tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN January 30, 2017 5:00pm-6:01pm PST
thanks no joining us. i'll see you back here tomorrow night. a direct challenge to president trump's authority, headed by the obama appointee, and it's far from the only headline. there is the human cost, and the resistance around the world. those are protesters in colum s columbus, ohio, and we'll bring all of that ahead, also the support for what president trump did from everyday americans who say they feel safer not. a lot to cover now, starting with the acting attorney general's act of defiance. evan perez joins us. what are the details?
>> anderson, this is an extraordinary order from the acting attorney general sally yates. she's ordering the justice department lawyers not to defend this executive order that the president -- the new president donald trump issued on friday with regard to refugees and immigration. she says in her order to the justice department lawyers that she does not believe that this order is lawful. that's a big deal for the government, because now they're facing challenges in at least five jurisdictions, five states right now, anderson, where judges are hearing challenges to whether this lay, this executive order from the president is legal. what she had, and i'll read you a little piece -- i am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consist aren't with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. at present i am not convinced that the defense of the
executive order is consistent with these responsibilities, nor am i convinced that the executive order is lawful. so anderson, what happens next? we don't know. the president has the right to fire the acting attorney general, but then she is really the only one left inside the justice department, whose senate confirmed and who could sign off on surveillance warrants, international surveillance warrants. that's a big deal for the government. >> her statement is really only in effect to the -- it's only in effect until the acting attorney general leaves office, wherein jeff sessions will be sworn in? >> right. the assumption has that jeff sessions will be confirmed later this week. we don't know whether or not that changes -- we know that, for instance, some of the republicans on the hill on capitol hill have been uncomfortable with some parts of this executive order, especially because it wasn't briefed to them before the president signed
it. a lot of people did not see this, including sally yates. she struggled with this over the weekend, anderson, that's what i'm told by sources at the justice department. timely she issued this order that they are not going to defend this, at least until the new attorney general takes office. >> evan perez, thanks very much. president trump just tweeted -- the democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. they have nothing going but to obstruct, now an obama ag. bringing in legal expertise, laura coats,le a constitutional attorney page pate, and professionor dershowitz, what do you make of this decision? >> she's a terrific public servant, but she's made a serious mistake here. she's responded to politics with politics. it's so easy for somebody who is the outgoing acting attorney general to stand up and be a
hero against the elected president. this is a very difficult nuanced question. some of the executive order is probably unconstitutional as it apply toss green card holders. some of it may be in violation of the statute that prohibits visas from being denied on religious grounds. some of it may be constitutional, as it applies to people who haven't ever been in the country and are trying to visit. what was needed was a nuanced calibrated lawyer to defend his actions in court, if she won't do it, the courts will probably point somebody else to do it. she could have done a much, much better job if she had responded to the very, very badly crafted
order the executive order i fundamentally disagreed with. if she had -- she would have had a bigger impact. i think she played into the hands of donald trump by doing what she does. >> so professor, what are donald trump's options here? the justice department does u89ly answer to him. it's part of the executive branch. >> i think it would be a mistake to fire her. again that would play the political card. what he should do is arrange to have another lawyer defend the actions. i heard earlier that maybe the legal counsel's office of the justice department might have had a somewhat different view of this. i think he should respond -- if he's smart, he should respond in a more nuanced way than she responded and at a time the high ground. it's hard. this is such a bad policy implemented in such a terrible way, but we shouldn't confuse a bad policy with an unconstitutional policy or unlawful. it's not the job of the justice department to do the, quote,
salliate quoted, what is right. >> are all federal prosecutors bound to follow it full stop, or is there wiggle room? >> they are bound to follow her. she is essentially their commander in chief, but i have to say, i disagree to an extent with mr. deference or wits. the justice department does have a role. that's also to preserve the credibility of the golf in making any arguments in front of the courts. one of the responsibilities of the doj is to ensure that it has that credibility going forward and that they have the backing to be able to say -- to walk into any court that what they're defending and actively trying to enforce is a lawful -- completely lawful act. here i think what she's doing is not just making a political statement. what she's doing is saying because of the ambiguity and
because there are portions of it at least that may defy not only the constitution perhaps the not to discrimination against people for national origin, we cannot make a straight-faced argument in a way that preserved -- it's a smart decision. >> but don't lawyers all the time make arguments based on what their clients bev, not their personal beliefs? >> one of the issues with this particular executive order is not just the morality portion. legally speaking, there's not clear guidance on how to enforce the law and whether or not what they're enforcing is consistent with other objectives. namely civil rights organizations talked about this, that we have a responsibility as doj attorneys not just to enforce blindly things that are unconstitutional or may be.
