Republican shutdown. defending the ban, president trump on the offense today, slamming the judicial system and the judges who are now considering whether to uphold his controversial imgration ban. and trump s secrets, an exclusive new report alleging the president is seeking advice from white house veterans to stabilize a power struggle that s how unfolding inside his administration, but we start with that uproar over senator elizabeth warren, the progressive favorite, talk to my colleague kasie hunt a short time ago about being silenced on the senate floor over the nomination of jeff sessions. take a listen. the facts may hurt, but we re not in the united states senate to ignore facts. we re in the united states senate to exercise our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on nominees and my view is that part of my
The ban. who gets hurt most? is the government hurt the most by keeping the stay in effect that stops them from enforcing the travel restrictions, or are the states hurt more by keeping the ruling in place? that s the immediate question before the court but as you heard, craig, they got into a lot of other questions that touch on it, such as did the president act legally, did he act under the constitution? is this a discrimination against muslims. bottom line the question is, is this temporary stay on enforc g enforcing whether it s legal and constitutional. pete it also seemed as if, one of the judges was especially interested in some of the things that the president has said, and some of the things that his surrogate has, some of his surrogates have said as well on the campaign trail. right that, goes to the question whether it s
different chambers, different rules. one s the house, one is the senate. they re just different issues. let s move to the travel ban. you have called for it to be refined. clearly the president does not believe that it needs to be refined. what specifically would you change about the action? i think you ve already seen it refineded. my point is as a physician, i know many physicians from those countries that provide valuable services to americans, and they ve been in practice 20 years, sometimes in inner city or in rural areas that other doctors are not. you saw reince priebus come out the day after or the next day, somewhere around there, saying that those who are permanent residents with green cards, that this ban does not apply to them, that s number one, that s a good thing. i m all in favor of that. secondly there was a statement within there that those who had served as interpreters for our troops, helping our folks stay out of harm s way or within
National security official saying this ban was necessary for our national security and showed how it would improve our national security. we ve seen reported many times there have been no fatal attacks in the united states from any residents of these countries. but you have to think, if there is a terrorist attack in the future, and it not from someone from one of these countries, say it s an american citizen raised here as many recent terrorist attacks have been, you think the president s going to stop and look at the facts and say well, you know, this person would have been affected by this ban anyway. of course not. he s shown throughout over the last two years the facts don t matter. he ll blame it on the judge and that s what he s setting up to do now, blame the judge, blame the appeals court, blame anyone else who has the guts to stand up and say what s right. matt miller, we ll leave it there sir. thank you for your insight as always. thank you. a cancer fight, close to home. february is national cancer prevention month. i ll share a very personal connection to the battle against
Discrimination against muslims, whether it violates the constitution s ban on establishment of religion and what the states say is they have to be able to refer to things that happened outside of court about that, statements the president s made, statements rudy giuliani has made and others, but the lawyer for the government said that the decision on this shouldn t be based on newspaper articles. they should stick to the facts of what are in the court pleadings, and one of the other judges said, it does seem difficult to believe that it s a muslim ban, when it only affects 15% of the world s muslims. reasonable to believe that the judges have already made up their minds and we re just waiting to hear what they ve decided? yes, the way these things normally work not just on these emergency appeals, but any time thersn argument before an apals court like this, take an initial vote right after the argument, so they pretty much decided what the outcome is going to be. now the question is, does an opinion have to be written? is there going to be a dissent?