tv Legal View With Ashleigh Banfield CNN April 5, 2016 9:00am-10:01am PDT
xfinity lets you download your shows from anywhere. i used to like that song. hello, everyone. welcome to "legal view." in about 15 minutes, big news. the president is expected to speak live at the white house. he's planning to talk about the treasury department's brachbd new steps to crack down on businesses that move their addresses overseas. why is that big news i? because it cost money, folks. they do it so they can cut down on what they pay in taxes. how can that change? and it is a big topic on the campaign trail now. big news out of the briefing room. we will bring it to you as soon as the president begins his live address. stay tuned for that. once again, a state that may not get much attention in a normal
election year is about to get to quote the republican front runner interesting. speak of wisconsin where voters are deciding how to divvy up the 42 republican delegates and 86 democratic ones and thereby raise or lower the odds of contested conventions for both of these political parties. donald trump needs some good news after his awful week. he'd prefer least one fewer rival left at the contest tonight. like wise, hillary clinton who lost five of the last six democratic contests, she'd prefer to have a win in the column, too. trump and clinton want to have their nominations clinched before the likes of ted cruz, john kasich and bernie sanders can lure away those special delegates in july. cnn's jason carroll is joining me from a polling place in a milwaukee suburb of brookfield. chris frates is in green bay.
usually chilly but no overcoat today a lovely day for voters. that's great for turn out. what are people saying as they head in to the polls? >> in terms of the turnout, you can see a line already forming here. we have seen a steady stream of folks coming in to cast their vote. they are expecting record turnout, 40% of registered voters are expected to turn out. 1.75 million people. if that happens, ashleigh, i will be the laerchs turnout since 1980. in terms of a large voter turnout, the trump camp seems to feel as though that would be a benefit for them. as you know, he is trailing ted cruz in the poll s here. trump is speaking out earlier today, basically saying he believes kasich is the one that's hurting him in the state more than anything else. >> kasich has, what one in 32, i
think he has 38 losses and one victory that had i spent another day in ohio i would have won, but i wanted to make sure i won florida so i stayed. but it you pretty close. so he's won 32. i don't think he should be staying. if you think of it, jeb did better than him. marco did much better than him. many people did much better than him and they got out. he's a stubborn guy. so let him play the game. >> as you know, kasich showing no signs of dropping out anytime soon n. terms of what's going to happen later tonight, trump telling crowds over the weekend expect a surprise. despite his bad week last week and despite kasich being in the race he said expect a surprise tonight. despite what the polls are showing, he still saying he can win in the state of wisconsin. ashleigh. >> i love surprises. so does television. that's great. thank you for that. keep an eye on things for us. jason will bring us the results
and the mood all day long. chris frates also at a polling place in green bay. okay, you cheese heads, bring me the mood where you are. >> i will telle you, ashleigh, bernie sanders and hillary clinton made the case if there was good turnout, they would do well. i have good news for their campaigns, turnout is expected to be high across this state and 300 people have come through the doors at 7:00 a.m. and usually 1600 people. i have been talking to democrats as they are going for bernie sanders. that's good news for bernie sanders. and one republican switched over and voted for bernie sanders because he was a never trump gu sanders trying to run up the score in wisconsin and get as many delegates as possible. hillary clinton has been managing expectations, trying to lower them in wisconsin throughout the week. this is because this is a better playing field for bernie sanders. majority white state. he usually does better there.
hillary clinton was campaigning in new york yesterday ahead of the primary here. she even went on today. she's not here in wisconsin. but listen to what she had to say today on "the view." >> i don't understand what he thinks is the role of somebody running for president. i don't think it is to scapegoat people, to buy people, engage in this kind of prejudice and paranoia. so it's not only women and we who should be concerned, it's even because of the way he conducts himself. >> so hillary clinton sounding like a general election candidate there. talking about the race as a whole. she's very much focused on new york now. bernie sanders is expected to do well here in wisconsin. he is trying to offset hillary clinton in new york and she leads bernie sanders by double-digits there. she was campaigning there as i mentioned. bernie sanders looking for the upset and the reason why is simple math.