there is a responsibility that is higher than just trying to appease the clients. remember, the president is not the client of doj, the people are. >> i've known her for a long time. she is not political. she was an assistant united states attorney here. under both remember and then she became deputy attorney general in washington. she has never made decisions based on politics. she makes decisions based on what she believes is right, and consistent with the best policies of the department of justice. i believe this is something where we knee nuance, but nuance should have come before the executive order was ever issued. >> i agree, but she can't respond to lack of nuance with lack of nuance -- but it's her responsibility as head of the
justice department at this point to say i should have reviewed this, it should have gone in front of the lawyers who are not just concerned with the letters in the executive order, but what's being said around it, the context, and more importantly how it's being implemented. i think she sees a very serious constitutional problem. it's her obligation to say something. nobody else in that administration is. >> professor -- >> i think that's right. >> how unusual is this? how uncharted waters are we in? >> it's very unusual. usually when somebody refuses to enforce the orders of the president, it involves a very, very clear case of unconstitutionality/unlawfulness , she's wrong when she says it's the job of the justice department to make sure what is happening is right, or i think also your other guest is wrong, to preserve the integrity of the justice department and the credibility before the courts. that may be what they would like to see happen, but her job is to enforce the law unless it is clearly unconstitutional or
clearly in violation of a statute. this law doesn't satisfy that very hard criterion in all its respects. there may be parts that are constitutional. let me give you an example. if you have people who are in yemen, they've never been in the united states, they want to come here, the president has plenary authority to deny them. we have a tragic history, but a long history of denying people the ability to come to this country on political grounds, we don't like their ideology, we kept them out if they were communists. that happens to be the law and precedent. i wish that would change, but no the job of the attorney general to refuse to enforce a law based on her personal views that it's -- >> this is not a normal law. >> it's an executive order not reviewed by the top left at the justice department. it's not just what's in that order, it's the process. i think she has an obligation to make sure the process is followed. >> i agree.
it clearly wasn't. >> the justice department is not motivated by ego mr. deference or wits. the credibility they're trying to maintain is a continuity of constitutionality, and there are portions that could be parsed out as unconstitutional. they could enforce the piecemeal version you would like them to do so? >> why not? they do it all the time. that's just wrong. >> they do not. >> you have executive orders. that's just wrong. they have executive orders and the courts enforce partened don't enforce others. they're severable, and laws are generally written in the way of severable. >> let's leave it with the professor for now. thank you, panel. let's bring in the panel. we've been waiting for
donald trump's response. you want to put it up? -- the democrats are delaying my cabinet picks. they now have an obama ag. i guess donald trump could just outright fire her, yes? >> certainly he could, though it does have the problem you just heard evane perez discuss, which is she may be the only person that can approve these foreign surveillance orders to acquire foreign intelligence, but a anderson, what is astonishing to watch, including tonight, i'm watching how he'll react, from the very beginning, it didn't have to go this way. apart from the policy, he probably would have accomplished the same goals. >> i think this might be -- this is me being a little sinister here, but they like -- they like controversy. they want to fight.
