tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN January 30, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PST
one of of one day's market fluctuation but the overall commitment that businesses have to want to work with in administration to add jobs, create jobs. to add bep fits, to find out how the president can ease the regulatory burden they face. so it's whole prostes that is being undertaken to unleash the american economy. it is an approach he is not just taking in small businesses, and large businesses union workers of when he is looking at the energy sector. how do we unleash america's natural resources not just to make us more energy independent but how do we do that to create good paying jobs in america as well and get the economic boone that can come out of it. >> two questions. one, how important is national security information to you? you are saying they are at the table and they can come to the table if they want at some meetings. >> that's not what i said. just to be clear. >> okay. >> i don't think i can underscore this enough.
what we're saying is nothing has changed. we have in fact added and grown this. the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs are by statute part of the nsc. full stop. what we've done is made sure that on issues of homeland security and domestic policies they are always welcome to answer the. 100%. however if the issue is on pandemic flu or other domestic type natures that don't involve the military it would be a waste of time to drag him over. if he is wants to attend he is part of the committee. he can come any time. to try to talk about downgrading or not take this seriously is a misreading of this. it's really a disservice. for those people who took the time to read it they understand that. but i've seen so much miss reporting all this weekend about downgrading this individual or upgrading. the language could not be clearer. it is 100% identical. so any misreading of it otherwise is a spread of
misinformation. plane and simple. >> so you are saying they are at the table? >> no, no, no. i'm saying they have always been at the table and they continue to be, and that he has a tremendous amount of respect for him. so any reporting otherwise is a misunderstanding of it, 100%. >> let me ask my question. >> okay. >> they are at the table. but how important are their suggestions or their statements to this administration? >> unbelievable. when you look at secretary mattis who is in the oval office. he was on the phone with cia director pompeo this morning. he has had -- he values their opinion. i don't think you can express in words how much respect he has, whether it's chairman doesn'tford. general emptyis, general kelly. director pompeo. all of these individuals, i think he has shown through deed and action and word how much he cares about them. the first stop he made was to the cia because of how much he values the work that they do and the respect that he has for them. i don't -- i really don't know how much more he can do to show
how much he values them. >> my second question, my last question when you talk about these seven countries. >> yeah. >> these muslim-majority countries, talking to a former official from the obama administration from homeland security they are saying that what you are doing is very different from what they did and it is a much more restrictive. what do you say to that? >> we are going to put the safety of americans first. we are not going to wait and react as i stayed in the statement. the president is going to be very proactive with protecting this country. we are not going to wait until we get attacked and figure out how we can make sure it doesn't happen again. he is going to do everything in his power to stop any threat that we face in this country and every potential threat. that's the key point. how do we get ahead of threats, how do we keep america ahead of the curb when it comes to people who want to do us harm? that's what the president has done. he made sure that every way possible we get down the path of
securing the country, putting america's safety and security first. >> you said that the action taken on the executive order might have been related to some specific intelligence and it was necessary to prevent something from happening and any questions about why certain agencies may not have been as briefed up can be explained in part because it needed to happen right away. can you -- >> no. i think -- >> what you are trying to get at there. >> thank you. i appreciate that opportunity. i think what we're trying to say is her you don't know when the next threat is coming. you don't know when the next attack is coming. so the best you can do is get ahead of it. because if you wait you are going to be reacting. what i want to be clear on is the president is not going to wait. he's going to make sure he does everything in his power when he can to protect the homeland and its people. that's it. so getting ahead of threats is the key. not waiting until they happen. not saying hey once it happens how do we react to make sure it doesn't happen again. i think what i want to be clear about is that since becoming president he has continued to
take steps, through executive order and otherwise, to make sure that this country is as safe as it can be that we are ahead of every threat. >> in other words, it was not put in place on the time line it was put in place and the procedures it was put in place because of specific intelligence that was suggesting something -- >> no, no, no, i am not saying that at you will. all i'm saying his view is general is not to wait to get ahead of the curve. there wasn't a specific threat saying you have to do this saturday, sunday will be -- but the point i'm trying to make is that we don't know when that hour comes. we don't know when that individual crosses into our border do do us harm. so the idea of waiting when you don't know. could it be that night, the next day, the next week? the president's view is i'm not going to wait. i want to make sure we he protect the homeland and its possible with every measure as soon as i can. >> following up on, that i have got two questions unrelated. number of legal challenges
against this executive order, what's your level of confidence that you will prevail legally? and what's the basis for that level of confidence? >> well, the most prominent case is in the eastern district of new york. i think we won't even have to prevail in that case. it doesn't make any sense. it december with people who are being deported fchltd action never spoke to it. never intended to deport people. it had to do with how do we process people in and detain them until we ascertain whether or not they can -- they sought to do us any harm. and again, remember, we are talking about a universe of 109 people. there were 30 325,000 people that came into this country over a 24 hour period from another country. 109 of them were stopped for additional screening. this is -- we've got to keep this in proportion, folks. this is -- this is 109 people being stopped out of 325,000 over a 24 hour period. and i know that everyone likes to get where they want to get to as quick as possible. and i think the government did a
