said the same thing, apparently, according to reports to the President. We do not see a win.

MADDEN: In order to get a legislative agreement, you have to have some sort of clarity about what you are agreeing to. And every single time there has been an agreement, the President has sort to change or move the goalposts. So this is going to end up --.

CARDONA: Which is another problem in terms of how you negotiate with somebody like that.

MADDEN: Yes. It this is going to end up with the President declaring an emergency, some sort of staff gap, a top gap moving. And no matter what, the President is going to declare victory.

CARDONA: He is going to declare victory because that's what he wants.

CUPP: OK. You two, stay.

MADDEN: And it all goes to the courts. We will get fighting for in another program. CUPP: Oh, super. You guys stay right there. After the break, I want

to ask about a radical theory that I have that neither side truly doesn't want to solve illegal immigration.

And later in the show, how do we flush racism out of society if we can't even flush it out of Congress?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:23:65] CUPP: Hot on the heels of Hawaii, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard announcing her intention to run for President. Julian Castro makes his 2020 bid official.

The former San Antonio mayor and HUD secretary under Obama made the announcement earlier today framing his personal story as a direct repudiation of President Trump. It's a great narrative, but is it enough to fend off a higher-profile candidate like Biden, Bernie, Warren, not to mention Trump.

Speaking of senator warren, her not a campaign yet, swung by the key primary state of New Hampshire today where she stumped with her dog.

OK. Get comfortable, folks. It's going to be a very long campaign season and I am here for it.

We will be back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:27:02] CUPP: In the Red File tonight, it may seem like the government shut down and fighting in Washington is over a wall, but as is almost always the case when it comes to immigration, what we are fighting about is a distraction.

Remember just last year we were fighting over birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment. A few years before we were fighting over DACA. Before that it was e-verify. And before that it was a pathway to citizenship. Both sides offered concessions. Neither sides accepts. Pick your president, pounds his fists, and demands a solution. Meanwhile, our immigration system just always remains broken.

I don't think that's by default. I think it's by design. Call me cynical, but I think there's a reason the system remains broken. And that's because both sides find that political profitable.

Republicans can run on the browning of America, Democrats, amnesty, and scaring all white guys to the polls. And the Democrats can fun raise on sanctuary cities and Republicans xenophobia protecting.

Does anyone think Trump would be president today if illegal immigration had been solved? The problem has been punted by presidents and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for decades. So is this latest fight yet again just for show?

Back again, Kevin Madden and Maria Cardona. Kevin, most Americans want stronger borders, but not a physical wall.

Trump's promise to overturn the 14th amendment was never legally going to happen. Two-thirds of immigrants do not prioritize a pathway to citizenship. They want legal status. So all the stuff we fight about are not the things that actually matter do you see what I'm getting at?

MADDEN: Yes. But politics -- this is not new. Politics has always been about very vocal minorities. And I will tell you like having gone to different corners of Republican, you know, town halls all across the country, you know, people will politely clap about limited government or politely clap about lower taxes, but you bring up the issue of immigration and it really does animates those --.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: No, no, no. Of course, it does. It feels like a fake fight. Because what we keep fighting about things that aren't actually going to change --.

MADDEN: Yes. And we have these temporary stuff towards fixing a broken --.

CUPP: Yes.

MADDEN: But you know, taking a walk down memory lane again --.

CUPP: Yes.

MADDEN: Remember after 2012 election when the Republican Party got together, did an end soon. One of the things we have to do is modernize our approach on how we talk about immigration or we found a legislative side and also how we reach out to minority.

CUPP: And then Trump descended down a staircase and call Mexicans a rapists.

MADDEN: Because a vocal minority in many of these really primary stage really did, you know, get energized about his case (ph) because of that.

CUPP: Well, Maria, I also think there are these crazy non-starter ideas that the far-left and the far-right throw out abolishing ICE from the left, for example. On the right, child separation policy to name just one.

CARDONA: Sure.

CUPP: Those things, I think, throw a wrench into a conversation, meaningful conversation about immigration, too.

[18:30:00] CARDONA: And I think the obligation for leaders on both sides of the aisle and in both parties is to not let it. Because I agree with you. I don't think abolish ICE is a winning policy, because frankly ICE is not the problem.

CUPP: Right.

CARDONA: ICE gets their marching orders from the top, right?

CUPP: No. The word is supposed to be citizenship. That's what I am saying.

CARDONA: Absolutely. That is exactly right. So I think it is incumbent on leaders on both sides to put forth sensible solutions.

CUPP: Then we're in trouble.