250 delegates are up for grabs in new york. second only to california and remember bernie sanders is lagging clinton by 240 delegates. there's no winner-take-all states in the democratic primary, proportionally bernie sanders needs to do well. he needs 75% of the pledged delegates remaining to clinch the nomination and hillary clinton needs 35% of them. this new york debate will be huge. hillary clinton trying to keep the fire wall in tact in her adopted home state. and sanders and clinton will go one on one in a debate for the first in more than a month. >> my mom called me before, too. crazy. >> thank you very much. nice to see you out and about. i want to bring in my panel now. scottie matthews, margaret hoover, republican consultant and cnn political commentator. van jones democratic activist
author and some days in the white house himself. and maria is a hillary clinton supporter. her firm works for a pro clinton super pac. i put it on the table. all the disclosures and bios. now the hard stuff. you heard chris frates talking about the fire wall that hillary clinton would like wisconsin to be. there's five points at the last dhunt separated them. with sanders, six out of seven last he has won. seven out offing awould be damaging to hillary in new york, wouldn't it? >> i don't think it would be damaging. it is certainly a lot funner to win than to lose for sure. but wisconsin has always been a state that's tailor made for someone like bernie sanders. they have a proud stance on liberal issues and liberalism and being progressive. it is a very white state. a lot of college students. as we have seen in past primaries and caucuses, this is an electorate that is favorable
to bernie sanders. having said that, she certainly has been campaigning and will continue to campaign there and focus on her message there of being the one to fight for middle-class voters and keeping the country safe until the last vote is cast. the thing about wisconsin, as is in all caucuses and primaries for democrats, is that it is proportional. she doesn't have to win the state in order to continue to add to her count of delegates. which at this point is becoming insurmountable for bernie sanders. >> speaking of racking up delegates, van, to you, that delegate map is, as maria said, it's not in sander's court right now and he seems to have done something that he didn't appreciate several weeks ago. that was going after super delegates. how does he -- how does he rationalize doing that and how
can't he be called out for that? >> it is interesting. first of all, in a normal election, a normal moment, sanders would be out. but somehow we're in the middle of a second sanders surge. he raised $43 million last month. that seems to be an unending source of support for him. he's trying to keep his hopes live. the reality is when you have 75% left on the earned delegate table it is to probably not possible. suddenly the super delegates that were the dirty word a month ago are now his possible salvation. how does he make the argument? he says if i keep winning and winning and winning and hillary clinton is limping and limping and looks like she cannot be beat the republican nominee maybe the super delegates will come around to me. it is a way for him to point out he has the momentum, at this point and it should count for something. >> michigan was a surprise for
hillary, but illinois was a sweeter surprise for her after that. let me ask you, scottie, last night, anderson cooper was talking to john kasich about what's been going on between your guy donald trump and john kasich. donald trump made no secret he wants him out saying he is taking trump's votes. that's what you usually do in an election, try to take votes from your opponent. but here's what he had to say. >> if you come after me, i'm not going to take it, anderson. i'm not a dummy. i know how to fight back, by would prefer to talk about creating jobs, future for our kids. >> so scottie, john kasich is not having any of it. he continues to be a thorn in the side of donald trump's effort to make it to the magical number. how is donald trump going to deal with that instead of saying he needs to get out. does he have any other strategy to fight back.