phenomenal job of making sure that we processed people through. but we did so knowing so that the people who were coming in hadn't done anything that was seeking to do us harm. that's it, folayan and simple. and i think that's an important thing to note that when you actually look at the perspective of what's going on, you note the polls that were going up this morning. the majority of americans agree with the president. they recognize that the steps that he's taken were to keep this country safe and to make sure that we didn't look back and say i wish we had done the following. >> this order is just one of a number -- >> four, i believe i don't think any of the others are -- all of the enforcement and action regarding the executive order is in place and it still remains right now and we feel pretty confident if there is any problems we'll prevail. again, this is a national security issue. these seven countries were derived from what the obama administration deemed as needing further travel restriction. we followed through on that. as we continue to go through this 90 day process review we
are going to make sure we put a system in place that vets, extreme vets these people who are coming into our country that potentially could do us harm. plain and simple. >> second question. >> i forgot. john said two. >> you can't forget things like. >> well. >> what's the president's response to iran flagrantly thumbing its nose at the u.n. security council? >> we are aware of -- >> and if i could finish, and prime minister netanyahu who you mentioned will be coming here on the 15th is looking to the white house for more sanctions against iran. >> we are looking into that. we are aware that iran fired that missile. we are looking into the exact nature of it. i'll try to have more for you later. >> thank you, sean. >> john beginsy. >> thank you very much. two brief questions. first the president of zoa, zionists of america, put out a statement following the president's proclamation on the holocaust saying that the omission of jews and what they
experienced was quote painful, unquote. does he plan to do anything about it? >> he's aware of the what people having sachlg i think by and large he has been praised for it. inthe president recognized the tremendous loss of life that came from the holocaust. i think with respect to israel and the jewish people specifically there has been no better friend than donald trump when it comes to protecting israel, building a better vend friendship with israel. prime minister netanyahu has talked about, he respects this administration. to sergeant otherwise. frankly i have got to be honest. the president went out of his way to recognize the holocaust and the suffering that went through it and the people affected by it and the loss of life and to make sure that america never forgets what so
many people went through, jews or gypsies, priests -- gase. i think when you look at it, state of israel or the people themselves i think there has been no better friend than donald trump, especially after the last eight years the respect he has shown. and to suggest anything otherwise is frankly disappointed. >> second question. >> i'm getting way too into the second question. >> thank you. several ngos that have helped people from the countries affected have said they specifically have focused on people who interpreted for our military. >> right. >> and said they would be affected by this. i believe secretary mattis said he hoped to specify that to give these people a better shot at it. >> right. >> is there going to be any change? >> you look at that one interpreter yesterday came back was interviewed on television said i love donald trump.
whenly look at the people who serve our country we want to make sure they are helped out. that doesn't mean we give them a pass. in 2009, the obama administration let two people in. they planned an attack in kentucky. i think we have got to recognize the people who help this country, served this nation might not be citizens at the time who want to come here we need to appreciate the service they had. that doesn't mean we let them in without a certain degree of vetting. that's what we're going do. again, the onus is on us to make sure we are protecting the american people and that people who want to come into this country do so in a peaceful way. margaret. >> i'd like to ask you about dodd/frank. president trump said this morning he is going to do a big number on dodd/frank. and i wanted to know what is the time frame for the big number? is this legislation that you are looking at teaming up with republican lawmakers on? or do you think that the big
number can mostly be handled through an executive order? >> i think we are continuing to work with the legislative affairs team on that today what you saw was the first step down the path of regulatory relief to our nation's small and large businesses as well. i think that he understands especially as a businessman himself and someone who has been involved in financing the impact that dodd/frank has had on lending in particular and the impact that it has on small and large businesses. so i'm not -- i think we are going to continue to work with congress on reform. we'll have more for you on that at some point in the future. >> could i -- >> we are doing two fer day. >> oh, that's great. good. okay i'm wondering, do you expect an eo on hibs as part of all this coming any time soon? and also i wanted you to be aware that president obama flew his spokesman has issued a statement on the executive order. >> okay.
thank you. i think with respect to h 1 bs and other visa, it is part of a larger immigration preform effort that the president will continue to talk about through executive order and through working with congress. but you have already seen a lot of action on immigration. and i think whether it's that or the spousal visas or other type of visas. i think there is an overall need to look at all these programs. and you will see both through executive action and through comprehensive legislative measures a way to address immigration as a whole and the visa program. zeke. >> since we are doing two. i have got two for you. on the nsc reorganization with regards to the president's chief strategist being on the nsc that wasn't something that existed in president obama's tenure. what does that speak about mr. bannon's roel within the white house, within the policy decision making structure? >> let's be honest. david axelrod walked in and out of nsc meetings frequently. by his own and several of your
accounts. what this shows is that this administration is being transparent. that it's putting out in the public who is going to be going in and out of those meetings not just letting people go in willy-nilly. i think it shows that this administration is trying to make sure that we don't hide things. wait for the comment after the fact. it recognizes the role he is going to play. steve is not going to be in every meeting. like axel rod he will come in and out when needed but we wanted to be up front about it and make sure that was stated so it wasn't a story when he did. yep -- >> one more. >> sorry. >> on the strike over the weekend, can you talk about the president's personal involvement. this seems to be the first ma r major -- [ inaudible ] >> he was obl obviously aware of the strike occurring. he was kept in constant contact saturday night of the status of the mission. both the success that it had, and the tragic loss of life that occurred to that member.
