hello everyone and welcome to "amanpour and company. federal prosecutors cnk up the pressure on president trump saying for the first time that he is implicated in campaign violations. i hear from the federal election commission and a former federal prosecutor. then from chaos in the white hoe to a melt dow in the british government. the prime minister delays a brexit vote that she was going to lose. lati evangelical,he reverend speaks to our michelle

martin. additional support has been provided by -- and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. welcome t the program. ri

governments and dysfunction is coming to a boil on all sides of the atlantic in the united states, in france and right here in thenited kingdom where the negotiating skills of the british prime minister sa may have been under severe scrutiny. she has been staring defeat for her brexit deal in the face. at the 11th hour may delayed the crucial parliamentary vote. sheepeated her mantra, her he l is the only deal on table. >> if we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow the deal would be rejected by significant margin. we will therefore defer the vote scheduled for tomorrow and not proceed to divide the house at this time. but mr. speaker, if you take a step back, it is clear that this house faces a much more fundamental question. does this house want to deliver

brexit? >> and the leader of the opposition, jeremy corbin, said the government has now lost totae control. >>re in extremely serious and unprecedented tuation. the government has lost control of events and is in complete disarray. this is a bad deal for britain,b a deal for our economy and a erd deal for our democracy. our country ds better than this. >> so hereo discuss is peter hague he believes the u.k. should remain in the eu. thank you for joining us to try to explain what on earth is going on. can you tell us how chaotic and how much of a problem it is here in the u.k. >> it is extremely chaotic and it is going to grs i have predicted for a while now that this situation will icntinue to develop in a haphazard unprble way. because if you start with the

reir remits that the prime minister was given, it was an impossible straight jacket that she was bound in. she was asked to square an impossible circle, to try to keep all the benefits of european union membership without any of the obligationse beca were leaving. that especially came to pass and came to head over the northern island border. for a long time government ministers when i was raising this matter we in denial saying it is going to be all right on the night we are determined to keep an open border? when we try toquare the impossible circle of satisfying the grass roots and conservative with the reality on the irish border they can't satisfy anybody. >> let me ask you because this issue of ireland and northern

ireland is so-calledk the b stop issue that is meant to be kind of a compromise to keep the rder open and to ensure all sorts of smooth running while also delivering brexit. can you explain what back stop means and why it is so impossible to get it over the hurdle in parliament? >> it means a kind of insurance policy because you see teresa ay's so-called deal actually doesn't sort anything out for the longer term. it gets britain through the brexit barrier that she is absolutely determined to do in line with the referendum results of two years ago. but ititoesn't deal future trading relationships. leaves a completely uncertain future and an unstableuture because the trading relationship between britain and the european union where half our trade

depends on it. it is crucial to try to have a future trading at the same time as staying outside the customs union which is what she wants t do and outsi the single markets which her party wants to do, both of whi are crucial to the open trade we have eoyed for 40 years or more. you know, that isll up in the air. so the back stop was an po insuranccy to say what matters above all is to maintain peace and stability on the island in a way that was delivered by the good friday agreement. for that youeed -- they have the same trading relationship to simplifyth matters. is where it is common stock. h

her -- they sought maybe the insunce policy being a permanent insurance policy because they can never reconcile the irreconcilable. >> they are right. st to point out that there is a lot of demonstrating and chanting and protestingbehind you, there have been a huge number of protests for and against brexit over the weekend. as it gets to crunch time, people's voices are being heard. so if this is so impossible, i mean,nd as y rightly say, the prime minister is being forced to square an impossible circle, that seems to have been obvious, t lger the process goes ahead. but let me ask you this. you areirmly in the remaining camp. i assume you wouldhi be the sort of procedures trying to get a second vote. is that correct? >> i am in favor of the people's vote. i think this is such a miss. i do not believe that even those