let's just game out what could happen. donald trump -- they like disruption. disruption is a good thing for them. let's say disruption. >> disruption and chaos are two different things. >> let's say he fires the attorney general, we can't get orders signs, that competent dies sessions' appointment, now mitch mcconnell has a perfect excuse to invoke the nuclear option because it's a matter of national security. i'm just telling you -- >> ryan go ahead the nuclear option has already been -- i'm sorry, for the supreme court you can, but not a cabinet. >> i do agree with matt, though, this is not going to be a -- sessions' nomination will now be a referendum on the examine ectiff order. so i think there are a few democrats who have said they will vote for sessions. there's going to be a lot of
pressure to withdraw that support and any other actions. >> could this have been avoided if more lawyers -- or some lawyers were consulted or, you know, the head of homeland security would you say consulted, or that, you know, it went through a bit more rigorous screening. >> i'm not a lawyer and certainly will not play one on tv, but here's the problem. i have a column in "the conservative review" discussing this before i knew about this. think about the badlands part people defying the president. think about the energy department. >> that according a former employee who had access to a twitter at who was then -- >> the energy department refusing to turn over names. the secret service agent said i'm not going to take a bullet for them. we have this idea from "the washington post" about state department employees. what we've got here is a bureaucracy that over decades, and under presidents in both
parties have mush roomed here to the point where they think they're here forever, the president comes and goes, and they have the freedom to do that she is but the latest. >> i get the point, but is that really what is going on. >> it turns out being president is a really complicated thing, you have to rely on the experts of making your steps. you have no idea as a business guy coming in who's negotiating property deals, that this is going to be analogous experience to running an entire government, which is the most powerful position in the world and has consequences across the globe. now we have the whole muslim world in arms, iraq is taking action. we have the greatest allies including england and including germany coming back at us. we've -- off, excuse me, mexico. we have the civil servants who rightly believe they have been serving their nation and all of
a sudden they've been asked to do what they believe are wrongful acts. we have the business community up in arms, the faith community, 2,000 faith leaders write a letter to congress. the whole thichg is caving in and it turns out you could have done this better if you had been a better manager. >> my point -- i know this is crazy, but to steve bannon -- i'm not convinced that this is incompetent or mismanagement. let me give you an example. >> they he should be impeached. >> this is flooding the zone. >> that's for sure. >> he signed an executive order that basically changes everything about regulation. for every new regulation that passes they will repeal two. this could have big impact on things like the epa regulations. >> you you this hi was trying to bury that? >> they're trying to flood the zone >> let's hold this thought. democratic senator elizabeth warren is in the middle of the floor against the executived.
let's listen in. >> they are offensive and unconstitutional. where are you right now, vice president pence? have you called to overturn president trump's offensive and unconstitutional order? have you asked republicans to introduce a bill to -- you're gonna love birds eye steamfresh vegetables. wait for it. in about five minutes you get delicious, premium veggies, steamed to perfection.
now! ♪ ahhhhhhhhhhh... mmmm heavenly, right? birds eye steamfresh. so veggie good. i wanti did my ancestrydna and where i came from. and i couldn't wait to get my pie chart. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american. i had no idea. just to know this is what i'm made of, this is where my ancestors came from. and i absolutely want to know more about my native american heritage. it's opened up a whole new world for me. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com.
won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. wonly new alka-seltzer plus st want powerful relief. free of artificial dyes and preservatives liquid gels delivers the powerful cold symptom relief you need without the unnecessary additives you don't. loudspeaker: clean up, aisle 4. alka-seltzer plus liquid gels. audi pilotless vehicles have conquered highways, mountains, and racetracks.
and now much of that same advanced technology is found in the audi a4. with one notable difference... ♪ the highly advanced audi a4, with available traffic jam assist. ♪ into human values. we will not be divided by hate and fear. 15 months ago i traveled to the greek island of -- >> democratic senator warren on the senate floor weighing in against the executive order, throwing down the gaunt lest tell lawyers not to defend the executive order we're now waiting for the next shoe to drop xhkd include the president
firing her. that's one option. back now with the panel. you know, hillary, the president tweeting day, and i quote -- if the ban were announced with a one-week notice, the bad would rush into the country in that week. there's a lot of bad dudes out there. there's certainly a lot of americans who think i feel safer with this policy. we've had a lot of them on cnn all throughout the day. i talk to a former fbi sbrergtor about this idea that had they announced it or planned it more, all bad dudes, to quote the president, would rush in. he thought it was laughable, because it takes people a long time. >> months, sometimes year. >> to get visas in the united states, particularly places like yemen, sir use and elsewhere. >> that kind of response response -- >> sean spicer said the same thing. >> it proves they're on the defense with this, on the other hand when the president tells the people an untruth saying, if
i didn't do this this way, we would be more threatened? when it's completely untrue, is pretty overwhelming, and that's why i agree with matt. not only are they doing this deliberately, they're creating this disruption. they actually like it when democrats are up in arms and unhappy. this is exactly what donald trump and steve bannon think that they promised the american people, that they were essentially going to blow washington up. the problem is, you know, that we have is that the consequences of this. the chaos of this, they cannot control. so they will find themselves, over the course of the next several weeks, months, maybe years, with damage that they are doing, that they will not be able to undo. >> it is interesting. something like this does have ripple effects around the globe. this is not something that affects people within the united states. it affects troops serving overseas who are in iraq right
now, serving side by side with muslim forces from iraq. >> this is why i think the trump movement, brexit, all of this sort of thing extends far bedowndonald trump and washington. it's a global phenomenon. what he's doing here, i agree at least with half of what hillary is saying. i do think that this is an executive style. he's the first executive, period, from the business sector to be president of the united states. he's not a politician. he is doing this to shake people out of the status quo. this is being demanded in many corners around the world. i think he not only wants to drain the swamp, as it were in washington. i think he feels there's a need to drain the global swamp, and the very first step you take is shaking the whole system. >> they clearly didn't cull with people who would have told them not to do it that way. >> that's the point, though. >> his secretary of state nominee said he was baffled that he wasn't consulted by this.