we are currently following department of defense next of kin procedures. and as soon as it is appropriate, the president will be speaking with the family members. >> sean? >> yes. >> thank you very much. on north korea icbm, north korea announced that if the united states intercept icbm, it would be war. how did you respond on this? >> do how did we what? >> how did you respond to the north koreans see it as war if you intercept the icbm -- >> i'm sorry, how did -- >> how did you respond. >> how did we respond to north korea? we are working through diplomatic channels, i don't have any further read out on that. >> one more. >> fine. >> yesterday president trump called king president of south korea and also he said he wanted
to stengen joint defense capabilities. >> right. >> what is particularly. >> they spoke last night at 7:00. there was a read out i had prod of call. i think we will have further steps to announce and follow that call. i think the read out speaks for itself. mike. >> i wanted to ask you about the supreme court pick? >> yeah. >> can you tell us why he moved it up to tomorrow night? sounds like -- can you tell us who the pick is? and is it a pick off the list he has been using? is he 100% sure this is the pick. >> it's 100% he's the pick. this is part of the list he put out. maintains exactly what he said he was going to do. but i'm not going to share any further guidance on that. i appreciate the try. >> when you said he's -- >> i said the individual. >> you also said he. you said he's the one. >> sean -- >> yeah. >> just following up on the
president's comment last week that 3 million illegal immigrants voted in the election. you said he would have an executive order on this subject. is he still planning to do that? >> yes, he is still planning to do that. >> a second follow-up on your statement about the holocaust statement, last night the republican jewish coalition called it an unfortunate omission that the white house did not acknowledge the jewish people -- >> they weren't in president bush's acknowledgment either. >> president bush did mention anti-semitism -- >> i think this -- >> why did you decide to depart from bipartisanism. >> it's not -- the statement was written with the help of an individual who is both jewish and the zeend ants of holocaust survivors. to suggest that remembering the holocaust and acknowledging all of the people, jewish, gypsies, priests disabled, gays and
lesbians -- it's pathetic that people are picking on his statement. i remember we issued a statement at haas christmastime calling christ the king. and reporters were wondering whether we were referring to christ as the president-elect. down how offensive that was to christians. you are picking on a statement that sought to remember this tragic event that occurred and the people who died in it is just ridiculous. i think he acknowledged the suffering that existed and wants to make sure that it's enshrined in the american people's memory so that something like this never ever happens again. and i think to sit there and suggest that he was trying to single out anything, and any people of which he has shown such tremendous respect for, and such a willingness in terms of the state of israel to go out there and show the partnership that it needs to exist between us and the respect. and when you contrast that, frankly, a statement, a statement, and you look at the
actions of the last administration, the iran nuclear deal, them giving palestine an equal footing in terms of the amendment that was passed at the u.n. security council on their way out the door -- to compare a statement that remembers the holocaust with the actions of the last eight years and the disrespect that was shown to israel is unbelievable. where were the questions about u.n. security council resolution that came forward? and the idea this unprecedented step that the outgoing administration took as a massive slap in the face of israel? where were the questions then? [ inaudible ] >> did i say that? no. i know what i said. i didn't say jared's name. i'm not -- but i'm just saying -- no, i'm not getting into who wrote it but he has several member of the jewish faith on his senior staff. to suggest it was an omission of anything else is kind of
ridiculous. >> sean, i'm sure there is a dissent cable that's being circulated inside the state department and takes issues with the executive order. are you wear of? what's your concern. ? are you facing a state department that's not working in the same direction as you are? second secondly, on safe zones, president trump said a couple of times before the election that he wanted persian gulf countries not only to be open to this, but to support it, pay for it. is that the request he made to the ib king of saudi arabia during the phone call over the weekend. >> the dissent cable, yes, we are aware of that that's part of the state department way of letting career foreign service officers express themselves. obviously we are aware of it.
but i think that any government official or anyone who doesn't understand the president's goal in this and what this actually was. again, i think this has been blown way oust proportion and exaggerated. again you talk about in a 24 hour period 325,000 people from other countries flew in through our airports. and we are talking about 109 people. from seven countries, that the obama administration identified. and these career bureaucrats have a problem with it? i think they should either get with the program or they can go. hold on. hold on. this is about the safety of america. and there's a reason that the majority of americans agree with the president. it's because they understand that that's his number one priority. and it's his number one duty as it should be with any leader to keep our people and our institutions safe from attack. and that these steps are frankly common sense steps that the president's taking to make sure we are never looking in the rearview mirror saying we should have done something like this. >> i want to tell you something, is he ask him to pay for it.