who are most strongly voted to leave in the referendum two years ago voted for this mess. and i don't see any way out of this mess except a vote to the people to say surely it is better to remain after all of this. let me just qualify one int. we needn't have been here. if the prime minister had been allowed by her party andf she had chose toon discuss with the opposition party not justabor but the other opposition parties a deal if you like to bring bote of the referendum together ere britain is still brexited, but stayed in the single market in the customs union, that essential protection where our jobs and trade and economy and prosperity, i think she would have gotten a deal through. the problem for her is her party and large members of the cabinet are absolutely fanatica brexiteers would not allow her to do it. that ishy i think all roads

now lead to a people's vote and a referendumomtpoint in the future to rescue britain from this absolutelyshamable. >> i put that to one of the prime minister's backers and a member of her government, justice minister rory stewart about a week ago in the runup to this now postponed vote. he told me that another vote would tr this count apart. just listen to what he said. >> if you tryoro i that and just stay in the european union you would have ver toxic policies. you would have the british nationalist party taking off, immediate push for third referendum even if the campaign narrowly won. cannot un the fact the referendum happened. i ink people are underestimating what would happen if for the first time in british history we chose to overhaul a major herd.

>> that is a conservative party member. he is a government minister. how do you respond tothat? >> what is going on behind me? the country is split down the middle. it was in the referendum. it wasn't as if there was a run away victory for the lead decision. it was 52-48. what has happened is that the brexiteers have taken the decision and stuck it in the pockets and driven the prime minister in front of them as if there was no divisions. the country is already split. i do not see how giving the people a chance for a second thought, an opportunity to say is this really what we wanted, is this smiss, t loss of jobs, his loss of prosperity,

damage to our own future and that of our families, none of whichas spell out by the lead campaign, they promised new kind of future which was there were no problems with it, it would s all beny on the upside and greener on the other side. all of that stuffin now we are freality. i think a lot of people are saying i really would like the opportunity to consider this a game. anagree to this extent. you cannotpl s ignore the last referendum. the people have their say in it. i think the peoplehould have the opportunity to have another say given the mess which i see no end to given the mess we are in. i don't see an end to it otherwise. >> can i just press you on what kind of a vote it would be? what would the question be? is it the same i question stayn or out of the european union or

is sit teresa maeal versus no deal? what would the essential question be? >> at the moment it would be between teresa may's deal and remaining. and for peopleo decide what they want because that is the only choices available to us. parliament will not vote or n de deal. just in time supply chain supplying them and keeping the jobs and the cars coming off the praluction line. of that would be thrown up into the air through a no deal, just literally going off the cliff edge. i don't think parliament would vote fat. it would probably have to be between teresa may's deal. one of the things that are most

important heres at people be given the opportunity of rescuing parliament from the mess it finds itself in. >> we see the eu looking on aghast as theyre the principle negotiators. the brexit coordinator tweeted callow anymore after two years of negotiations the government wants to delay the vote. just keep in mind tha we will never let the irish down. this delay will further aggravate the uncertaint for people in business. it's time they make up their mind. ve, very quickly because want to get on to france, does she have any chance of getting european wiggle om? she is about to go off to brussels again this week. >> sheight get warm words.

this is a treaty that has been agreed between the british government and the 27ations of the european union. you can't just aggravate a decision like that. she might get warm words. i'm not sureha will change any minds in the fanatics who areticking out against any sensible way forward, i'm afraid, which is why i come to the referendum and the need for the pele to have their say. >> i just want to ask you because for our american viewers, you talk about fanatics, would o of those be boris johnson?th he i former foreign secretary and a majore hard l brexiter. would you call him a fanatic? >> i'm afraid i would on this issue. they went into the ranerendum came out of it and two years later they are in the same place. they don't have plan of their own. they cannot keep the irish border open, maintain peace and

stability on the island of ireland, keep our trade and jobs and prosperity with the european unionin ct. they want to sever all ties with it. lais is impossible. they never had a of their own. that's why i think it is aor of dogmatism a fanaticism. i think that's the reason for it. >> and very quickly -- >> they ner have come up with their own plan. >> what would a boris johnson prime minier look like if he succeeds in a leadership coup. >> i think pretty awful. i don't see any chance of him becoming leader. who knows what is going to happen in british politics at the moment? i have been in politics for 50 years. i don't know what is going to happen tomorrow. i think it is more likely than not that she will cling on. >> you say you have never seenh an like this before.