people at the state department -- >> the head of homeland security is surprising. >> the airlines who were responsible for rerouting people. i mean -- >> you can't argue that this executive order is an example of trump's brilliance as an executive. if you were a great executive, you come into the white house, learn the process by the way an executive order -- >> the fact you have to step back and say the green card is on a case by case basis. >> and you would know you want the justice department and your lawyers to have a bulletproof executive order so when it's challenged, which everyone knew would be challenged, he left himself open to yates saying i'm not -- >> and we're watching demonstrations, by the way in columbus. >> why not -- even from your perspective, as someone who wants trump to succeed, why not have the executive order on solid legal ground? >> they had the chance to do
policy, which is what they want they wanted to do. nipped they're playing politics. it's a huge mistake. >> when you look at these pictures all weekend long, i think truly the same people would think this is a negative thing are the same people in many cases who said he couldn't win in the first place. i think it's part and parcel. -- to this point if you're in middle america, you do want to be safe, no doubt, right? >> everybody wants to be safe. >> of course everybody does. so democrats have to make sure that everybody understands that of course we want our country to be safe, and of course we want actions by our president to be lawful, and of course we don't want to violate the constitution, but we've got to make that clear as democrats that we get that people want to be safe. >> but we also have to be clear that the countries he targeted don't have in terrorists come in here that have committed any acts. >> jeffrey, why is afghanistan not on the list? >> our saudi.
>> or saudi arabia where the 9/11 hijackers came. >> frankly i would like to see saudi arabia on that list. i think these took these seven from the obama administration or from congress at some point. i do think that's what their starting point is on this. let's be candid. there's 40 muslim countries, to say it's a muslim ban, it's just not true. this is sort of crazy to say this, right? >> it clearly started as the muslim ban in the campaign. by the way, as an example of donald trump actually not leaning into this, but responding to some public pressure, he pulled back from that and the advisers restructured it to make in not a religious test. >> senator schumer, who's making such a big deal in november of 2015 was saying we need to pause the whole thing. >> no, no, president obama actually did pause, they actually had a very rigorous
screening process, and it was in response -- >> but donald trump didn't do that. he threw a cherry bomb, a gas bomb into the process. >> and they redid their policies to make the screening -- >> the. there's a lot more ahead. the president tweeting about 20 minutes ago. we'll take you to the white house next. americans - 83% try to eat healthy. yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day women's complete with key nutrients we may need. plus it supports bone health with calcium and vitamin d. one a day women's in gummies and tablets.
i mwell, what are youe to take care odoing tomorrow -10am? staff meeting. noon? eating. 3:45? uh, compliance training. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. 8:30? tai chi. yeah, so sounds relaxing. alright, 9:53? i usually make their lunches then, and i have a little vegan so wow, you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investments that worked as hard as you do? yeah. introducing essential portfolios. the automated investing solution that lets you focus on your life. after becoming one of the largest broadband companies in the country. after expanding our
fiber network coast to coast. these are the places we call home. we are centurylink. we believe in the power of the digital world. the power to connect. and that's what drives us everyday.