>> he did have a conversation about financing with him as well. yes. >> president obama, the statement that was referenced earlier said he is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. does president trump have a message for the protesters? and does he have a message for the 109 people that you just mentioned? since it's two fer monday, on this memo about the plan to defeat isis, president campaign ed saying he had a plan to defeat isis. does he. >> that is an ongoing conversation he continues to have with both the joint chiefs, secretary of state designate me, homeland security secretary, and the secretary of defense. but he has been having that conversation within his national security council win his advisors to make sure he has that. he has tasked the joint chiefs with a plan to come up with and implement some of his recommendations and some of theirs to make sure that we can defeat isis. >> on the message to the
protesters and specifically to the families of those who this weekend were caught up in this. >> yeah, it is a shame that people were inconvenienced but at the end day we are talking about a couple of hours. i would rather -- you know, i'm sorry that some folks may have had to wait a little while. but i think the president would much rather know he is not placing a call to someone who was killed because someone was let into this country who wanted to commit a terrorist act. if you weigh the calls we have to have, someone being temporarily inconvenienced coming into a airport -- when you do talk to some of these people, i talked to a couple of them who were entered viewed who said i understand. coming into this country is still a privilege. it's not a right. it is and our duty and it is the president's goal to make sure that everybody who comes into this country to the best of our ability is here because they want to enjoy this country and come in peacefully. and so he takes that obligation extremely seriously.
and i -- so -- hold on. i'm going to finish is a sil celia's questions. to make sure that somebody is inconvenienced a little. people experience this all the time going out of tsa. we have to wait in lines, too. but we do so to make sure we are getting on a plane to make sure we are going to a des anation, not committing a nefarious act. i think the safety of our country and our people is at the forefront of this president's head. this is where he wants to go. i think we have got to keep all of this into proportion. we had 109 people that were temporarily detained. their all in, but they were temp rarely detained to make sure that the set a of the other 324 million other americans was put first. i don't see how that's a problem. >> advocacy groups are saying we already have extreme investigate. it takes anywhere from 18 to 24
months for people applying for asylum or refugee statusing to through this vetting process. how do you justify making more extreme. and do you plan to add more countries to the list? >> youia. it is a 90 day review period. if you have got other countries, please let us know. i understand that it's interesting that you are talking about adding countries when i keep hearing all these questions was it too much and too quick? you can have it both ways. you can't argue we should add more countries and yet we are having all these issues. >> some other countries that have problems with terrorism are not on the list. >> right. and we are reviewing the entire process over this period of time to make sure we do this right. but i don't think you have to look any further of the families of the boston marathon in atlanta, and san bernardino to ask if we can go further. there is obviously steps we can and should be taking and i think the president is going to continue do to what he can to make sure that this country is as safe as possible.
>> last night we were told by senior immigration officials that top immigration staffers on capitol hill and other immigration officers were involved in drafting the executive order. >> you are talking to offices that weren't involved. >> we are talking to offices on capitol hill. >> there is 535 offices plus territories. you talked to them all? >> the question is which -- >> i'm not under obligation just because you called 1 of 535 offices to tell you which ones we talked to. there were staff from appropriate committees and leadership offices that were involved. we told you last night. yeah. >> sean, thank you. >> go ahead. >> thank you very much, sean. two questions, please. one behalf of the indian american community they are thanking president trump for the cabinet level post of ambassador nikki haley. >> right. >> question is that under her president trump administration
do you think india will be a member of the u.n. security council? and what changes do you think we can see at the united nations? >> well, obviously the president is very pleased with ambassador haley being confirmed and spending her first week up there in new york. she is going to do a fine job representing us. and i'm not going to get any further with respect to seats on the security council. >> and second question? >> yes. >> thank you, sir. as president trump and prime minister immediaty have spoken think times since president trump's victory to make america great again, my question is both leaders i understand are on the same boat because thinking is the same. my question, how vote will work out with u.s./india relations are keshd. and india ready to welcome president trump. >> i appreciate that. they had a great conversation the other day and the relationship between the two countries will continue to grow
stronger in this country. yes. >> first to follow up on zeke's question. my understanding is the wheels were already in motion for this raid over the weekend but did the president have to okay it? >> yes. >> there are reports that the president plans to withdraw from the paris climate agreement within days. ? >> i don't have anything on that. i will have to get back to you. >> two on immigration. the president attacked senator schumer this morning over fake tears and said it was 95% basically that he had shed fake tears over the weekend but senator shuman did not attack president trump. he went after his policy. was this gracious the president? >> i think the president's tweet speaks very clearly for itself. he understands senator schumer i think kellyanne pointed out this morning. where have senator schumer's tears been for the homeless, the people in new york starving for
jobs. it's interesting that in eight years with all the stuff going on in this country i haven't seen tears from senator shumer. >> my other question is you said it was 109 people. >> right. >> but the esht soed press is reporting that the congressionally approved program by which 300 iranian christians juice and -- who were facing persecution in their countries have been blocked from coming to austria. >> right, 109 were detained in the u.s. >> but another 300 who have been blocked from coming. >> okay. >> so that's 409. >> no. no. that's not what i said. i said there were 109 people detained -- hold on. let me answer the question. there were 109 people detained in the united states. they were processed through to make sure they weren't causing anyone in the united states any harm. they were processed through the system that's what i said. exactly what happened. >> sean, what's your level of
