Exhibiting the kind of profound indifference to the racial contours of the jeff session nomination that i wouldnt have expected from somebody as savvy as mitch mcconnell. If they did that on purpose to be racially provocative, to stir you racial currents here, i think thats scary and gross. If they did it accidentally, i think its political malpractice. But i think theyve just turned this issue and Elizabeth Warren and the Jeff Sessions nomination into a much hotter, more hotly contested and sort of scarier thing that its been up until now. It was remarkable. Do you think it changes any votes . Thats my last question. I dont know. Weve seen a lot of republicans say they were willing to support Jeff Sessions, joe mancion. An extraordinary legal battle over the fate of the travel ban. A threejudge panel is considering an argument on whether to keep a hold on the order. Is there any reason for to us think theres a real risk . The president determined that there was a real risk. I cant believe were having to fight in a court system to protect the safety of our nation. It seems like trumps real rage is he just found out there were two other branches of government. Some things are law. Some things are common sense. This is common sense. The rollout was disastrous. I should have delayed it a bit. Everybody is talking and dealing, a lot of bad people are thinking about lets go in right now. Have you urged the president not to make false claims . Im not going to speak for the president. He can speak for himself and the yes. Dont count the pause. This is as clear a power clash as youll hear in court. Trumps lawyers telling the judge this is basically none of their business. They do have some law on their side. But one of the questions in this case is whether the government is conducting religious discrimination, which is unconstitutional. The judge asked if this is a religious ban would the court doors be open, could someone have standing for that . The question drew a concession from lawyers that there are court cases, a 1972 case called mandel that would open the courts doors. If the order said muslims cannot be admitted, would anybody have standing to challenge that . I think mandel and din give a route to make a constitutional challenge if there were such an order. Then the judges pushed further saying the muslim ban
policy statement trumps lawyer backed down in his answer. Well, those are in the record. The record is of course the foundation for arguments in this case. The judges are basically pushing trumps lawyers to accept the reality that one of their own advisers, a former prosecutor, said this all grew out of a muslim ban. Now, on the other hand, to be fair, the white house has stressed giuliani went rogue and they say the order isnt a muslim ban. Then the hearing moved from the governments legal powers to its powers of reasoning. This is where the legal and political debate meet because were going to hear a lot about why President Trump picked those seven countries to ban. Tonight a lower court judge citing that in court when trumps d. O. J. Lawyers couldnt justify the threat of immigrants from those seven countries. The District Court asks the representative of the department of justice, you know, youre in the department of justice, how
many federal offenses have we being committed by people who came in with visas from these countries . And the ultimate of the answer is there havent been any. Thats true. Here was the Trump Lawyers answer in court on friday. Your honor, i dont have that information. I dont have that information. But that information is available. There have been no deadly attacks by immigrants from any of the seven countries. The judges didnt bring up that moment to give the laura hard time. The legal reason to cite that moment is because courts may review whether a Government Decision is rational. This is considered a pretty easy review usually. The government basically needs a rational reason for doing something, almost any reason will do. But the government cant offer a bad reason for no reason, which
could be irrational. And after two weeks the trump team is still struggling to offer that rationale. It cites Homeland Security but no other deadly terrorist attackers, again, are from the seven countries. And tonight trumps lawyers cited a federal law about vetting for mostly european travelers to explain those seven countries. That may be a tough legal argument, though, because that law had nothing to do with native immigrants traveling from those countries. It was a law that gave extra vetting to european travelers who passed through the seven countries. You can think about it like this. If a british tourist stopped in libya, then the u. S. Would give him extra vetting on his way to the United States. That was a Security Measure applied to the british tourist, not to libyan native immigrants. Bottom line, this was a list of countries that were deemed dangerous to visit, not necessarily dangerous for sending their native citizens as Immigrant Terrorists to the u. S. Now outside the courtroom it may be an effective political tactic for trum top say he got this list of countries from congress and the obama administration, even if it was for a european waiver program, not for banning immigrants. But, for example, inside the courtroom some judges are already probing whether this law is, yes, rational. The government does have huge Immigration Powers but tonight some judges may further probe whether he is using those big powers rationally. Joining me now is bob ferguson, attorney general for the state of washington in his first interview since that hearing tonight. What did you think of the judges questioning . Do you think you will win this