across the channel in france people have said they have never seen the light of these riots, demonstrations and particularly person personal lal attacks on the preselent macron hi i think you are more of a centrist. what do you see for the future of sent tropical stocentrist po? >> i think people in the center left like me have got to understand theootsf this crisis as we have seen in france and have seen it play out in a different way here in britain. brexit is a symptom ofthat. until you start living in anh economy wh until the last couple of decades and since the banking crisis has stopped, until you -- it delivers to the middle of the society toy.

the labor politicians like me ha ve tried to do something abo that. the middle is being badly hit by the form o economics known as near liberalism which i think president macron ill-advisedly didn't chalnge. he is now reaping a bitter -- politicians here however brexit goes who think all is stopped, who think they can jusarry on are going to find political a result political instability of following them all the way. i think that isos now true a europe. i'm afraid it is true right in places like united states of america, as well. we have to learn these lessons. >> we are turning there next. thank you for joining us on this very uncertain -- >> her close ally, the u.s. president is facinl serious lesues on a personal

level. federal prosecutors in new york ha implicated a crime alleging illegal hush paents made at trump's diction by his former lawyer michael coheno pay off and silence two women. they claim t have had affrs with mr. trump. tpresident de niee denies t relationships. it comes as special counsel mueller drops more bombshells ab t the trump campaign an connections to russia. clearly, the white house is feeling the heat and t president has yet to announce a new chief of staff when john an kelly down at the end of the month. so to try to dissect all of this and to discuss it, the u.s. government's accusations is trevor potter. he is a former commissioner and chair of e u.s. federal election commission and also joining us former federal prosecutor andr wri for the new yorker, jeffrey toobin. weome to you both. so it does seem like there is this rolling sense of crisis across the atlantic.

it has been bubbling and boiling for a long time. let me first y ask on given that you are a former officia with the republican election commission, what does this say to you now? all of what has been dropped by prosecutors, the advice that mueller had to the prosecutors in new york and what is going on withnd trumphe payoffs to these women? >> we now know that th prosecutors have a great deal of evidence, not only that these payments occurred and of course president trumpim for a long maintained that they didn't, but that they were done from two sources both o whichonstitute illegal expenditures if they are campaignte re one is michael cohen himself, the president's personal lawyer and the other is the company that owns the national enquirer and corporations are prohibited from spending money on behalf of candidates. so the prosecutors say the money

was spent. these two women were paid in two differen ws in the middle of nde presidential campaign, really at the in september and october of 2016. and mr. cohen has pled guilty t violating the criminal laws in doing so. he says thate did these things, that they were deliberate attempts to avoid the porting and contribution limits of the federal election laws. and he did so at the direction of president trump. so that is what brings this right into the president's living room is that his former lawyer is saying trump organized the whole thing. now, the presidnt says that's not true. it's my word against his. part of the question is what evidence do the prosecutors have.

we know they have some tapes. we know there are other witnesses who they have interviewed. sohat is what will play outgoing forward. >> before i turno jeffrey toobin, how big a deal from your perspective as a republican, former official is this? how big a deal is this for the president now? >> well, he has the argument makes the argument that these were purely personal payments that had nothing to do with the on the facts, that seems a real stretch because they were made h only i closing days of the campaign. in one of the casesth one o women had made the charges years before. othere was n payment then. suddenly it was important to get this done in a rush at the end of the campaign. but that is his first argument. his second really is at even if these things occurred, it was all cohen's fault and not his fault. those are fact questions. re thity is we have all been

told that the department of justice has a policyf not prosecuting a sitting president. so the question becomes, does the department and its prosecutors wait until the end of trump's term and then bring the charges? of course, question of does congress look at this a say the law was violated whether or not there is a criminalut prosn at this stage. but at some stage it is going to boil down to the question of who is telling the truth here. i' reminded of the great water gate line which is what did the president know and when did he know it? we are now aware thatthe presidnew a great deal about this much earlier than he said that he was in the middle of it. e' so have to see whether anymore information develops as a result of what we have already seen in the court now. >> so jeffrey, anymorefo ation? what do you expect to come out?