concern about any kickback from any of these countries on that list of seven as far as how relations may work in the future? and some people obviously critical of the fact that you have countries like for example, saudi arabia or afghanistan where we have had attacks on u.s. soil with connections to those countries. do you foresee those being added? >> are you asking what is your concern with their reaction to us? >> yes. >> i think the president's goal is the protection and set of of the united states and its people. if they want to act in a way that's inconsistent with their concerns that's up to them to do as a sovereign nation. but it is our duty and his duty to make sure that this country and its people are protected first and foremost. >> sean. >> yes, sir. >> sean, human rights campaign has issued a statement citing rumors that president trump is about to sign a religious freedom executive order that would undermine lgbt rights? >> i'm not going to head ahead
of executive orders we may or may not issue. there is a lot of executive orders a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill but i have nothing on that front. >> in terms of the 90 day ban, kit be objection tendsed indefinitely? >> right now it is what it is. the order calls for 90 days to review the seven countries. at the end of that we'll see where we go from there. right now that's the goal of this. >> on the supreme court, i don't believe you answered this question earlier, what was the reason that president trump decided to move up his announcement from thursday night to tomorrow night? >> because he wanted to. >> was it -- >> no, no, this is -- he wanted to move it up. he was ready to go. he made his -- as he mentioned on friday. he was making his decision. he made the decision. and the president chose to go about it. plain and simple. really nothing more. daniel. >> the new york immigration coalition claims that a syrian refugee with a visa was among the detainees released from
custody at jfk airport. why was that person allowed to enter the country. >> i think every individual haas who has gone through the process has gone through vetting. the individual must have gone through the system. >> the dily briefings were not on the president's schedule tuesday, wed or friday of last week. it is a not on there today, can you confirm he has not received the daily briefing on those days. >> he gets it every day. i just answered the question. >> jihadist groups celebrated news of the travel ban over the weekend indicating they see it as a recruiting tool. former nsa director michael hey end says it could make the country less safe. what do you say to those people who say it will make the country less safe? >> let's go back to what it is.
the president recognizes that it is his duty and obligation to make sure that we keep this country safe. and by instituting a process by which we look at these countries over a 90-day period and the process by which people can come in and out of this country to ensure the safety of each and every one of us i think is something that makes a heck of a lot of sense. i understand, and i think in a lot of cases -- and i say this respectfully, that i think some people have not read what exactly the order says. and are reading it through misguided media reports. that's -- when you actually read the report and understand the nexus of it and how it's working. again, look at how it worked. when you talk about the 325,000 people, 109 were temporarily inconvenienced for the safety us all. >> in iran for five hours. >> and they were processed through, kristen. that's the process. the point is you can nitpick and say this individual -- that's why we slow it down. and make sure if they are a
5-year-old they are with their parents and don't pose a threat. but to assume that because they are a age or gender that they are not a threat is wrong. >> did secretary kelly find out about the executive order as it was being signed and mattis only hours earlier? >> what i'm going to tell you is what has been briefed out previously, which is that all appropriate agencies and individuals that needed to be part of the process were. everybody was kept in the loop at the level necessary to make sure that we rolled it out properly. >> do you want to respond to the former president? >> on that note, how well were those departments briefed? you just said that the president is willing to act quickly when he haas to keep the country safe. is there a lesson to be learned from what happened last week in terms of maybe better preparing the departments that are relevant? >> i understand the question you are asking. two things have to be cleared up. one is if we announced this a lot earlier it would have given people plenty of time to flood
into the country who planned to do us harm. that's not a sound strategy. the people that needed to be kept in the loop were kept in the loop. the people that needed to be briefed were. again, this is largely overblown. when you look at the context of how big this was and the number of people that it caught up it's relatively minor as a percentage of the overall total. so when you look at how this worked on a saturday, 109 people out of 325,000 were slowed down going in. i truly believe that it is being blown out of proportion. the extent to which this actually was -- for what it did. and i think frankly government funked very well. we made sure that the people coming in weren't coming in to do us harm. we made sure that the people who said that they went back to a country that was one of those seven did so without intent to do this country or its people harm and they all got in. after the screening. the system worked well. that's the takeaway, the system
worked well and the country is safer for it. >> do you want to respond the former president? >> i know you said 109 over the last 24 hours, since the executive order. how many went through since that 24 hours have been detained for a number of hours? >> i can try to get you that number of i don't think it's many. the idea is those were the folks that were basiccly caught in transit when the order was issued. then it become ae prospective thing they are applying through theiren country. again it almost should be a minimal amount, if any. that primary initial wave were the people that were in transit when the order was signed. the rest of them weren't allowed back and are going through the process through their consulate and regular system. it actually is a pretty easy aof ensuring the system worked well. >> to clean up something you said earlier, you said with respect to the career diplomats that are signing the dissent
cable, you said they should get with the program or go. are you vugting they should resign their post. >> the president is going to put this safety of this country first. he is going to implemented things that are in the best interest of the safety of this country promptively not retroactively. if somebody has a problem with that agenda that calls into question whether or not they should continue in that post or not. but president was elected. again, look at the polls that have come out so far. the american people support what the president is doing. everyone in here needs to get out of washington once in a while and talk to people throughout america who are pleased that this president is taking the steps necessary to protect this country. i do -- loo, i know the president appreciates the people who serve this nation and the public servants. but at some point if they have a big problem with the policies that he is instituting to keep the country safe, then that's up to them to question whether or not they want to stay or no.