basically calling on other networks says this is a politicization of the legal process. there is an obama appointee making these decisions, but there were a lot of questions about why donald trump would move forward with this travel ban without his own attorney general in place. we know that jeff sessions has not been confirmed yet, just the latest hiccup for a rocky roll-out. donald trump springing to the defense of his controversial travel ban, which caused chaos in airports across the country over the weekend and drew fire from both sides of the aisle. >> it's not a muslim ban. we're togetherly prepared to work it out nicely. >> reporter: it includes a 90-days ban for citizens coming to the u.s. from seven countries, identified as countries of concern in the obama administration and
suspends the refugee programs for 120 days. over the weekend it prompted protests in the streets and elicited a strong response. >> this executive order was mean-spirited and un-american. >> reporter: today a cutting rebuttal from the president. >> i noticed that chuck schumer yesterday with fake tears. i'm going to ask him who was his acting coach, because i know him very well. i don't see him as a crier. >> reporter: it's not just democrats raising alarm. >> you have an extreme vetting proposal that didn't get the vetting it should have had. quietly crafted the order with limited guidance from the administration's own agency. it caught the department of homeland security, state department and customs and border patrol flat-footed,
breeding confusion at airports. sean spicer is defending the roll-out, and calling the criticism overblown. >> if we announce this a lot earlier, it would have given people plenty of time to flood into the country who could have done us harm. that's not exactly a sound strategy, right? so the people that needed to be kept in the looked were kept in the looked. >> trump also tweeting if the ban were announced with a one week notice, the bad would rush in. a lot of bad dudes out there, but the refugee process often drags on for more than a year. even visas can take weeks for approval. the uncertainly drew a shark rebuke from many reps. senators john mccain and lindsey graham warned the travel ban could alienate muslim allies saying we ultimately fear this will become a self-inflicted wound. trump swiped back on twitter calling them weak on immigration, saying they're always looking to start word war iii.
>> i'm not trying to start a war. i'm trying to win the war we're in, you won't win the war by lumping everybody into a big pot. sir, president trump said he was working with allies on the hill. a lot of them didn't seem to know about it, though. >> that's absolutely right. if he was working with allies, it was a very tight circle and excluded a lot of the relevant committees we would expect to be involved in this. that means it's basically just costing donald trump unnecessary political capital. a lot of republicans on the hill who have been very critical of this order had made it clear it's not necessarily the policy they're opposed to, but they're opposed to what was a very sloppy roll-out, and the fact the administration did not lose the tools at their disposal, and within the expertise of congress to help them do this in a more organized manner. >> thank you very much. back with the panel. what do you think president trump does. if the acting attorney general is playing into his hands, sort
of setting up this battle? >> there seems to be one big obstacle. remember, the trump white house asked her to stay on. they content her to remain in that job, but there is one important obstacle of the fisa court. there has to be a senate confirmed senior justice department official who signs that application. i think right now he's probably trying to figure out is there anyone, if she to do that. that's a big deal. fisa warrants are a daily occurrence. otherwise i think his instinct, the fact she's a holdover, i think the instepping is to sack her. it's fine for the president to sack anyone he wants in the executive branch, but the tradition is at the justice department you don't fire someone based on their legal arguments alone, right? we all remember the saturday night massacre -- maybe we don't
remember, but remember reading about it. >> but it's a good lesson in history to think about richard nixon never really recovered from demanding that archibald cox be fired. it created a narrative that he was crooked, that he had something to hide, that he was not transparent and he was not interested in serving the american people. if president trump goes down this road with salary yates, that's exactly what his's going to end up. >> i think the narrative would be the opposite. there's a lot of bureaucrats. it's not that they just don't like donald trump. if there's a conservative in there doing this, they would have the same problem. >> jeffrey, she's served republicans and democrats as a u.s. attorney in field offices. she's never been in a political job. the reason we are at this point is because a federal judge declared this unconstitutional yesterday, which requires the justice department to go in and defend an executive order.
so this isn't coming from out of the blue. it's already been declared unconstitutional. >> she was confirmed by the senate 84-12, a lifelong prosecutor. i don't think you can turn her into a partisan democrat. and we have a lot more ahead. steve bannon has a seat on the highest-level, david axelrod had it. we'll talk to him. is that really true what he said? we'll be right back. ♪
tonight on top of the travel order flap, the trump administration is taking heat for a change that would ordinarily get very little notice, namely who sits in a certain meeting. however, the meetings are the highest level of the national security team, and two key players are no longer permane permanently invited, however one accomplice cal player is. pamela brown has more. the political player and confidant is steve bannon, right? >> that's right he is president trump's senior adviser in the white house. this is not a cabinet position confirmed by the senate. up until six months ago, steve
bannon was running conservati conservative-leaning breitbart. he will take a top national security council seat as part of this committee. for context the principals are considered the most senior people in the government and past at the strategists such as car rove and valerie jarrett did not have those sheets. says this has been done in the past. >> that's just not true. he was specifically talking about david axelrod. he occasionally sat in on stiff about bin laden, because he was going to have to publicly explain things. he wanted to be a part of that process, but he didn't actually speak in those meetings. bannon is replacing the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of national intelligence. what did the white house say about that shift? >> he's going to be joining
secretary of state, defense, homeland security and treasury, but not notably the director of national intelligence as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. this is pretty significant. shaean spicer she had they coul be entunnelled to participate. and he also pointed out to this memo on the committee is the exact same as 2001. >> the idea is that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and dna are being downgraded or removed is nonsense. they are welcome to attend the principals meetings as well. he reiterated that president trump has great respect for the two officials and said they are welcome to attend these high priority national security principal meetings anytime, but if there's a meeting outside their scope, they're not required to attend, and he
announced that trump would add the cia director to the committee. here's that moment. >> the idea is that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and dna are being downgraded or removed are utter nonsense. joining me is the one and only david axelrod. so david, you wrote an op-said for cnn.com about this, the head like of which is quote, i woke up this morning as an alternative fact. did you, as sean spicer said walk in and out of these meetings frequently? >> no, not at all. i sat in on some principals committee meetings during the period when they were reviewing afghanistan policy, because the president was trying to make a weighty addition about where he wanted to go on strategy in afc.