what do you think asr just mention mentioned -- he suggested the congress has a choice as to whether to prosecute, the difference between political and what the justice department thinks. what do you think congress will do particularly in the house where they will be taking over the airmanships of the committees? >> trevor made a rlly important point which is that under the policy the president can't be prosecuted while in office. the issue is no going to be criminal prosecution of president trump. it is t goingo be impeachment. will congress take action against the presidele he is in office? and i think the answernt cur is not yet. there is not enoughvince yet to persuade the democrats that it is worth proceeding here. as your viewers may know, our

system for removal of presidents you have to get a majority in the house of representatives and then two thirds, 67 votes in the senate. there is no way there are 67 votes in the senate. and as the republicans t discovered whey had an unsuccessful effort to remove presiden f clintonm office in 1998, the public doesn't like impeachment efforts that go nowhere. you either have to kill the king or don't attack him. and the democrats i have spoken to, nancy pelosi, jerry nadler who will be the new chairman of the judiciary committee, they say we are not proeding with impeachment unless we can really have a strong belief that the sena is going to remove him from office. and we are nowhere nr that at this point. i think there will be house oftions from the representatives but removal from office is really not on the agenda based on the evidence we

know. >> we have a sound byte regarding what y just said. let's just play him fleshing o tails on the issue. im you don't necessarily launch an achment against the president because he committed an impeachable offense. how important were they? do they rise to the gravity here you should undertake an impeachment? an impeachment is an effect to overturn or change theesult of the last election. that's always the qution. >> can turn to trevor for the moment? that is sort of him saying what he believes will be the perspective of the new committee that he is on. trevor, rudy giuliani is comparing the allegations. he allegedlyly simil paid hush money to cover up an affair.

he was never convicted of the case. giuliani says that goes to prove that no crime committed and no violation of campaign finance laws occurred. do you agree? >> i think there are enormous differences between the cases. there is an attempt to say it is all election laws and very complicated. the fec said there is no problem newith paying hush that is not accurate. what happened with edwardsed happore than a year before the election. the primaries hadn't started yet. there were no signedgreements for hush money. the woman involved was not threatening to go public. he had an affair with her. they had a child and the money was being sought to raise the child, house the woman, literally putood on t table. she had been a campaign photographer and had no other resources. i think the situations are very different than here happening thehe month before election

with agreements that explicitly say we'll give you this m yey an won't talk to the press at a time when all the evidence indicates they were threatening to talk to the press and say figure you don't get us the money within the next x days, we are going ahead and revealing this a publically at the worst possible time for the campaign. so i think the situations are e qufferent. the evidence here plus there are tapes here that weren't there. there appear to be oth witnesses here and the officials of the nationalne inquirer paper who have been interviewed by the prosecutors. there is much more here. i think you are still left with the reality, though,he that if prosecutors are right, if cohen is right, if the other evidence is there and the preside violated the law, he did so before he became president. de so he e vulnerable to criminal charges, but that is different than the questionhe o wh it rises to an

impeachable offense. the prosecutors argue is that one of the tngs thevidence tells us is that the election tself was fraud because the american public was hoodwinked, denied information that arguably would have been really important for them to know right after we had all the other scandals with thees hollywood t and so forth if the president had these twof s with women and had paid them hush money. he sorosecutors say that this went to the heart of our system beuse it was hiding information from voters that was relevant to them in making a decision. again, tt is different than congress deciding that presidentsru act s constitute high crimes and miemeanors. does that include things that he did before he became president? then you have to weigh against that the fact that these involved the campaign which made him president.