i do think that again you have got to remember the goal of what the president is doing. david brody. >> what's the president's message, sean, to senate democrats who clearly signaled their intention to phil buster the supreme court nominee? >> it's not just the president's message. i think it's the american people's message. they wanted change and bold leadership. that's what they voted for in donald trump in november. i think for democrats to slow walk and play political games with these people who are unbelievely qualified or the choice that they have made before -- think about this, he met with a bunch of senate democrats to talk about the qualities they want in a judge. before they have even heard who this individual is you have got some of them saying absolutely no. that just shows you that it's all about politics. it's to the about qualification. the president has a right to have his nominees taken up. that is part of -- and so for them it is going -- the default used to be unless qualified,
confirmed. it is now going to always no. i think that's a sad message. not just what they herd from the president. but i think they heard loud and clear from the american people. especially when you think about where the democrat party has gone in eight years. they lost seats at every level. they were supposed to take back the senate. they didn't. the republicans did well in the house. we won the presidency. the president won nine of 13 battlegrounds states. the message came through loud and clear that the american people wanted decisive leadership. they are getting it. i think if you are a senate democrat you have got to wonder whether or not you are gettingout outside of washington enough. thank you guys. i'll see you tomorrow. >> we have just been watching the white house briefing. a lot here to digest. i want to bring in gloria borger as well as pamela brown. you heard there, gloria, that there was this defense very much of this travel ban. also i should say we do have
breaking news. president obama has put out his first public statement since leaving office. i want to start with that, gloria. we have this here. this is about the travel ban and some of the protests that we have seen. he said -- his spokesman says president obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. in his final official speech as president he spoke about the important role of citizens and how all americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy, not just during an election, but every day. citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble, organize, and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when american values are at stake. with regard to president obama's foreign policy decisions as we've heard before, the president fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion. this is significant, gloria, that we are here less than two weeks into the trump administration and the former president has weighed in. >> right.
i mean president obama had told us quite forth i rightly before he left office that prrp a few things that he would engage on. and when he thought that our values -- that america's values were at stake that he would engage. and that's what you see in that statement. because what he did was he effectively called this immigration shift a question of religiona religious ban which the current administration believes that it is not. and so you have a rm forepresidefor -- former president less than two weeks weighing in on the current president, as you know it's something that president obama rather would not do since he appreciated the way president bush behaved when he became president. he sat back. but i think it's quite clear that obama feels quite strongly about this. and what we heard from sean
spicer today on this immigration ban was that he believes that the reaction is completely overblown. and i think he would probably believe that barack obama's reaction to it is overblown. he seemed to think that everybody was exaggerating the issue over the weekend, that only 109 people had been detained. and that was surely worth the safety as he put it of 324 million americans. so he thinks that the impact be that blown way out of proportion and exaggerated. and that is the fight that we're going to have. and now the former president has just weighed in on it. >> and he also said with regard to comparisons to president obama's foreign policy decisions -- he is talking about the 2011 pause that we saw that actually a lot of administration first from the obama ds officials from the obama -- they are rejecting the comparison that we've heard the trump
administration use because iraqi refugees continued to pour in. pamela, we are hearing how officials and departments who vuv looped in on the travel ban were caught off guard. >> that's right. you heard administration officials in the white house say they had been working with various agencies ahead of this executive order but i spoke to the former head of customs and protections who just resigned january 20th. who said he had been given no word about this travel ban. he said there were meetings with the transition before he left office but there was no discussion of this travel ban. and he said normally it would take weeks to be able to come up with a plan and alert everyone in the field. thousands of custom and border protection agents about what to expect, thousand handle the situation. as we know, briana, there was mass confusion over the weekend at dhs because the operational
agents, the officers in charge of implementeding this executive order, were learn being it as president trump was signing the executive order. so not only did they have to figure out what it meant for those newly banned passengers on u.s.-bound planes but also what it meant for green card holders in those seven countries. so there was a lot of confusion. now you know secretary kelly has issued this statement clarifying that green card holders in those seven countries can come to the u.s. absent derogatory information but it's striking that it took two days for this statement to come out and for the facts of what this executive order means to come out. i can tell you that first who are in charge of the implementation were certainly caught off guard on friday. >> you are talking about an official who left when the obama administration ended, right. >> yes, this individual left on january 20th. >> there also seemed to be information, though, even just from folks who were in there,
even from the secretary of homeland security and those maybe immediately around him about what was going on. right? >> that's right. so what we're told through our sourcers at department of homeland security, as president trump was signing this executive order the new homeland security secretary as well as other career leadership at dhs were basically being fully briefed for the first time on the details of this executive order. briana. >> he said that -- he said that the people who needed to be briefed and who needed to be kept in the loop were. so sean spicer insisting on that. >> could i just add one little thing quick she. >> yeah, go ahead. >> because it is true that there are political appointees tied to the trump team stationed at dhs in the front office. but from what we're doing hollywood told there was not communication between the political appointee and those who would actually be in charge of enforcing the executive order. i think that's where we're seeing a little bit of the divide. >> or who could say look they