>> i think you ignore john kasich until the convention. because john kasich is only in this to go to the convention an hope they repeal the eight-state winning law, the rule 40 of the rnc. that's the only reason he's in this race. he knows he has no chance of winning the republican nomination by 1237 magic number. so he is just literally in it to be a pain in the side and get to cleveland and when everything goes to the brouhaha chaos he can say i'm the last man standing, you have to go with me . >> you have to give it to him. it is politics and it's the way the game is played. it's not cheating or lying. it is the way it works. that's why i ask you, what is donald going to do about that. >> ignore him like we have done the entire election season. we are of the mystic he will get to 1237 by the time we get to the convention. here's the problem in a state
like wisconsin. 51% for the gop and obama lost the independent voters. this is an open primary state with same-day voter registration and people can crossover and vote. people say they don't want to vote for trump, they go for kasich. >> open primary is good for your guy, donald trump does well in open primaries. >> i want you to see a quick sound byte and it has to be quick because the speech was 90 seconds of melania trump on the campaign stump for her husband yesterday. she talked a little bit about the notion of him being tough and fighting. have a listen to what she said. >> as you may know by now, when you attack him, he will punch back ten times harder. >> that was one of the languages
that that young lady knows. she speak s five 'lanches. she's no dummy. she read a quick piece and i'm wondering if this is a new tactic for donald trump because he has a 73% unfavorable rating among women right now. she's lovely. i mean, show whatever picture you want of her naked but she's a lovely, kind person and speaks well. that can only be good for him. >> i thought the acknowledgment on behalf of the trump forces and donald trump himself that he recognizes that he's had a very dismal week with women and he brought out his chief female surrogate and spokesperson to make that case for him. that language incites riots when donald trump says it and when melania says you call her nice and lovely. and by every judgment she is
lovely. >> she sounds like zsa zsa gabor. can't help it. >> she hasn't -- donald trump has not suffered with the female republican vote as drastically as we are seeing with the general election. with female republican voters, especially in wisconsin, his numbers have come down 10% over the last three months but his missteps don't hurt him with female republican voters as much. it's the general election where this sets up a damming dynamic. 44% of the female vote in a general will election. >> just for fun and games, i want to go around the wheel with one word answer from all of you. i will start with you, margaret. who's better on the campaign trail, his wife or daughter? >> i think ivanka. >> scottie? >> both.
both have great qualities. >> van? >> i think ivanka because everyone has seen her grow up and she is extraordinary as a business person. >> marie ya? >> ivanka. i agree. >> i think she terrific. beautifully spoken. a lot of people out there on the twitter who say ivanka should be running. >> she's a new mom. >> new mom as well. >> as much as i criticize donald trump i don't think that anyone has raised a better set of kids than he has raised. i don't like him but his kids are amazing. >> isn't that interesting. >> a woman in florida this morning said i love the way he has raised his kids. let's go live to the president. >> as we learned last week, america's economy added 250,000 jobs in march. that means that our business has extended the longest streak of primary sector job creation on record. 73 straighten months, 14.4
million new jobs, unemployment half of what it was six years ago. this progress is due directly to the grit and determination and hard work and fundamental optimism of the american people as i travel around the country, what always stands out is the fact that the overwhelming majority of folks work hard and they play by the rules. and they deserve to see their hard work rewarded. they also deserve to know that big corporations aren't playing by a different set of rules. that the wealthiest among us aren't able to game the system. that's why i have been pushing for years to eliminate some of the injustices in our tax system. i'm very pleased that the treasury department has taken new action to prevent more corporations from taking advantage of one of the most insidious tax loopholes out there just to get out of paying
their taxes by fleeing the country. this got attention in the business press yesterday. i wanted to make sure that we highlighted the importance of the treasury's action and why it did what it did. this directly goes at what is called corporate inver jens. they are not new. simply put in layman's terms it is when big corporations acquire small companies and change their address to another country on paper in order to get out of paying their share of taxes here at home. as a practical matter they keep most of their actual business in the united states because they benefit from american infrastructure and technology and rule of law. they benefit from our research and our development and our patents. they benefit from american workers, who are the best in the world, but they effectively renounce their citizenship. they declare they are based somewhere else.