>> jeffrey, your reaction? >> i think that'sly exa right. the reason this is such a big deal is that on the eve of the election when two women were about toome forward to allege extramarital affairs with donald trump, something that would have been a huge bombshell affecting th outcome of the election almost without doubt, this money was paid to shut the up. that certainly is a campaign expense by any rational determination. so the guilt seems fairly what is very complicated is peachable is an offense. that is much more a political question than a legal question. you don't -- just because there is a technical violation of the law, you don't impeach someone because that is sorh a m step. we have never removed a president in all of american story. bill clinton was impeached.

andrew johnson was impeached. d rich nixon was forced to resign. we have never impeached and removed a president. it is obviously a very big deal. i think the democrats are waiting to hear everything from robert mueller before they a real decision. all of these interim disclosures, fill in political situation, but no democrat is going to do anything until we hea everything that robert mueller and the special counsel -- >> irobert mueller did over the weekend on they fri and last week, all his recommendanions aboutort and flynn and cohen and jail time and deals and all the rest of it, where is that in the sort of, you know, the road forward right now? how significant is all of that as we stand right now? >> it is significant because a ot of the developments we are talking about, the facts we are learning come out of the court but what we have not seen is

robert mueller's comprehensive picture of what really went on here. what was the nature of the relationship between the trump campaign and russian terests? was there a conspiracy to effect the outcome of the how should we view the firing of fbi director james comey? was that an act of obstruction e of jusy the president of the united states? those are the core questions that mueller is investigating. and we haven't heard his comprehensive answer to that. untildo we , i don't think any democrat in a position of power is going to make a determination about whether to proceed on impeachmen >> we learned today that the accused russian spy appears to have reached a plea deal wh prosecutors. so that of course, she is accused of infiltrating republican circles todvce russian interests. h

trevor, whs more significant or serious? is it the russia or campaign financeallegations? i want to ask you what you make of sort of a broader indictment of the president and his methods by people whoctually worked for him and who he appointed ast cabinet seies? for instance, this is secretary of state tillerson, former secretary of state, speaking this weekend sayingft so the president would say here is what i want to do and how i want to do it. i would have to u say ierstand what you want to do but you can't do it that way, it violates the law. discuss, trevor potter. >> well, we have a person here who we know from his entire business career was used to getting what he wanted and didt -- surrounded himself by people like cohen who tried to

make that possible. i don't thinke's used to being told that he can't do something because it's illegal. t and that's w tillerson was saying. you look at the payments to the women and it's pretty clear in cohen's account that trump said do this, make it happen. and we don't know whether he was flatout told it was illegal and said i don't care. but what we do know is that these laws were broken and cohen says at his direction. so i think through all of this, what we learn is that probably what we knew on election daywh h is we have a president who does what he wants and even h supporters are now saying he may not understand how government works and heay not be accomplishing everything, but at least he is connectingith a segment of the american people which is a way of ignoring the

information that has come out since the elecon. it's not just these illegal payments of hushoney with corporate money and so forth. the russian side itself -- it came up quite a while ago that ntrary to everything that the white house and president had said, there was a meet wg senior campaign officials and russias.s we had dirt on hillary clinton that will hp your campaign and the president's son said great, bring it on. we have known this. we have known meetings have oc i think it's not true. the candidates that i have been associated with,omeone like john mccain would have said cl the fbi.

there is a division. maybe it is a partisan division. maybe it is just some people don't want to face what we already know or have made the idecision that painful a is there is nothing we can do about it at this stage. >> let me ask you the final question. the former fbi diraitor has that americans should, quote, use every breath we have to make sure the lies stop on january 20, 2021 which is the next presidential inauguration day. on the spectrum of extraordinary comments by former officials, whe do you place that one? >> james comey has come out as an unspok -- as an outspoken opponent of the president and someone who believes thepr ident is a threat to the rule of law. comey himself is in a peculiar situation because hillary clinton suppor rs can't stand

the guy either because on the eve of the election he disclosed an investigation of hillary clinton that may have cost her the election. so he is a -- an unusual figure. we are certainly at a moment where the number of people who believe the president was involved in very serious, actually criminal wro doing, is very high. it is not high enough to get him removed from office at this point. but we are very much mid scandal, not at the end of the scandal. and i for one certainly have no idea how it is going to turn out. >> we have had a bipartisan discussion. jeffreyn too and trevor potter, thank you so much for joining us this evening. sticking with the white house, turning to immigration and looking through the filter of religion with our next guest the reverend samuel rodriguez. is puerto ricoen.

