CBN's David Brody Prays at Trump Luncheon, Explains Possible Shutdown Solution
- Is our CBN News Chief Political Analyst,
and he joins us now from Washington.
David, you had a unique experience.
You had that luncheon with the President.
You were sitting next to him.
Tell us what happened.
- Right, Pat, it waspretty neat. (laughing)
Off the record, it was anetwork anchor luncheon,
basically CBN and CNN and NBC, ABC,
all of them around the table there
in the Roosevelt Room of The White House.
The President there, theVice President there,
and it was all beforehis Oval Office address,
basically trying to spin hisway through what he wanted,
his message that he wantedto get out to the anchors.
It was off the record.
I can't specifically say what he said.
I will just say it was avery interesting experience
and what I can tell you andI did talk to The White House
about this this morning,so it's okay to say,
but the President actually,
I was sitting next to the President,
to the left of the President.
George Stephanopoulos was to his right.
The President looks over atme right before the luncheon
and says, "do you mindsaying a world of prayer?
"Will you say a prayer for us?"
And of course, I tookthe opportunity to do it
and said it in Jesus name.
- David, it looks like thesupporters of the President
think that the Democrats are trying
to use the term if I can say, to roll him,
and to force him to make concessions that
will be damaging to him politically.
How do you think the thing is shaping up?
- Pat, I think you'reright on the money here.
That's exactly what they'retrying to do and let me
take it a step further.
We've heard about these eightor nine appropriations bill.
The reason I say nine isif you include DHS in all
of that, it's nine appropriations bills,
but the Democrats keepsaying to Donald Trump,
just look, let's get eightof 'em at least going.
We'll argue about DHS, theDepartment of Homeland Security,
in the next month orso, but let's at least
get eight signed so wecan get pretty much all
of the government back up and running.
And Donald Trump's like, noway, I'm not gonna do it,
and the reason is, whenyou talk to folks inside
The White House, they say, look,
we lose the leverage at that point.
That's what they're saying.
Why in the world would theysign eight appropriation bills
and then all you have letis DHS and at that point,
there's no guaranteethat Democrats will come
to the table anyhow, 'causethey're already on record
saying they're not gonnagive one dollar for the wall.
And I think that's partof the problem here.
- Well, is there any common ground?
For example, the DACA, those dreamers,
there should be a deal made on them.
If the Democrats could givesomething to the President,
but if they just try to striphim and make him look weak,
he's not gonna give in.
But is there some commonground they could negotiate on?
- It's interesting, Pat,you bringing up DACA,
because obviously,we've heard that before,
and The White House neverrules it out or rules it in.
They're kind of leaving a bit
on the table which suggests to me,
it doesn't take a rocketscientist to figure out,
if they're not ruling it inor out, then it's in play.
Look, if you're the Democrats,
how in the world are you notjumping at that opportunity?
You're gonna give DonaldTrump some money for the wall,
if you will, in return forcodifying DACA, those dreamers,
into law, something Obama never did.
He went ahead from aConstitution standpoint,
he said he was trying to do that,
from an Executive Order standpoint.
But he never codified it into law,
so how do you not take thatdeal if you're Democrats?
Having said that, thatcould be one way out.
Pat, I think the way, where this is going,
and I've said this fora couple of weeks now,
I think you need to watch thoseRepublicans in the Senate.
Are they going to jump ship
and basically turn on this President?
And here's how I see itpotentially going down.
Look, the Democrats in theHouse have passed this bill;
they're gonna pass the billto open up the government.
In the Senate, McConnell'snot gonna bring it up
because obviously, it's not gonna pass.
But, 47 Democrats, andeventually, as this time goes on,
you need 13 Republicans for a total
of 60 to get the bill passed.
I think eventually, you'regonna see some Republicans
in the Senate come out of the woodwork
and say enough already,
let's open the governmentand that'll be that.
At that point, I see DonaldTrump vetoing that bill,
then letting the Senate andthe House override that veto
to get the government backopen, and at that point,
it becomes a win politicallyfor Donald Trump.
He says, look, I vetoed thebill and they over-rode my veto
and let Republicans, thoseestablishment Republicans,
that are okay with no wall funding,
let them live with thepolitical repercussions of that.