thereby, getting all of the rewards of being an american company without fulfilling this responsibility to pay their taxes the way everybody else is supposed to pay them. when companies exploit loopholes like this, it makes it harder to invest in the things that will make america's economy going strong for future generations. it sticks the rest of us can the tab and makes hard-working americans feel like the deck is stacked against them. this is something i have been pushing for a long time, since i became president we have made our tax code fairer and taken steps to make sure it is enforced including steps to take down off shore. we have continued to emphasize the importance of basic tax
enforcement. in the news over the last couple of days, we have had another reminder in this big dump of data coming out of panama, that tax avoidance is a big, global problem. it's not unique to other countries, because, frankly, there are folks here in america who are taking advantage of the same stuff. a lot of it is legal. but that's the problem. it's not they are breaking the laws. it's the law is poorly designed and allow people, if they have enough lawyers and accountants to wiggling out of responsibilities that ordinary citizens are having to abide by. here in the united states, there are loopholes that only wealthy individuals and powerful corporations have access to. they have access to off-shore accounts, and they are gaming the system. middle-class families are not in the same position to do this. in fact, a lot of these loopholes come at the expense of
middle-class families because that lost revenue has to be made up somewhere. alternatively, that means that we are not investing as much as we should in schools, in making college more affordable, in putting people back to work, rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure, creating more opportunities for our children. so, this is important stuff. these new actions by the treasury department build on steps we having already taken to make the system fairer, but i want to be clear, while the treasury department actions will make it more difficult and less lucrative for employers to take part in this loophole only congress can close it for good and only congress can make sure that all the other loopholes that are being taken advantage of are closed. i've ofen said the best way to end this kind of irresponsible behavior is with tax reform that
lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, simplifies the tax code for everybody. in recent years, i put forward plans repeatedly that would make our tax system more competitive for all businesses, including small businesses. so far, republicans in congress have yet to act. my hope is that they start getting serious about it. when politicians perpetuate a system that favors the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, it's not surprising that people feel like they can't get ahead. it's not surprising that often times it may produce politics that is directed at that frustration. rather than doubling down on policies that let a few big corporations or the wealthiest among us play by their own rules, we should keep building an economy where everyone has a fair shot and everybody plays by the same rules, rather ethan protect wasteful tax loopholes for the few at the top.
we should invest more in things like education can, job creation, job training that we know grow the economy for everybody. rather than lock in tax breaks for millionaires, or make it harder to actually enforce existing laws, let's give tax breaks to help working families pay for child care, for college, and let's stop rewarding companies shipping jobs and profit overseas and start rewarding companies that create jobs here at home and are good corporate citizens. that's how i we are going to build america together. that's how we battled back from this great recession. that's the story of the past seven years. and it can be the story for the next several decades if we make the right decisions right now. i hope this topic ends up being introduced in the broader political debate that we're going to have leading up to election season. okay? and with that, i turn it over to mr. josh earnest.
>> given the release of these millions of pages of financial information, are you concerned that that reflects on the ability of the treasury department to be able to see all of the financial transactions across the globe and would it suggest that the sanctions you put in place may not be as strong as you think it is? >> we know the sanctions regime is strong because iran wouldn't, for example, cut a deal to end the nuclear program in the absence of strong actions enforcement. but there is no doubt that the problem of global tax avoidance is a huge problem. it's been brought up in g-7 and g-20 meetings. there's been some progress made in coordinating between tax authorities in different countries so that we can make sure that we're catching some of
the most egregious examples, but as i said before, one of the problems we have is that a lot of this stuff is legal, not illegal. and unless the united states and other countries lead by example in closing some of these loopholes and provisions then in many cases you can trace what's taken place but you can't stop it. there's always going to be some illicit movement of funds around the world but we shouldn't make it easy. we shouldn't make it legal to engage in transactions just to avoid taxes. that's why i think it is important that the treasury acted on something that's different from what happened in panama, the corporate inversions issue is financial transaction that is brokered among major
fortune 500 companies to avoid paying taxes. but the basic principal pl that everyone is paying their fair share and not just a few people able to take advantage of tax provisions, that's something that we have to pay attention to. as i said, this is all net outflows of money that could be spent on the pressing needs here in the united states and the volume that you start to see when you combine legal tax avoidance with illicit tax avoidance or some of the activities that we're seeing. you know, this is not just billions of dollars, not just hundreds of billions of dollars. estimates this maybe trillions of dollars rl worldwide and could be a big difference in terms of what we can do here. >> i'm going to take one last question and turn it over to josh. >> the republican front runner