may not work as you intends it to work. raising red flags there. that's a good point. sarah marie has been covering this. she is joining us from the white house briefing room. i want you to listen something. this is a different topic having to do with steve bannon, arguably president trump's top adviser being given a permanent slot on the principles committee of the national security council as we see the dni and the chairman of the joint chiefs essentially demoted taken off of that permanent group. here's what sean spicer said in reaction to suggestions that this is quite the change. >> this is the principles committee in 2017. and this is the 2001 principles committee. it is literally 100% the same. 2001 and 2017 are identical. so this idea that there has been a change or a downgrade is utter
non-sense. with respect to the joint chiefs in particular the president holds the chairman in the highest regard. the suggestion that he would downgrade the important role that the chairman plays in matters of national security reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the tremendous respect that the president holds for both the chairman himself and the joint chiefs as a whole. >> sarah marie, sigh secretary that for us. it was pretty interesting that sean spicer came out armed with visual aids there. >> he had visual aids, printouts. you heard him say utter nonsense. the chairman of the joint kmeefs and dni will still be involved in these meetings. i think one of the things when you talk to former officials who were involved in the nsc they say what is alarming is to have steve bannon in these meetings. to me what it tells you. >> steve bannon is on equal footing or higher footing than reince priebus. he views him as a second chief
of staff. when sean spicer was giving his briefing he pointed out that david axle rod would come in and out of these meeting. but that's not the same thing as having a permanent seat on the principles committee. and it does sort of raise questions about sort of what they expect steve bannon to be weighing in on, what kinds of expertise he brings to the table. because obviously he does not have experience. he does have a background in national security and in foreign policy. >> no, it is a very good point. some people have made the point that david axelrod came in and out because he could len a piece of what politically was achievable even fur talking about foreign policy. but you point out this is a different position. >> that's right. this is a different position because we are talking about him having a permanent seat, being in all of these meetings. sean spicer said maybe steve bannon will be in some of them, maybe he won't be in other ones. that was sort of the david axelrod situation. this makes it formalized, for
permanent, assures his seat at the table going forward. i think that's a concern because people look at steve bannon as someone they don't know well, don't know his personality or judgment very well. and they look at breitbart as a proxy for steve bannon and say this is a guy who used his website to promote his conspiracy theories. is that the person we want this the room? again, the president has wide latitude to pick his team. this is a good indication how he plans to use the advisors going forward. >> glor kaia let's talk about the holocaust statement. there was, in act knowledging the anniversary of the shut down of auschwitz, the largest nazi concentration camp, there was a holocaust statement that was written by the white house. and it certainly paid tribute to those who were lost in the holocaust. but it did not specifically talk about jews who were killed in the holocaust. and that was something in a a lot of people found very startling because you did not
see that with president obama. you didn't see that with president george w. bush. sean spicer tried to say no, that's not -- you know, he was saying george w. bush didn't have it in his statement. abbey phillips of the "washington post" pointed out actually he did. talk about this, this back and forth. the white house says i wasn't an oversight. what's going on here? >> again, sean spicer throughout this press conference effectively tried to downgrade anybody's concerns about what concerned, whether it was on the immigration order or steve bannon being appointed as a principle to the national security council or whether it's this holocaust memo. the holocaust memo was found to be quite offensive by manyi jewish group, including the republican you jewish coalition. and people have spoken write forth rightly about it.
i know that sean spicer believes there is no reason that they feel this way, but they do. and he didn't quite acknowledge that they did feel this way. he called the outcry pathetic. but the fact that jews were not mentioned is something that many people took great offense at. if i might go back to the steve bannon issue again, because, you know, we have to step back and say, wait a minute, this is the first time in american political history that someone's chief political strategist has been appointed to this august group which is responsible for our national security. i have been corresponding with david axelrod who is a colleague of all of ours, and he said to me that he was not a member of the principles committee, that he never spoke, and that he was rarely there. so that he believes that any kind of notion that you could equate what he did with what steve bannon's position will be
is just not true. i know he is going to be on speaking with anderson about this later, but i just wanted to represent his views here about the equivalency between his role and steve bannon's role. >> gloria, to tie these two things, steve bannon and this statement together -- not saying that he was involved -- i don't know if he was involved in the statement. but one of the reasons it seems that folks will not give donald trump latitude on this is in part because of steve bannon and the fact that breitbart has championed the all the right? right. >> which is certainly -- i mean i guess you could describe it as a group that is neb -- linked to like a nebulous group of thought that has to do with homophobia, anti-feminism, zdeno phobia and yes anti-sem tich. and you have also got as a candidate donald trump retweeted an anti-semitic image and was
unapologetic to it. sean spicer's answer to all of this is that it is a conspiracy theory and everybody should know that donald trump is a friend of israel and this is ludicrous, ridiculous, and pathetic. but to deny that there is this preexisting narrative there about certain people in the administration is to deny what even jewish groups are thinking about. and i think this is something that eventually the president himself may have to take on, you know, directly, because there is all of this swirling out there. and to just push it aside and say it's an exaggeration, it's overblown, it's unrealistic, it's pathetic, it's not true really doesn't answer the concerns that people have. and at some point i think you kind of have to take that head on. >> we will see if he does.