next round . Thanks for having me on, ari. Really appreciate it. Yes, i said from the beginning when i filed this complaint on behalf of the state of washington that i was confident we would prevail. We prevailed at the if the District Court level and im confident well prevail here as well. When you think about the debate over the seven countries, do you think the judges will dig in deep to look at how the Visa Waiver Program has worked or should they state out of that because even if these seven countries werent well pick, you can concede the president would suspend immigration from all of saudi arabia on september 12th. Im glad you played in your clip in one one of the lawyers asked the Justice Department are you saying that the president s actions are unreviewable and after that long pause, the answer was yes. I think the ninth Circuit Court of appeals is going to see it the same way. Your lawyer did have a pretty good day but he did have a rough patch on all of Global Muslims who arent affected by this. Take a listen. Do you have any information as to what percentage or what proportion of the adherence to islam worldwide are citizens or residents of those countries . My quick pencilling suggests its something less than 15 . I have not done that math, your honor. If the vast majority of the worlds muslims are unaffected by this, how does your Case Credibly State this targets muslims . The part that you did not air was noahs answer, which he eventually got to, in looking at whether theres a motivating factor thats discriminatory. It doesnt mean the action has to discriminate against everybody within a particular class, as long as youre discriminating against a group. We think in this case the evidence is clear from President Trumps own word and the judges hammered on that as you pointed out later in the oral argument. Bob ferguson, thanks for being here. You run an organization that has handled many such cases, including challenging the War Making Power in detention cases. We met many years ago when i worked ccr. There is an argument that this is the heart of president ial power. It is the heart of president ial power. Think think whats clear particularly when we talk about the discrimination question, i think the attorney general is right in their view that you
dont have to discriminate perfectly, you dont have to discriminate against everyone. For example, if the president came up with some law that said we are going to discriminate against black people in three states in the United States, that doesnt cover everybody in the United States, but it doesnt mean it not discrimination. So i think theres a plausible and a very good solid argument that theyre making that it doesnt have to be perfect discrimination in order for it to be unconstitutional and problematic. There are so many different lines of attack here, which is common, because lawyers like to put everything on the menu for a judge. Putting your litigation hat on, which do you think are most likely to get the ban permanently struck down . I think there a range of question. I think theres an equal protection argument with respect to discrimination. I think the First Amendment with respect to religion i think is also strong. There are a lot of there are state court arguments, state constitutional arguments, a lot of stuff thats in there. I think the strongest piece is
that President Trump and his folks said pretty clearly that they wanted to create a ban. They actually wanted to create a ban before he was the president elect, before he was the nominee. Hes been talking about this before he even had access to a lot of the intelligence stuff. I think its fair for the court to be able to look behind what his claims are now, particularly when you have an administration that doesnt seem to be so happy to tell the truth all the time and that they fudge the facts. I think its actually not only within the courts power but i think its prudent to look behind some of those. That was one of the roughest parts in these arguments tonight. At one point the d. O. J. Was struggling, basically, to provide some of the basic type of record evidence, just the basic facts and precedent that youd want to provide a judicial and they said back to the judge, well, this is going really fast. The judge pointed out its going fast because the Trump Administration asked for this emergency hearing. Yes, your honor. These proceedings have been moving quite fast and were doing the best we can. Youre saying the proceedings are moving fast but you appealed to us before you continued in the District Court to develop the record. So why should we be hearing this now if it sounds like youre trying to say youre going to present other evidence later . In your view has there been some subpar lawyering here because the administration has mott put its best foot forward to defend this in court . I think its Ad Hoc Lawyering in the sense that they are making this up as it goes along. The order was issued so rashly and so badly and without any good rollout, everybody is scrambling to figure out what the legal arguments are. Theres one point i think the judge made which was really interesting when he was asking one of the judges was asking the questions about isnt true for these seven countries, that congresss response to them was to vet people more in these