we knew that it was going to be one that was going to bear a lot of explanation and going to be very important to the american people. so robert gibbs, or press secretary and i, sat in as observers so we could get a sense of how the decision about and what the process was going into it. never did we speak in those meetings. we were purely observers. what steve bannon is doing is completely different. he is going to be a principal at the table. what is clear is he's emerging as one of the principal national security and foreign policy advisers to the president. i would never have described myself that way when i was senior adviser to the president. my portfolios were politics and communications. so this really is new ground that they're charting. using me as a kind of example or a precedent is way off the mark. >> i think i misspoke. i think i said to pamela you were at bin laden meetings, you
said afghanistan meetings. i appreciate the clarification. their attendance at some piece will be optional, the same policy under president obama. is he correct on that account? >> i've got to tell you, i cannot imagine meetings, principals' meetings where you don't want to hear from the director of national intelligence as you're making decisions about the national security of the country, or have the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who's going to execute on orders that the commander in chief gives. it just seems illogical to me you would want to exclusive them from any meeting or that they would not be permanent members of this group. the other thing, you know, pamela, i think what charitable in describing breitbart as a conservative-leaning news outlet. it is the vote of the alt-right movement. not just here, but now in europe of the right-wing populist seine
owephobic, antitrade, anti-immigration movement. it is consequential that the person who helped lead that organization is now one of the -- or maybe the principal foreign policy adviser, national security adviser to the president of the united states. >> this group, are they the ones who sort of approve assassinations overseas? or approve who gets targeted by the u.s.? i'm not injure assassination is the right word, but certainly drone strikes. >> i mean, the most essential decisions that a president makes on national security are made in this group. so it is -- this is no small thing. this is a big deal, and the fact that steve bannon is there speaks to the role that he's playing in this white house. >> why do you think it's important that purely political considerations don't interfere with the decision-making process that takes place in these
meetings? >> well, you want those decisions to be made purely on the basis of national security. what the president wants to draw on those people around him, who are going to give him advice, based on national security, not on politics, a good example is this order that went down over the weekend. steve bannon apparently was the architect of this order, or one of the arc tects of this order. the president did not have the input of his director of homeland security, did not have the input of his defense secretary, did not have the input of the attorney general or the acting attorney general, and you saw the chaos that resulted. he was trying to score -- in my view he was trying to score political points, and he may have scored political points with some of his supporters, but the result of it was the chaos that we see and the ramifications could be far-reaching. lastly i want to ask you about something else that shawn spiders said today, employees
voights disagree, about that he said they should, quote, get with the program or this can go. should federal employees not be able to dissent? what do you think of that? >> i think it's such a dangerous presidents to take. most of these people i would guess all of these people are people who are career professionals within the state department and have served this country under democratic and republican presidents, and have the expertise and associations around the world to be on the forefrond of diplomacy. if those people walk out just as if some of the key people in our intelligence community would walk out, it would weaken our ability to do the business of american around the world. i wouldn't be so callous or flippant about addressing their concerns. >> david axelrod, this may not be the last day you are an
alternative fact. >> i'm sure of that. >> to be continued. thanks, david. just ahead, president trump's travel ban and crackdown on refugees are being celebrated to them he's delivering on a campaign promise that won their vote. what voters in pennsylvania told randi kaye, in a moment. what's the status? there's a meteor hurtling towards earth. how long until impact? less than a minute. what do you want to do, sir? listen carefully... if we all switch to geico we could save 15% or more on car insurance. i like the sound of that. geico. because saving fifteen percent or more on car insurance is always a great answer. are you ready??