outlined his plan. >> >> oh, no. >> sorry. talk what is the implications of his plan and are his foreign policy proposals already doing damage? >> the answer to the latter question is yes. i think that i have been clear earlier that i'm getting questions constantly from foreign leaders about some of the wackier suggestions that are being made. i have to emphasize that it's not just mr. trump's proposals. you are also hearing concerns about mr. putin's propose ales which in some ways are just as draconian, when it comes to immigration, for example. the implications with respect to ending remittances, many of which are from illegal immigrants and have individuals who are sending money back to
their families, are enormous. first of all, they are impractical. we just talked about this difficulties of trying to enforce huge outflows of capital. the notion that we are going to track every western union, you know, bit of money that's sent to mexico, you know, good luck with that. then we have the issue of the implications for the mexican economy, which in turn, if it is collapsing, actually sends more immigrants north because they can't find jobs back in mexico. but this is just one more example of something that is not thought through and is primarily put forward for political consumption. as i tried to emphasize throughout, we've got serious problems here. we have big issues around the world. people expect the president of the united states and the elected officials in this country to treat these problems
seriously, to put foreign policies that have been examined, analyzed, are effective, where unintended consequences are taken in to account. they don't expect half-baked notions coming out of the white house. we can't afford that. all right? >> turn it over to josh. thank you, guys. >> half-baked notion coming out of the white house. that's exactly how i the president just described donald trump, republican candidate for president and his most recent memo today on how to get mexico to pay for the wall. how to get mexico to pay for the wall, stop allowing anyone here to send any kind of money back home. that's effectively what he says will do it. if mexico pays for the wall, the flow of money continues. what the president said was the unintended consequences of that would be the collapsed mexican
economy. guess how many more immigrants will come to look for a job. let's go to the issue that the president was speaking of. the corporate inversion, it is a fancy word. getting a tax leg up. i don't know if a lot of people understand how it works. doesn't matter where you move in the u.s. you still pay u.s. income tax. how do you benefit as a corporation? >> if you are a corporation and move your headquarters overseas. i'm going to put up a chart and show you. say you move your company to ireland and see the tax rate there is 12 1/2%, opposed to what you would be taxed on in the u.s., 35%. let's go a step further and say the company makes a profit in england where it is 21%. that means if the economy company made $100 profit in england it would be taxed $21 f. the company wants to bring it back to the united states, guess what, it has to pay the
difference of the 21% tax rate and the 35% tax rate here in the u.s. that equals $14. that $14 goes to the irs. that means the company is essentially paying a 35% tax rate. the u.s. has what's known as a worldwide corporate tax system. something that other countries don't have. they have a territorial income tax system where the company is headquartered in the other country, that company does not have to pay u.s. tax. that is what is so appealing to so many companies. they want to get out of paying millions of dollars in taxes. here's the rub. it's legal. did you know companies are legally not paying anywhere from 100 to $240 billion in taxes every year? so this is what is driving companies to move their headquarters overseas because those countries don't play by the same tax rules as us and they usually have lower tax rates, corporate tax rates than here in the u.s. >> legal.
>> it is legal. >> we will continue to watch what happens on that front. i want to bring in wolf blitzer, the an dor and host of the situation room. there was a two-prong approach here. i'm sure the president knew he was going to get questions about the current campaign. one of those questions was specifically about how the current campaign is effecting foreign relations and what he deals with when he speaks to leaders overseas and he did not hold back at all. he called donald trump's wall policy half baked and attacked ted cruz's foreign policy. the white house has doubled down and said we are not holding off on this anymore. >> remember the other day, the president also when he was talking and nato summit, the nuclear summit here in washington, he really went after trump basically saying he knows nothing about nuclear policy, foreign policy and knows nothing about japan, what's going on there. he says he doesn't know much at all. he really went after trump big
time. today, he added cruz to the equation, going after cruz, as well, saying cruz's foreign policy, trade policies, other initiatives he is going for would hurt the united states at the same time. it was interesting -- you make a good point, ashleigh, that the president the other day was referring largely to donald trump. and today he added ted cruz. i will say this, the decision to go forward with his new executive order on the corporate inversion to try to prevent american companies to avoid paying taxes to the irs. to get the benefits of being in the united states without paying taxes, corporate loophole as the president said. you know who else has been talking about the corporate inversion. >> hillary clinton. >> and not only hillary clinton but donald trump has been mentionening it over and over and over again saying that if he were president he would deal with the issue of corporate inversion, as well. it is a fancy term for big
corporations setting up headquarters in another country to avoid paying taxes as allison pointed out here on our show. this is an issue that trump has been pushing now for a long time, as well. do a check of trump and corporate inversion. he speaks out about it for a long time. he said he you had would deal with this issue if he were elected president. interesting the current president of the united states is deal ing with this issue in the white house statement he also points out, the white house points of out the white house is trying to get the president to deal with the issue of corporate inversion after three budgets in a row but that has not passed. he is urging congress to take action on it right now. this is an important issue with u.s. business and congress. let's see if the president can get it done. on an executive order basis, he could take some steps together with the department of treasury. >> that's my question. you can't rule -- but he can circumvent the congressional deadlock on this through executive order.