CARDONA: And to Kevin's point, we were at a point, right, after the election of 2012, in 2013, we were on the verge of having comprehensive immigration reform.

CUPP: Yes, right.

MADDEN: 2008 as well.

CARDONA: And in 2008. But 2013 I think we got closer. It passed the Senate and then John Boehner told Obama that he wasn't going to bring it to the floor, because he didn't want something pass --.

CUPP: Something always comes up.

CARDONA: There is something always there. That's exactly right.

MADDEN: And in 2008, it was, you know, all you had to do is find one thing in the bill that people didn't like.

CUPP: Yes.

CARDONA: And there was easy to find.

CUPP: This is my point. I think if people really wanted to solve it, there would have been plenty of opportunities to.

CARDONA: Yes.

CUPP: And the fact that this is a pattern of going out of your way to not solve it, really makes me think this is on purpose. I mean, take politics out of it. If you are just a person at home, you think, I know how to do this. Make legal immigration easier and illegal immigration harder.

CARDONA: Right.

CUPP: Go.

CARDONA: Right. And I think that could be the possibility if you have -- again, if you bring together sensible people. And I actually think Democrats should get together with the sensible Republicans that are still on the Hill, if they want to, to find a space for this. Because I do think there is, in the Congress that we just had in 2017, 2018, there was a bill. That bill, Congressman Bill Hurd and Pete Aguilar had in Congress that was very reasonable. Huge investments on border security, including additional wall funding or fencing, whatever you want to call it.

CUPP: Yes.

CARDONA: There is the possibility there.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDEN: The other thing is piece by piece, I think that is one of the bigger problems to it. Anytime you have a big bill, comprehensive, it becomes problematic.

CARDONA: Which is why you can't do this on a bill to fund the government and to reopen it.

CUPP: And we are full circle.

OK. Kevin, Maria, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

MADDEN: Thank you.

CARDONA: Thanks.

CUPP: Up next, I will ask a member of the congressional black caucus what he and his colleagues plan to do about congressman Steven King's latest rounds of racist comments?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:36:52] CUPP: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi late yesterday left open the possibility that congressman Steve King of Iowa could face something as a consequence for remarks he made this week, defending white supremacy.

You heard that right. In an interview published Thursday, the nine- term Iowa Republican said white nationalist, white supremacist, western civilization, how did that language become offensive?

He has since soft to clumsily walk back those remarks saying that they were taken out of context, and that he reject the quote "evil ideology of white supremacy," he is merely a nationalist. Well, that's much better.

The GOP lawmakers who have begun to distance themselves in statements and tweets from a congressman who has been doing this sort of thing for years, the strongest condemnation has come from the senate's only black Republican Ti Scott of South Carolina who in a "the Washington Post" op-ed said --.

Some in our party wonder why Republicans are constantly accused of racism? It is because of our silence when things like this are said.

Well, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, he did weigh in. He said in part, everything about white supremacy and white nationalism goes against who we are as a nation. Steve's language is reckless, wrong and has no place in our society. OK. So what about in Congress? Democratic congressman Marc Veasey of

Texas joins me now. He is a member of the congressional black caucus and a House armed services committee.

Congressman, thanks for joining me. First, I just want to get your personal reaction to what Steve King said.

REP. MARC VEASEY (D), TEXAS: I wasn't surprised at all. He has been saying things like this since I have been in Congress and I'm sure before I came to Congress in 2013.

Steve King is a white supremacist, he is a white nationalist. He is racist. He is a provocateur of anything controversial that deals with race. And quite frankly, I'm, you know, upset that the Republicans have taken so long to condemn him. It took him coming out and being, you know, so blunt.

CUPP: Yelling.

VEASEY: And saying, what's wrong with white nationalism before they finally said anything. If you go back and you look at things that he said about dreamers, the things that he said about President Obama, this is a bad guy, this is a racist, plain and simple.

CUPP: Well, let me add some more, I guess, descriptors. He is homophobic. He is anti-Semitic. And yet he has been democratically elected nine times in Iowa. What do you think that says about bigotry in some parts of America?

VEASEY: Not only has he been reelected, the Republican National Committee, the NRCC, they have all poured money into Steve King's race to make sure that he was reelected, even after he said those things about dreamers, even after he made anti-Semitic comments.

When he said all these things and he's been in trouble, the Republicans have still come to his rescue. And many Republicans have actually sought his endorsement when running for national office in Iowa.

And again, they need to step up all the time, not just when he's this blatant. That's what's wrong with the Republican Party and why we have so much racism still today is because people want to pretend like the only thing that's racist is when people actually say the nasty, racist words, or whether they are as blatant as Steve King. But we know that racism is much more systematic, much more built into the system than that, and much more of a problem than just the blatant things that we occasionally hear.