he quickly rose to prominence among christian evangelicals. now as his latino comnity a church diverge over actions of president trp he talbout the hot button issue of immigration and why heopes for some compromise in washington. >> thank you so much foralking with us. is it my understanding that at least within the last sor of five or ten years that you had a belief that the evangelical movement on the whole was embracing the idea of immirmation re would that be accurate? >> i have bn advocating for reform for years. i worked with george. bush on it and president obama eight years on it. now i'm working with president trump. to be honest, in the beginning the white evangelical community wastahechest group opposing immigration reform. there was a meeting where we were praying. one of them at the end of the

meeting sasamuel, why don't you tell your people to go back home? i didn't bring up the issue of immigration. out ofrt bl the blue, tell youri people like ere moses. i was blown away. other resech studies validated the idea that the staunchest group opposing immigraon reform were white evangelicals. evangelicals are supportingio immigr reform in a way that protects the border but deals with those that are currently here in a way that is compassionate. >> what's going on with president trump, though? why are you not able to move him? >> as you well know, we have had conversations with the white house, with the president. i handed into the president f hims his hands a proposal

that i do believe will solve the issue. i think this is doable. i know it is doable. it is a new proposal that i'm giving the president. this proposal is a bitdgy and controversial. it is. i take away the issue of citizenship and perpetuity. so i sit d leadership. lican i ask them what in the world is going on? what is it? w every timee have a chance to pass immigration reform and private conversation offline say pastor sam, we have great angst that are legalizing ten million democratic voters. imagine the election we just had for mid terms. many of the elections the votrm dee the outcome. this would seal the deal for democrat party. s republic'm told the issue is citizenship. if we can ipmove citizen from the table and provide legal status for those that are

currently here undocumented that are not involved in nefarrious activity and notn depending o government welfare entitlements, butmo we citizenship i believe that is the deal breaker.p president tr'm not saying he will or would, i am speculating based on conversations anecdotally and directly, i believe the president may sign a piece of legislation that will bring forth comprehensive immigration reform if we remove the citizensp component fro any sort of deal. >> and so tell me why this is acceptable to you. you have always been a citizen. why do youeel that it is for you to trade away the gh citizenship of other people in. >> i'm not trading away anything. i have been advocating. my record is known and my kids armexirans.

i shirted pre in the front line. >> you just said you are going hi broker a deal -- >> because i asked i surveyed them. i got together in arizona. we had over 1,300 individuals from arizona intentionallyd recruio make sure we had undocumented leaders and followers in the meeting. i asked him what do we have to do. ahere is what they telling me on the hill. it's the issueze of cihip. this is why. they believe it is the rule of law. you came in herega ily. there has to be a price to pay. if you are not willing to go back to your country of origin, how in theorld can we grant citizenship to people who came in here illegally when a there those waiting to come here legally. it is not right and fair. so the response was we just want legal status. citizenship sfais not the numbe one thing we areighting for.

i'm not surrendering anything. i want these wonderful god fearing people who are a blessing to our nation and not a curse. i want them to come out of the shadows. the only way to do this to get acrossg is com here illegally. what is the price? if they remove citizenship fntm the pa not the children, mind you -- >> that was going to m bey question. >> the children would receive citizensp. the kid should not pay for the sins of their parents. the kids receive citizenship immediately and the parents do not. they are legal. they have a permant green card and can travel around the world and enjoyhe american experience and pass heritage from one generotion to the r. >> how does that address the problem? it seems the line is so long now, a lot of these people are hover going to see citizenship anyway. is that addressing the issue? >> it's a political issue. the moral issue is what i'm