will there be a lot of challenges to that? >> he can take some steps. the president has a lot of authority according to the constitution with executive orders, executive action as it is called. the president, clearly the lawyers, the department of treasury have gone through and said he could take the action today. let's see if it holds up. the president, as you know , he is taking executive orders over the past year and several issues the court suggested may not be constitutional. so including allowing some undocumented immigrants to stay in the united states. that's on hold for the time being after courts consider it and eventually will go to the u.s. supreme court. these are sensitive issues. whenever the president takes executive action on these kinds of issues, the good thing from the president's perspective is he can do it. the next president can undo it on day one if he or she decides to do that. executive action, opposed to ledgetive action, sign bd i in the president after both houses
pass the legislation. it is more difficult to do. executive orders can undo them if they want. >> thank you for that. i know you are coming up in 26 minutes with your program and i'm sure you will dedicate a fair bit to this, as well. thank you. coming up, we just heard the president say things like we are not going to track every western union transaction. that's in response to donald trump's plan to get mexico to pay for the wall by threatening to cut off all of those remittance payments that families in the u.s. send to families in mexico. he says it is legal. and he cites the u.s. patriot act. what about the challenges of that? what about the fallout? that's next.
you premium like clockwork. month after month. year after year. then one night, you hydroplane into a ditch. yeah... surprise... your insurance company tells you to pay up again. why pay for insurance if you have to pay even more for using it? if you have liberty mutual deductible fund™, you could pay no deductible at all. sign up to immediately lower your deductible by $100. and keep lowering it $100 annually, until it's gone. then continue to earn that $100 every year. there's no limit to how much you can earn and this savings applies to every vehicle on your policy. call to learn more. switch to liberty mutual and you could save up to $509.
life feels a little lighter, potency probiotic, livelier, a little more you. ultimate flora probiotics. our breaking news coming to us as donald trump fights for last-minute votes in today's wisconsin primary, the gop front runner is elaborating on how he would force the mexican government to pay for that big, proposed border wall that he mentions almost every speech on the campaign trail. brand new memo out today saying he threatened to cut off the
billions of dollars that immigrants here in the united states send home to mexico on a regular basis. the president was asked exactly about this moments ago. have a listen. >> i think that i have been clear earlier that i'm getting questions from foreign leaders about some of the wackier suggestions that are being made. i do have to emphasize that it's not just mr. trump's proposals. i mean you are also hearing concerns about mr. put enputin' proposals that are in some ways just as draconian when it comes to immigration. many of them from illegal immigrants and individuals sending money back to their families are enormous.