- Do you think, isn'tthat a little too arcane
for the average voter tounderstand, what you just said?
- It may be.
I'm still trying to figure it--
No, no, I understand it, I think.
But look, Donald Trump haseven said that he will veto
any bill that comes to his desk and look,
he didn't say that just willy nilly.
The House is controlled by the Democrats.
He knows this is kind ofcode for putting pressure
on McConnell and the Senate to say,
don't even think aboutbringing a bill on the floor
that passes what theDemocrats pass in the House
because I'm gonna veto it.
I think eventually look,
the question I think forboth parties is what's
the off ramp here for theDemocrats and for the Republicans?
And I think the Republicans have,
Donald Trump has givensome concessions here.
We've heard about MikePence going in and talking
about, look, we'll take twoand half billion dollars,
not five and a half billion dollars.
And so, there's beenthat, but the Democrats,
they've got a left wing progressive base
that will not take yes for an answer
as it relates to wall funding.
- David, you know, thiswhole idea of declaring
a national emergency, hedidn't do that last night,
but he has absolutelyauthority as Chief Executive,
under the Constitution, todeclare national emergency
and then use moneyalready appropriated for--
- Right.- For military construction.
There's at least, what is it,
10 billion dollars or more in that budget
that's already beenappropriated he can use.
- Right, it's 10 billion of unused funds
that go the Army Corps of Engineers.
And by that way, that'scivilians, not the military,
civilians who could build the wall.
That would be the scenario under
the National Emergency'sAct which was passed
back in 1976.
Look, the President cando that if he wants to.
I think he's keeping itin his hip pocket as an
Art of the Deal strategyploy to say, look,
if y'all don't come to; y'all,listen to me, all of y'all.
That's what they say in the South.
If you don't come to anagreement, I'll trot this out.
No reason to burn that inthe Oval Office address
on Tuesday night, when you can have that
as a leverage point going forward.
- He could do it and as I see it David,
there is no court in the country,
at least any responsible court,
that would try to challenge him.
A court will not enter in to the domain
of the Chief Executive in relation
to foreign policy and military policy.
That's a legislative thing and even
the Congress couldn't stop him.
- Well, it's laid out in section2808 that he can do this.
The question then becomes whatis the crisis, specifically.
Well, he'll talk about bordersecurity and all of that,
but from a legal standpoint,will that hold up in court?
'Cause you know the Democratsare gonna challenge it
and The White House is gonna have to make
that compelling case, not justin court if it goes that far,
but really to the American people,
that this indeed is a crisis.
And we saw in that OvalOffice speech last night
was something we reallyhaven't seen before,
for this President to really concentrate
on the humanitarian side of this and cast
this in moral terms saying, look,
it's immoral of theCongress to do nothing.
And so I thought that was adifferent tact that he used
finally, Tuesday nightfrom the Oval Office.
I'll also say this.
If you notice, he leftthe wall for the end.
He talked about bordersecurity and everything,
the cameras and thisand that, more agents,
and then he said, lawenforcement professionals say,
we need the wall.
He never said, I want thewall, we need the wall.
He's saying, look, this iswhat the experts are saying.
And I thought that would help him from
a public relation standpointwith the American people.
- One last question.
There are an estimated 12million undocumented aliens
in the United States right now.
Now, Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York,
has said I want to declarehealth care a right
for every single person in New York,
wherever they come from.
Now, could Trump justpick up a whole bunch
of those undocumented aliensand bring 'em in to New York
and say, okay, Bill, here they are.
- Well, leave it to Trump topossibly do that, for sure.
I'll be honest with you,Pat, I think he has,
obviously some bigger problemson his hands right now.
I will say this, Bill deBlasio is representative
of exactly what the Democratsare facing come 2020
in this big Presidentialcampaign coming up,
which is this progressive left wing.
I mean, they're out there, Pat.
They want what, Medicare for all,
they want 70% tax rates on onceyou hit 10 million dollars.
It's out of control andthe question for Democrats
that are running in 2020 is,are they for any of this,
and if they are, that might betheir death now politically,
because look, that might appealfor the 23% of the country,
but it doesn't appeal to the majority
of Americans, for sure.
- Right on, David.
Thank you so much.
David Brody, thank you for your insights.
Isn't that interesting?