fighting for. i'mplight frg p coming out of the shadows. i'm fighting for an end of this unbelievable hyperrhetoric. i want to remind the audience, the immigrant community is a blessed community. there are bad apples in every single group. so we can't jt paint collectively the immigrant community as this group engaged in nefarious activities orapes an murders. i'm not technically an immigrant, but as a puerto i ricoenan tell you first-hand as a pastor of s,documented individu some of the most hard working, god fearing most beautiful people it the plre undocumented in america. the political reality is this ship will never sail unless there is a great compromise. and in the spirit of daniel webster back from the 1800s, wea need to off great piece of compromise and that is the citizenship tcomponent. re was a moment in which i

recall that you would do a lot of events and conversations with a person very prominent, ricrd land who was the head of the southern baptist convention ethics a public policy commission. do you think that relationship >>nd of moved the conversation forward? o i began touring the country at different citiesg tell them we are not a curse. we are your greatest blessing. we are the fastest growing demographic in the southern baptist, church of god and so forth. so i would say try to deport us. y attenoes. you a porting your own future. this is the most christian group out of ten people that como jesus that convert, 6.9 are of latino descent. it is the growth othe church so you are deporting the growth of the church. once that conversation took place we saw anges. in full lodire, richard laer la.

i'm advocating for my community. when richard land took the podium and spoke on behalf of immigrants, that was the game changer. >> wouldn't it be fair to say that there were political clculations involved as well as demographicculations that you adhere to a certain set of conservative social ideasar tha also shared by white evangelicals? there is a l of compatibility around the views, around abortion rights and same-sex gh marriage . do you think that is something that they say these arewehings agree with? was it that kind of a deal? >> the is compatibility that i can't deny. i thinevery life is sacred. i have a personal belief about limited government. with that being said, i never sat down with richard land or white evangelical leaders to

deliberate on the strategy of getting comprehensive immigration reform passed because we will like republican candidates. itas always been independent, but i can't deny the fact that there is a l of coalescing around issues of life and religious iiberty wheret behooves -- i don't get why republ lans are note the staunchest supporters of immigration reform. 30% close . 29.7. 30% of latinos voted for president trump in spite of all th tweets a rhetoric. >> why is that? >> holy cow. 30%. more than romney. it's all about the faith. it's about life and religious liberty. cso when hillanton in her last debate talked about abortion in the ninth month, i got texts and e-mails. i was bombarded with texts. i just shiftedy at.

abortion in the ninth month? the moment hillary clinton endorsed that she lost a measurable portion of the latino electorate, enough to switch pennsylvania and florida over to the r in donald trump. >> let's talk about trump. sorry to cut you off. preachers never get edited. so i have to -- so on the one hand, like a lot of ot evangelicals, you agree with him on certain things. on the other hand, it's not just rhetoric but picies that you find deep laly hurtful and demeaning to people that you care deeply about. first of all, i wanted to ask, how did you decide to speak at his inauguruation? was that a difficult decision for you? >> no it was easy as sunday morning in the words of lionel richie. i'm going to tell you why. if obama would have invited mei ould have done the same

thing. and so to me george bush, obama, donald trump to m the is a continuum where i advocate for what i believe policies that are critical to the collective american community to latinos and to the people of faith. and thenk i w away from washington, d.c. i don't drink the partisan kool >> it's an occasion of state and you felt that you were there to lift upour own words. >> not my words. quite the the opposite drove me. 1.1 billion people watching around the worav and i the chance to preach the gospel to 1.1 billion people and lift up the name of my lord jesus. >> how did you decide what you were going to pray at the inauguruation? >> it will seem interesting. i prayed and ifasted. ad people around the country. i wanted to reconcile the country. i believe the lord drove me to matthew chapter 5. let us be light. blessed are those, the poor,

marginalized o that messaf unity and reconciliation, that was the message the holy spirit placed in my heart. it is the reason why d i sn over dinner at the white house with the president and vice president and sat dow next to ivanka and jared. and jared said whatou is in heart? i said racial reconciliation. he said how do you do it? i nt let'sbegin with prison reform, justice reform. the are people of color suffering in jail when white kids got off because they have the right attorneys and young men in color are in jail. we need sentencing reform andg justic reform. think about that. that is now a piece coming out of the white house that will impact communities of color but more importantly african-americans or more significany african-americans. >> as you know, there were many