first of all, they are impractical. we talked about the difficulties of trying to enforce huge outflows of capital. the nation we are going to track every western union, you know, bit of money that's being sent to mexico, you know, good luck with that. then we have the issue of the implications for the mexican economy, which in turn if it is collapsing actually sends more immigrants north because they can't find jobs back in mexico. but i this is just one more example of something that is not thought through as primarily put forward for political consumption. as i have tried to emphasize throughout, we have serious problems here. we have big issues around the world. people expect the president of the united states and the elected officials in this country, to treat these problems seriously to put forth policies
that have been examined, analyzed, are effective, where unintended consequences are taken in to account. they don't expect half-baked notions coming out of the white house. we can't afford that. all right? thank you, guys. >> well, i'm sure that's going to be part of the campaign trail. jim acosta is standing by live in wisconsin. and opinion writer is with us, as well. jim, first to you with the fallout. one of the wackier suggestions, words from the white house. probably going to be dealt with somehow by folks on the campaign trail today. >> yeah, absolutely. i think this was a crafty move on the part of the trump campaign. are we talking about the messes that donald trump has had the last several days and now the
wall proposal. with the white house, you are hearing the white house talk about this, the president come out and talk about it. he is the surrogate in chief for hillary clinton if it works out for her later this fall. the president is not going to be bashful in coming out about them. mexico is not going to pay for that and he used an expletive, wall, that worked well on the stump for donald trump. he had a lot of people tearing up the furniture when they heard those comments at his rallies. they ate ate it up. if he has the president going after him today, i would think that will work just as well in this primary. i can tell you going to the campaign events, not only here in wisconsin but around the country, that wall proposal for donald trump, even though he gets a lot of criticism inside
of the beltway and up and down the corridor, i will tell you, it's the biggest applause line donald trump has on the campaign trail. >> very popular for him among his supporters. jim acosta, thank you. what about the unintended consequences? and the practicality and legality of this. donald trump says he would use provisions in the patriot act and anti-terror laws to put a halt to outgoing money. $25 billion, roughly $25 billion that mexican immigrants, documented and undocumented send out of this country every year. some to mexico can, some not to mexico. take it from there. walk me through the practicalities of it. >> when we look at the practical effects it is complicated. put aside the trump rhetoric and bombast. he is calling for an 80-foot wall, 1,000 miles. for comparison purposes the great wall of china was 20 feet tall.
this is an enormous undertaking. the physical construct of doing the wall would be up there with the eisenhower program to revitalize the highway. >> 8 billion. >> huge undertaking. the way he says we can do that is go to section 326 of the patriot act and all reemit tanss must be made by people with lawful presence and another provision which will allow the government to confiscate the remittances in order to fund the wall. the problem is twofold. one is our global banking and money exchange system is so global. it's so complicated. where he put this in effect, it would effect other countries which rank ahead of mexico in terms of the outgoing remittances from the u.s., namely china, philippines and india. >> it remember, mexico doesn't have a soishl service program, social safety net like we do
when it comes to social security, medicare and things like that. mexico's economy depends on this money. a segment of the mexican population needs this money to survive. it's a time-honored tradition that people in the united states and overseas send money back to mexico. the problem, even if trump were able to put these provisions through, there would be a legal challenge and even as that went on, congress would have to portion the money to allow the money to have a wall built. these are hurdles he has to get through before the wall could be built. meanwhile, mexico is our second largest export market. mexico is the third largest trading partner. i'm sure there would be push back from the mexican government. he could do something simpler and that is to impose a tax on border fees but then mexico would likely do something back to us. >> no one said it wouldn't be
a rare move by some senate republicans. they are meeting with supreme court nominee merrick garland as he makes his courtesy calls an capitol hill. yeah, they are having a meeting. garland is also invitation from chuck grassley, the head of the senate judiciary committee plans to have a chat with garland at a later today to explain why the senate does not want to consider a nominee anytime soon. a lot of political rhetoric one of the republican lawmakers sitting down with merrick garland today is the senator
from maine. happens to be a republican, susan collins met with the nominee and is joining me right now. thank you for taking the time to do this. i'm confused why you will have the meeting when i assume you and your republican colleagues have no intention of confirming merrick garland. >> my position, ashleigh, is we should follow the normal order. having a sit down with the nominee, as i did today for more than an hour to explore the issues is the first step. i then have called for the judiciary committee to hold hearings on the nominee. that's in the normal second step. the meeting i had today confirmed my belief that we should proceed to hearings. >> do you think he's the right choice? would you confirm him? >> well, it's premature for me to decide whether or not i would vote for him. i never make that decision on a
supreme court nominee until the public hearings have been held because you never know what's going to happen at the hearings. usually those hearings cover several days. you have many senators who are posing questions, and you learn a lot more about the nominee. i learned enough today to be impressed with judge garland and to believe that we should proceed to that next step, but i have been calling for the normal process for some time. >> so there are eight colleagues you included who have agreed to have these meeting, republican senators like yourself, but two of these republican senators who originally expressed interest have backed out saying they wouldn't confirm him in a hearing. why did that happen? why did they come out on the record previously and say we are good with the meeting and open to the prowse and then snatch
that back? >> i don't know. i can't speak for my colleagues. you will have to pose that question to them. all i can say is it has been my experience that the senate usually operates best when we follow the normal order, whether it is with legislation or treaties or nominations. >> yeah. there's been quite a democratic lobby push to try to wrangle senators who are -- about this idea by suggesting this could be a lynch pin innen an election that could oust him out of office. is that not strong enough to say hearings could result in a justice bn being confirmed? it seems like a bit of a fool's errand to me. >> i don't understand why you think hearings would be a -- when it is a fate acomply.