seven countries and is there anything wrong with that, is there a changed circumstance . The judge is saying if it aint broke, why is President Trump trying to fix it . And of course the government lawyer couldnt possibly do that. What again goes to part of where the Justice Department does not want to be, which is the innards of this rule. Thats why they started with dont even look under the hood. The question is whether the Appeals Court or Supreme Court wants to second guess immigration to that degree. Thanks for being here, vince warren. Thanks for having me. We have more on the breaking news rachel and i were discussing, Elizabeth Warren being formally rebuked by republicans on the senate floor for a floor speech where, among other things, she was quote, Coretta Scott king. There are over 47 million ford vehicles out here. That has everything to do with the people in here. Their training is developed by the same company who designed, engineered, and built the cars. Theyve got the parts, tools, and knowhow to help keep your ford running strong. 35,000 specialists all across america. No one knows your ford better than ford. And ford service. Right now, get the works a synthetibloil change, tire rotation, Brake Inspection and more for 29. 95 or less. Look at you, saving money on your Medicare Part d prescriptions. At walgreens we make it easy for you to seize the day by helping you get more out of life and Medicare Part d. Now with zerodollar copays on select plans. And rewards points on all prescriptions, walgreens has you covered. So drop by and seize the savings walgreens. At the corner of happy and healthy. After President Trump ordered that raid in yemen which killed some yemeni civilians, the Yemeni Government is saying it can will ban the u. S. From ground operations. We have more on that next. We have a question about your brokerage fees. Fees . What did you have in mind . I dont know. 6. 95 per trade . Uhhh and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee . Guarantee . Where we can get our fees and commissions back if were not happy. So can you offer me what schwab is offering . Whats with all the questions . Ask your broker if theyre offering 6. 95 online Equity Trades and a satisfaction guarantee. If you dont like their answer, ask again at schwab. Dude. Your crunchings scaring the fish. Dude. Theyre just jealous. New Kelloggs Raisin Bran crunch with crunchy clusters and the taste of apples and strawberries. excited i got one jokingly guess were having cereal for dinner. New Kelloggs Raisin Bran crunch apple strawberry President Trump is obviously an unusual client. While the Justice Department is defending the ban, he suggested any ruling against his order would make the federal judiciary
responsible for any Terror Attacks on u. S. Soil. And in a meeting with the National Sheriffs association today. And in a bizarre exchange, a sheriff was complaining about civil asset forfeiture. And then President Trump basically said he would get involved with a threat of payback. He didnt even know who the legislator was yet. Take a listen. On asset forfeiture, we got a State Senator in texas that was talking about introducing legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money. Can you believe that . I told him the cartel would build a monument to him in mexico who is the State Senator . Want to difficult me his name . Well destroy his career. Joining me now is jeremy bash, former chief of staff to leon panetta. Any comment on what i just saw, the president s approach to the federal judge and the federal judiciarys oversight of these issues, which youve dealt with on the National Security side. The president likes to attacks institutions, hes attacked free press, downgraded the role of National Intelligence and joint chiefs. Its an effort when his policy goes forward, hes not constrained by facts, people who are experts in their field. Its dangerous for Policy Making and i think its dangerous for National Security. When you look at the security side, i wonder what your observations are having listened to that hearing. There are certainly times where your old cleagues at the cia or pentagon would say keep the
judges out, we respect them but we would prefer to do our own business and the cia often when it comes to areas where the rest of the government is held to account, they have some exception, some of them well earned, some of them logical. What is your view of the balance you heard in that courtroom today . I think the president does deserve some deference in matters of National Security. But in this case, the threat was hyped. Supposedly theres some secret information or intelligence that would justify an Emergency Situation like this, that the president should come forward and tell us why we should close our borders to seven countries. As i was reporting, there has not been a securitybased argument. There was an argument of federal
law dealt with visas even that is not about the security threat. Do you know of one . No, i dont. Ive been trying to find one and i think weve all been hunting about the rhetoric about the muslim ban. We cant come up with it. The viewers should look at an important filing made in the ninth circuit that was signed by four people who ran the cia, general mike hayden, john mclaughlin, a career cia analyst, mike morel, also a career National Security professional and analyst and leon panetta, my old boss who ran the cia and the pentagon, four men who basically argued there is no reason to protect the country in this way. Theres a reason to protect the country from terrorism, you do it in a focused way, foll