Transcript for Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Paris Agreement, travel ban, Russia probe
Nancy Pelosi, has been front and center in all the madness happening in D.C. And all around the world right now, and we have a lot to talk to her about. Please welcome the fabulous and very smart, Nancy Pelosi. You know, this -- this weekend's terror attack in London reignited this call for a travel ban from certain countries to the U.S., and you oppose this. Please explain to folks why. Well, thank you. It's a very important issue. First, we're so sad about what happened in the uk and in Manchester before that. So sad. But it is the wrong answer, the travel ban. First of all, the president is calling it a travel ban. His own people who are arguing the case are saying, it's not a travel ban, and what he is saying is to say, ignore the constitution of the united States. So that's just on that side of it. From the standpoint of achieving a goal, whether it's the military, whether it's the diplomats, whether it's the religious community. Whatever element of community or action terms, they are saying the travel ban should not be happening. Stop it. Even evangelicals. Evangelicals say that the refugees -- the U.S. Refugee resettlement program is the crowned jewel of U.S. Humanitarianism. It's about the vetting process though. Many are concerned -- not that they want to ban anyone based op religion, but they are concerned about the vetting process, and we don't want people infiltrating our country that have ties to Al Qaeda or terrorist ties. How do we figure out how not to ban people, but have vetting process? We do. The refugees coming -- they have the most stringent vetting program of all, be you your question is a good one. You said, we don't want to ban anybody on the basis of religion. That's against our constitution, but that's exactly what they are doing. Let me just say this. You should be subjecting vetting to scrutiny to make sure it's doing its job. We have that responsibility. That isn't even the point, but if you are doing it, they have had what? Four months to do it. It's supposed to take 90 days. Why didn't they just go about their job and do the -- subject vetting to scrutiny? We would be in a different place right now. Let's talk about the Paris agreement. Some people are upset and some people aren't. Some of the concern about the way it's written that S that we would be giving money to country to say, lower your greenhouse gas emissions and if they don't lower those emissions, there's no penalty for that. Maybe they agree climate change needs to be addressed, but there's no accountability. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Through this deal, there is plenty of accountability, and let me just say, in all fairness to you, what the president based his decision on is a memo that is totally false. It doesn't have factual basis, and that's a problem. For this, health care or any other large subject, you have to have a factual basis. Data, truth, facts. And the memo he was given, supposedly by his general counsel or the people at the EPA was not factual, so the point is this is in America's interest. When I became speaker, this was my flagship issue. The challenge to this generation, to preserve this planet, and working with the evangelicals who believe as to why that this planet is god's creation, and we have a moral responsibility to be good to it. That's a moral obligation to pass onto future generations in the best possible way, but part from that, the generals came in and said, this is in our national security interest, and with migration, there's a national security issue. The business community see by and large, opposes the president's decision because this is about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. And it's also -- and that's keeping America number one. It's a big health issue for the air our children and grandchildren breathe. I say, how is president trump ever going to explain this to his children and grandchildren he didn't care about the air they breathed or water they drank? He'll make something up like he always does. But seriously. This is a children's issue. Yes, it is. It is. Absolutely. And I think children know more about the subject than some of the people advising the president. So whatever we are doing is in our national interest to do so. And that we are the only country except for Syria that is not in it. Nicarag Nicaragua's not in it because they don't think it goes far enough. It wasn't good enough. So let's talk about this Thursday because former fib droer com director Comey is about to testify to the committee and he is going to say basically trump pressured him to end his investigation into Russia, which sounds like obstruction of justice. Is this a serious bombshell, and is it grounds or impeachment? You knew she would get to that word, right? She is hopeful. When that word comes up, I always say to my colleagues in the congress and my constituents and people across the country, what I said before, anything you do has to be based on data, evidence, facts. So you can speculate, but TSA got to be the law and the facts and how they match up. But trump already admitted on television that he said this to Comey, to please stop the investigation into Michael Flynn. He said it. What more proof do we need? I think for the American people, they need solid evidence. That's solid. I mean, admission. What more do you need? You said you thought Comey's behavior was inappropriate, and his actions were inappropriate, and he should be fired. I never said he should be fired. Oh. What I said was what he did as far as Hillary Clinton was concerned wasn't -- he couldn't take the heat for it. You said he was not in the right job. He wasn't in the job, and he couldn't take the heat for it. I'm curious about revealing that investigation and later coming back. He had an impact on the election. There's no question about that. But that's a separate issue from whether the president of the United States asked him to stop an investigation of the Russia connection. Of himself. Of himself so again. Let's take a deep breath and just calm down in the country. This is a serious matter. There is a possibility of obstruction of justice, flirting with it in any event coming out of the white house. If the president were to say he shouldn't testify, that would be very incriminating for the president. Let me ask you one more thing on that, and I'll use the "I" word very sparingly. The Republican congress will impeach him. They have no will to impeach him even if it is obstruction of justice. The Democrats have no power in this, am I right? You know what? Abraham Lincoln said -- remember this. Public sentiment is this. You are the bosses. That's why the facts have to be said to you in a way that is clear, juxtaposed with the law and how that, works. But the thing about it all is that whatever you think about Comey and whatever you think about -- Trump. Right. Number 45. Trump. The Russians -- it is an absolute fact that the Russians hacked, perhaps altered and dumped, leaked information interfering in our election, and we need to have an outside, independent counsel. We have inside the jus tip department to appointees and inside the congress. That's good. But we need an outside, independent commission that works well. Elijah Cummings has that. This is bigger than departmenmocrats and Republicans. It's our democracy and Russians undermining it in other countries and they will do it again. They will. We would be sending in folks to check stuff if this were happening in another country. America would be sending in somebody to check and make sure the elections were done legally. We need somebody to say, hey. We need to take a look at this. You need to come back. We don't want see you often enough.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.