you have no intention of confirming him any way. just going through the emotions of the process. >> hearings allow senators to understand a nominee's viewpoint, qualifications, experience, respect for the law and fidelity to the constitution. i think that is very valuable and that is the next step in the process. what you are asking me to do is predict the ultimate step and i can't do that prior to hearings. i do think hearings would be valuable and i believe that judge garland, based on the meeting i had with him today, would perform very well in those hearings. i found him to be thoughtful, intelligent and i found that he answered every single question that i posed to him, including some tough ones. >> senator, appreciate you being so candid, thoughtful and intelligent. those are strong words i haven't heard from your republican
it requires transgender people to use restrooms that corresponds to the sex listed on their birth certificate. i want to bring in a transgender woman, actress and activist who's on the show. i'm cate reality series starring caitlyn jenner. thank you for being on the program. your reaction to this legislation is so intimately involves your life. the kind of things we never think of, just walking in to the bathroom. >> yeah, to me, it is really difficult. i know people get scared over this issue. i really feel like it is a total
invasion, first of all, of everyone's privacy and it doesn't just affect trans people. it affects the whole community and everyone. right now it is scary to think your wife or your husband or your daughter or child could actually be checked every time they want to use a public restroom. it is a scary thought. you know? >> candis, there is language used among those who are critical of the freedoms and protections you are seeking and some of the language has been fairly vis rheeialic. at the same time those who support it say the language doesn't apply top the trans person but the person who exploits the law to do nefarious things, for instance, a man who simply wants to go in to a locker room or bathroom of a woman to commit a crime. can we understand at least that area of the reason for the
legislation? >> well, you know, it's hard to understand. it's just not true. there's been no cases of that being proven. what is true is that it makes it more dangerous to have this law because then you start to check people as they go in to bathrooms. i mean, it's kind of it's interesting because in 32 states there are no laws that protect the lgbt community. i can be at work and somebody can turn me in as being a trans person and i can be fired just for that. these aren't laws to help us get special protection. it's just laws to make us equal in the eyes of the government. you know? >> can i ask you, if you were to travel to north carolina and i don't know if you have reason to or spend any time there at all, effectively this law would tell
you that you have to use the men's bathroom. can you sort of walk me through what that feels like and what's the reaction to you from the men in there? >> i don't know. i've never been in to a men's room. not for at least 30 years. so, what i do know is that it will stop people from being comfortable in society. it will stop people from wanting to leave their house because going to the bathroom is a natural function. you leave your house every day. you want to go shopping. you want to go to the post office, but if you have to go to the bathroom along the way you are not allowed to. it is a bill that is kind of making people in my community have to stay home. have to not be a part of our society. >> i appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this and give us a personal perspective. there are faces beheend the get
legislation. thank you. >> thank you so must have. thank you, everyone for watching. i will turn the mike over to wolf blitzer who's standing by. the program starts right now. hello. i'm wolf blitzer. it is noon in madison, wisconsin, 1:00 p.m. here in washington, d.c. wherever you are watching around the world, thank you for joining us. with we begin with the breaking news. president obama reacting to donald trump's plan to build a wal wall along the u.s. border with mexico to have mexico pay for it. cnn has obtained a two-page memo that has detailed trump's plan which includes seizing money sent from undocumented immigrants here in the united states. money sent back to their relatives, family, friends in mexico. a little while ago, the president was asked about trump's plan. >> i am getting