you gotta be ready. ♪ oh, i'm ready i mean, really ready. are you ready to open? ready to compete? ready to welcome? the floors, mats-spotless. the uniforms, clean and crisp. do your people have the right safety gear? are they protected? i'm ready! you think your customers can't tell the difference between who's ready and who's not? of course they do. ♪ i'm ready for you everybody wants a piece of ready. cintas, ready for the workday. i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen
and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me.
if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. well as you have seen president trump's travel ban sparked confusion across the country and the world. and applauded by many supporters who voted for trump because of his proposal to ban muslims initially. randi kaye talked to some in pennsylvania, key swing state that turned red. >> we have to check out who is coming in. we have to know who is coming in. >> supporters of president donald trump and his refugee plan weren't hard to find at the beltway diner in pennsylvania. >> thank you. >> reporter: after all, trump won the county with 58% of the vote.
a major reversal from president obama's tight victory here in 2012. do you think this will make america safer? and prevent terrorism? >> yes. yes. >> reporter: why? >> because there is so many of them here now, it's hard to keep track of them. and they just keep coming and coming and coming. >> reporter: this pennsylvania farmer, a long-time registered democrat, switched parties to support trump because he liked his refugee plan. he says this isn't a ban on religion, this isn't against muslims, how do you feel about it? >> it's not. help's doing the right thing. he's doing the right thing. those people have to be vetted. these people are coming off the street. we have no idea who they are. >> reporter: the state department does vet them already. spend a couple years vetting the folks and they turned some away. not enough? >> there is still enough room for those people to sneak through. i don't think they get everybody. >> reporter: if they're coming in from syria, many here told us don't bother vetting, just keep them out for good. >> there is a lot of bad people
there, that we don't know their backgrounds. we don't know where they came from. we don't know what they're behind. >> reporter: you sound like donald trump when you say that. >> i kind of agree with him. >> reporter:'a single trump supporter considered trump's executive order discriminatory. what do you say to those who call this discrimination and illegal? >> you can't call it discrimination when we have got so much violence with the bombings and attacks. it's like he is just trying to keep us safe. >> reporter: will this make america safer do you think? >> i don't know. i don't know. i'm hoping it will. >> reporter: in a diner jammed with trump devotees, this woman stuck out. an independent who supported hillary clinton. she says president trump is bullying muslims. about the ban? >> the ban is a disgrace. this country is made up of
immigrants. he wants to sign executive orders to show he is doing something. he has no idea what it is all about. >> reporter: is this discrimination in your view? >> oh, definitely. it is discrimination. it is illegal. it's a disgrace to our country. >> reporter: this woman couldn't disagree more. she says it's the only way to stop terrorism. >> reporter: what about the terrorism? what scares you about that? >> oh, my god, you never know where it is going to be. you know? you could be shopping or, you can go to church, they might want to blow up your church? >> randi joins us now. the people you spoke with, sound like they're afraid of refugees entering the country. that's the sense i assume you got. >> absolutely, andersen. we picked of on that, fear, bordering on paranoia about these people coming into the country. one people telling me that refugees and muslims are tricky, that was the word he used. they're professionals. they know how to get around vetting. that's why it is so dangerous.
why we need extreme vetting, donald trump is talking about. speaking with the people andersen, all of them incorrectly believe attacks, san bernardino, orlando, or boston bombing were carried out by people coming from countries that are now on this banned list. and when i set them straight, some are u.s. citizens, some of them have been from othcountrie aren't on the list of count trees, they are dumbfounded. couldn't believe it. they stand their ground. they believe donald trump will make america safe again. >> much more ahead in the second hour, the acting attorney general, defying president trump's executive order on refugees. what republican lawmakers are saying on capitol hill, about the crackdown. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace
the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz.
now's your chance at completely clear skin. i discovered a woman my family tree, named marianne gaspard. i became curious where in africa she was from. so i took the ancestry dna test to find out more about my african roots. ancestry really helped me fill in a lot of details. so we know how to cover almost alanything.ything, even a "truck-cicle." [second man] how you doing? [ice cracking] [second man] ah,ah, ah. oh no! [first man] saves us some drilling. [burke] and we covered it, february fourteenth, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