[18:40:40] CUPP: So I know the CBC has released a statement, asking for him to be removed from committees. I have called on Republicans as well to not just condemn his language. That should be, you know, baseline, but to tell him to step down. Tell him to resign. He might not do that, but at least we get people on record telling him he indeed does not belong in Congress. What do you expect to happen though to Steve King? VEASEY: You know, I don't know what is going to be Steve King's

future and don't really care. I don't think that Steve King needs to be in Congress. I think Republicans should ask him to resign.

CUPP: Yes.

VEASEY: But I think that in the meantime, I think that the talk that he could possibly be censored, I would be very supportive of that. Steve King should have been censored a long time ago.

CUPP: Yes.

VEASEY: When the Republicans had the gavel, they should have censored him. This is not new for this man. This is a terrible person. This a terrible human being. He is a white supremacist, racist, period.

CUPP: Thank you, Congressman Veasey. I really appreciate you coming on.

VEASEY: Good to see you, S.E.

CUPP: For more on this, I want to turn now to Tim Wise. He is an anti-racism educator and author of "White Like Me, Reflections On Race from a privilege sign."

I want to have a different conversation with you, Tim.

TIM WISE, ANTI-RACISM EDUCATOR: Sure.

CUPP: Steve King asked the question, I wanted to have you on in particular to answer it, so the question was, white nationalist, white supremacist, western civilization, how did that language become offensive? Answer it.

WISE: Well, it's offensive because it goes against at least the stated principles of the United States, even though as a country we have never lived up to them historically. We certainly had a rhetoric. That said, we were more than just a white Republic. So that's number one.

They certainly ought to be known as offensive at least since the civil rights movements, which if you are going to continue to endorse white supremacy or white nationalism or if you are going to believe that western civilization is essentially a biological thing that can only be furthered by people who were quote-unquote "wipe them" by definition, you are rejecting the legacy of the civil rights movement. So you would think that this was basic stuff that even a seven or 8- year-old would know, but apparently there aren't awful a lot of folks in our country who haven't gotten the memo yet.

CUPP: Well, and you talked to people who used to be white supremacists in your work.

WISE: Sure.

CUPP: When they hear the world nationalist, do they makes a distinction between that and white supremacist?

WISE: No, look, obviously, the term "nationalism" has existed outside the context of race before. But the difference is when you have someone like Steve King or for that matter President Trump who say, well, they are not white nationalist, they are American nationalists. The problem is if you are saying American nationalists to people who already assume America equals white, then those things are seen as synonymous.

And so, if you have a president who says, for instance, we want to make America great again, we know historically, it wouldn't really all that great for people of color, so who is he speaking of? He is talking about America as a racial thing, as a white place. And unfortunately, what a lot of white folks in this country you have forgot is something James Baldwin told this years ago when he was still alive. That America was never truly a white country, it is just that white folks had the luxury of believing that that was the case.

So I think when new-Nazis is here, that one, white supremacist hear that, they are making the connection even if Trump or King or others are sort of winking and nodding and not always being upfront.

CUPP: I mean winking and nodding I think is of the past. You know, the President said outright call me a nationalist. King said, I'm just a nationalist. Is that, you think, an attempt to normalize those words? And is it working?

WISE: Right. Well, it's certainly an attempt to normalize the words when Steve King does it, when David Duke does it, when people like that. I think Donald Trump has always been, first and foremost, about Donald Trump. I think he does it because he knows it pays dividends with the base that he desperately needs in order to stay in power. So I'm not sure, you know, how deeply felt anything is with Donald Trump.

But I will say that when people use that kind of language, it certainly becomes more normalized. When I started doing this work, it was in 90 and 91 against David Duke when he ran for Senate and governor in Louisiana. He was at that time using dog whistles, talking about welfare, immigration, affirmative action, now we have moved from the dog whistle to the bullhorn. We have normalized a racist rhetoric far more dangerous 30 years later.

[18:45:06] CUPP: So before we go, do you think that this sort of normalization, this nostalgia for a white America, does that die out with a generation or is it already permeating younger generation?

WISE: Well, it only dies out if we do the work. Obviously, I don't believe that things changed just because the clock hands turn or the calendar pages turn. But I do want to say this. I think young people having grown up in a multi-culture in a way that older white folks, for example, in this country did not, are more likely to accept that multi-culture, although there are those folks like the ones in Charlottesville who clearly did not. So we have a lot of work to do. There is reason to be hopeful but we still have to do the work to ensure that this poison isn't passed on to another generation.