people who declined to participate in the inaugu inauguruation. there are many people who declined to participate in certain of theset counsels t are put forward by the white house because they don't want their esence to be seen as an endorsement of this president's behavior or his policies >> i was there for president obama. when i disagreed with a great number ofis policies as you well know. so how about that? so to me presence is everything. dr. king -- that's when you should be present. a conversatngn can c a heart. i want to be there where a conversation can be there where someone's het will change. >> when something happens like, for example, the people who were being called the caravan when tear gas was fired at them

because there fere a people rushing the border, what is your response to an event likethat? what do you do? >> everyone stood privy to the fact that i was very disappointed with the engagements engaged by people in my border patrol. so i understand they do a great job at protecting our border and i appreciate theiricse however, tear gas and there were kids there. st i undd some of the kids were used intentionally by those in the beginning othe group attempting to come here illegally. we can do better. we can do better. by the way, it's not a caravan of 7,000 people aempting to invade america. y the vast majorf people are just desperate people looking for a better day. it should break the heart of every american. i have no problem when americans

say these people are trying to come here illegally. i respect that. i want to hear the following likewise. but we are hurting with them. we need to address their need. we should do something to help them b pause they areple created in the image of god. what would i do if i would be in their same circumstances. >> why do y say people attempting to come here illegally? it is my understanding that if you present yourself for asylum that the trepgz of the current law is that youre not illegal until you have been demonstrated to have not met the conditions forasylum. so why do you keep using that term? >> i hear you. there a twogroups. there is the group that was explicit in saying we a not accepted through the legal port of entry then we are going come in here illegally. i'm addressing that group. the group of individuals attempting to come here legally via the conduit of a port of entry apying for asylum there

is a process and legal system in place and they are engaging or attempting to engage that system, god bless them. more power to them. go to the process that is in place. what i call a illegal those that are attempting to come ine here ily who stated e plicitly if they reject here i'm going to try to come in here illegally. we want people to come here legally. >> seems the new testament is very clear about welcoming a stranger. how is it that people who aspouse a certain set of faith principles can be so hostile tord people who are fleeing for their lives? and since you are a person who has a foot in both worlds, how do you understandhis disconnect and how this issue is thewed? >> there is a grou really says our great angst, our consternation, the imperati at

lugs the acid reflux is the illegal entry. we want people to come here legally. then there is another group that i think suffers from a way of thinking where they believe that being an american is er we european presentation of the american definition. and that's not what makes you an american. the color of your skin, your pig pi e pigmentuation does not make you an american. herence to the declaration of independence where y embrace the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cht wh. you are born he or naturalized here or the son of an american who believes in the great idea that we have a right tha god gave us and only god can take them away. >> how do you change that? if somebody deeply believes that they are right and d ply believes that immigrants are a threat to the character of the country that they love, wt are you going to do to change that belief? >> when you wake up in the

morning if you see yourself primarily as a republican or a democrat you are issues. you should see yourself primarily as a ilristian, a of god. ll live out that christian you heritage as outlined by jesus. then we will have a compassionate world view, one that rognizes theule of law with compassion. otherwise, then we are just s d sunday christians and not living out our faith every day of ourv >> thank you so much for talking with us. >> thank you for having me. and when we spoke earlier this year, the reverend didn' hold his punches when speaking about trump's child migrant policies calling them antichristian and antiamerican. that is it for our program tonight. thanks for watching. join us again tomorrow night. uni world is a proud sponsor of "amanpour and company."

a river specifically, multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today that dream sets sail in rope, asia, india, egypt and more. for more informationit v uniworld.com. additional support has been provided by --

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ -today on "america's test kitchen," erin and bridget make the ultite apple strudel, adam reveals his top pick for bundt pans, and julia and bridget make the best cider-glazed apple bundt cake. it's all coming up right here on "america's test kitchen." "america's test kitchen" is brought to you by the following.