gloria borger, thank you to you as well sarah marie and pamela brown to us. sean spicer just responded to a possible showdown within the state department as well. cnn has obtained a draft memo from dozen career diplomats who say the president's executive order will actually hurt efforts to prevent terror attacks in the u.s. i want to discuss this with ranee events who has close ties to white house chief of staff rhines preeb us and daniel -- this is a five-page memo. it warns that this travel ban, prmp's travel ban quote will immediately sour relations with countries whose government are quote important allies and partners in the fight against terrorism regionally and globally. what is your assessment of that? >> i wholly concur with that assessment. why we are offending iraqis for example, when they are our
ground force combatting isis is entirely beyond me. and the thought that we are going to also offend saudi arabia with this anti-muslim ban, you know, saudi arabia is one of our most important intelligence partners in counter-terrorism. the whole thing to my mind has informing to do with counter terrorism and everything to do with domestic politics and i think it's incredibly counter-productive. >> rande loo, what do you think? get with the program or go, that's what sean spicer said in relation to this idea that there will be dissent? >> i think the bottom line is that people should understand what the order is and what it's not. it's not anti-muslim. there are 40 other countries that aren't on the list. this is seven specific countries that were identified by the obama administration that present a unique risk. and the purpose of the order was to say we're not going to take more risk with american lives.
it may inconvenience a few dozen travelers here and there. but if it saves one american life we view that as a positive. >> you are making quite a cognitive leaf leap between saying there were seven countries identified as having serious internal issues with terrorism and then going to what is a travel ban here. i mean, that's -- that list was not an execution of what donald trump has done. >> that's exactly what it was. it was a ban to say we're -- we'll have a moratorium on travel from those seven countries. notice the word muslim does not appear in the order anywhere. notice that the rest of the muslim countries are not mentioned anywhere. >> religion does. religion appears. it says to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals based on religious based percent indication provided that the religion is a minority religion in the country's national
country of origin. in syria, that would highlight christians. in. >> notice the shift you -- notice the shift. the shift was from what about protection, to prosecution. here the reference to religious orientation or affiliation was refugee status to those who have been percent cait cuted. so literally what we have is an order that protects americans from people who want to do us harm. and it protects minority religious groups in other countries who are being persecut persecuted. this is a protection order. it's not a persecution order. that's the part that really gets turned on its head, which is nothing there is nothing in the order that actually is designed to harm anyone. it is designed to protect americans and protect religious minorities in other countries. >> daniel, what do you think about that? >> well, i don't think it's
going to protect anyone. over time a policy like this will ultimately increase the threat of a terrorist attack against americans in part because it confirms the jihadist narrative that we are anti-muslim and in part because it willage state people who are on the fence right now, particularly those in the united states, and may lead them to carry out violent attack. we have seen this kind of thing happen before. let's remember, no one has come into this country since 9/11 to carry out the kind of attack that this order seems to be aimed at preventing. all of the killings -- all the jihadist killings that have taken place were carried out by people who are either citizens of the united states or permanent legal residents. so this is a complete misfire. and yoei don't think it has anything to do with protecting
us. >> if you look around the world, you will see where radical jihadists, radical islamic jihadists have spread throughout. and we don't want them here. we don't want them coming to the united states. i know you may be okay for them to go to paris or go to brussels, or go to some other country. president trump said, well we are not going to let them come here. that's what this is designed to do. and to suggest how they would be more agitated than beheading people, more agitated than burning people in cages is really kinds of ignoring the reality of the situation. >> that's just not what i said. i'm talking about. >> they are already agitated. they already want to kill news that's not what i said. >> that's what i thought you said. >> no. what i said was people in the united states who are at risk of being radicalized are more likely to be radicalized by initiatives like this. and that is quite clear. and there is a track record of that. we know it for example, from the boston marathon bombers this was
exactly the kinds of stimulus that turned them in the wrong direction. >> and daniel, i'm going to have to wrap you up a only because -- i'm sorry i know we are gob to lose your signal in just a few minutes. thank you for being with us, thank you gentlemen. one of two muslim congressmen are calling donald trump's ban un-american. one of them joining me now. andre carson, he is the first muslim to serve on the house committee on intelligence. first congressman, just let me know, has anyone come to your office with concerns? do you have people calling up and worried that they could be insnared in this? >> they have been to our office. both offices. the district office in indianapolis and in d.c. our phone lines have been flooded with concerns from constituents. our phone lines have also been flooded with praise and support. just yesterday on my flight b