CUPP: Tim, some really good advice. Thanks for joining me.

WISE: Thank you, S.E.

CUPP: OK. Next, I will ask an expert whether it's finally time to reign in the imperial presidency or if it's too late?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:30] CUPP: A bombshell report in "The New York Times" last night revealed that in 2017, FBI counterintelligence agents began investigating whether President Donald Trump was actually working on behalf of Russia against American interests. It's almost too crazy to image, and yet --.

Here to discuss this, Princeton professor of history and public affairs, CNN political analyst, Julian Zelizer, co-author of the new book, "Fault Lines: a history of the United States since 1974."

Julian, we don't know what the report has found, but how astounding is this?

JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's unbelievable. If you had told me this about another President, another time, you would say, come on, you are making this up. And this is a pretty big claim to come on the front page of a major newspaper. And it will fuel the energy and questions that are surrounding the Mueller report.

CUPP: I mean, the FBI was at least alarmed enough by Trump's, really, aberrant, unprecedented behavior when it came to Russia to pursue this. Just imagining sort of the levels they would have to go through to even pursue this, right? Knowing they were going to get backlash, that it was going to be politicized. They really must have thought they had something there.

ZELIZER: And this is what we know from his public appearances and public statements. They know more.

CUPP: Sure.

ZELIZER: And so the question is, what do they have privately that triggered these kind of concerns? But this constitutes a big deal for the FBI to do this.

CUPP: So you have a new column in "The New York Times," entitled, "have we had enough of the imperial presidency yet?" co-authored with Kevin Cruz, the co-author of your book, in which you write, with Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives and the Mueller investigation seemingly coming to a conclusion as well, Mr. Trump will likely be held to account in one form or another. But it's important to remember that the imperial presidency will outlive any one President, unless more is done to institute real checks and balances on the office itself. What do you mean by that?

ZELIZER: Well, I think he is exposed how powerful the President remains over four decades after Nixon stepped down. If a President wants to break norms and wants to go against constitutions, there's not as much as we thought to hold him back. And if his own party controls Congress, as they did, and will sit quietly while a President exercises that muscle, they can exercise the muscle. So I think he has raised some pretty big questions, not just about himself, but about the presidency.

CUPP: The office.

So, of course, Presidents from both sides of the aisle have overused executive authority to sidestep Congress. Not making any comparisons, not doing whataboutism, but just what do you say to the argument that Obama's use of executive authority might have made Trump's a little easier?

ZELIZER: Sure. I think Trump builds on what many Presidents have done. Really, since Nixon, we try to reform the presidency and reign it in, but Presidents in both parties have gradually strengthened the institution and parties often sit quiet when it's their own President. And so, this is what happens when a President can use executive authority to do all sorts of things.

CUPP: Yes. People keep saying that Nixon, you know, had a lot of support in Republicans, until he didn't, right? And it sort of very quickly collapsed. Do you see that happening here with this President?

ZELIZER: It could. Partisanship is a lot stronger in 2019 than it was in 1974

CUPP: You think? You find that?

ZELIZER: It is. And it is not simply do they support him, but the forces working to propel partisanship from the conservative media to the way campaign finance works, Nixon didn't have all of that. But still, don't assume it can't break. Nixon didn't assume Republicans would abandon him and they did.

CUPP: Right.

ZELIZER: And these scandals have a life of their own, and they can change the way a party looks at what's in its best increases.

CUPP: You argue also that, you know, while Nixon was bad when it comes to this kind of authority, Trump's worse, because he doesn't really care if he sort of burns it all down.

ZELIZER: Yes, I think that's true. I think even Richard Nixon, who was a pretty abusive President, had a respect for the institutions of government that President Trump really doesn't have. And I think that's what we watch every day. He is willing to go to places that Nixon and others were not willing to go. And I think that can be a little frightening to watch from the outside.

CUPP: It is. I wonder if Republicans are frightened enough about that, or it's more short-term gain for them.

ZELIZER: Not yet. I think they are still thinking short-term gain. They are thinking partisanship means that they should support the President. And the question is, when does partisanship turn against them? When are they so frightened, either politically or on principle that they say enough.

[18:55:08] CUPP: Julian, thanks so much. Great piece.

ZELIZER: Thank you.

CUPP: Great book. Everyone, look out for it.

That's it for us tonight. .

Stick around for the "VAN JONES SHOW" with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is throwing her hat into the 2020 ring. That's a must watch. He is also talking to Republicans who were ousted in the midterms about the future of their party. That's all next on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END