tv Dateline Extra MSNBC January 29, 2017 2:00pm-3:01pm PST
good evening. we'll show you new york city right now, and several large-scale rallies held across the country. these ongoing and often spontaneous protests to president trump's executive order barring all nationals from seven countries, predominantly muslim. protests continuing at airports where lawyers, democratic lawmakers have converged, demanding the release of travelers who have been detained
since that executive order went into effect. some have been released. others, we can tell you at this hour, 5:00 pm on the east coast, are still being held. there are conflicting messages out of the trump administration all day today as to whether they intend to abide by every aspect of the federal judge's orders that have come out not to deport any of those individuals who have been stranded at airports in several parts of the country. breaking news moments ago. the first and most complete statement directly from president trump this weekend. i'm going to read it to you in part. he says to be clear, this is not a muslim ban as the media is falsely reporting. this is not about religion. this is about terror and keeping our country safe. there was more in that statement. what i want to do immediately is bring in nbc's kelly o'donnell live at the white house, covering every aspect of this story. kelly, what i would like to get
from you first is what else is important in that statement and, afterward, talk to you a little bit about what the law and facts sbuth t first, what is the president saying in this new statement? >> reporter: as you point out, it is a comprehensive statement. he goes beyond the length of twitter in this to give us some perspective from his point of view. 40 countries that are predominantly muslim that are not part of this ban. he also talks about the fact that visas, to all countries, once they are sure that they've got some new measures in place, can be restored. that's interesting for people who have been watching this. it's a temporary ban, indefinite ban ex-suspension for the syrian refugee and 120-day suspension
for refugees from other countries. so there will be a foreseeable end date, according to the administration, and the intervening time, they will try to form a more comprehensive policy to try to address the concerns they have about people from countries that have a terrorist connection, possibly getting into the united states. you know the backdrop for this, particularly very charged and the president is also saying that he will find ways to help all of those who are suffering. now, that's interesting, because this statement tries to address some of the humanitarian concerns that have dominated television coverage today. and it also restates his belief that this is a step he believes he must take to secure the country. so, it gives you the background of why they did it now. it gives you a sense of some of the parameters of this set of executive actions and it gives us a bit of a glimpse toward a future where they might work
their way out of this program. and those question marks, certainly, about how they will do that. it gives us kind of an emphasis on this being temporary. it's a lot in one statement. we have it on our twitter feed if people want to read it in full. it really suggests that they needed, throughout this day, to digest what the public discourse was, protests around this country and lawmakers from both parties have been saying. as the day is wrapping up here, they came up with this statement to drive the coverage for the next day and try to answer implicitly some of the questions that have surfaced from all the activity we've seen today. ari? >> let's go through it a little bit more, having walked through what it says. i want to discuss which parts of it are true and which are debatable. misleading and false. fact checking this new statement from president trump he talks about the many countries not listed in this ban that are muslim majority. we can confirm that is the case.
that is true. there are many, many countries. he cites about 40, that have large or predominant muslim populations that are not affected. he also says that the ban is based, in part, on things that have been done before. that is certainly true, whether people think it's good or bad. the previous administration did, at times, pause immigration. we can rank that true. then kelly, one thing that is debatable. he says this is not a muslim ban. it's certainly not written explicitly that way. as you and i know from reporting this, that is part of the debate. many people are concerned, and we'll hear in moments from anthony romero from the aclu, making this argument in court, that it is targeting religion without saying so and fourth, something that is debatable and i want to flag for our audience, because worry going to be hearing a lot about it. reince priebus hit this point on "meet the press" this morning, the trump administration says this list of seven countries is
based on countries deemed a source of terrorism by congress and the obama administration. we can put them up on the screen here. this is with regard to green card holders, a graphic. those are some of those targets. i've been reporting on this extensively. that is not quite the case. there are previous laws that flagged these countries, but they flagged them as dangerous places to visit. they did not state under law that they were sources of u.s.-bound terror and, of course, that makes logical sense when we keep in mind 9/11, the orlando attack did not involve people from these affected countries. i'm throwing a lot at you there. i wonder if you care to respond to any of it based on your reporting. >> reporter: in talking to administration officials, they were looking for underpinnings and some precedent as part of the support for this action. and so by going back and finding where congress and the administration had identified these seven countries. we know that they aren't the
source countries for the 9/11 attackers. in some ways the terror threat has evolved and geographically has shifted. but they were looking for ways to sort of anticipate the question of why this country and not another. why a friend of the united states but not another. they have acknowledged that other countries could be added to such a list in the future. they named pakistan as one potential, just in a conversational way, as an area of concern. but i think they were looking for some precedent legally that they could argue that these seven countries were chosen not simply bayby the truy the trump administration. a danger to visit versus a source of terrorism is a much more in-depth approach to look at this. it also would seem that they are trying to execute this quickly and there was almost an element of surprise. reince priebus called it ripping the band-aid off by putting this
directive out. the white house insists that people needed to know who were informed of this in advance. part of their evidence is that airports were functioning under this new rule, that there was not a question about should they or should they not take this action. that may address it. there will be a lot of debate about which countries were chosen and which were not, especially in light of the president's business life and his global reach. people have suggested that had something to do with it. the white house says that is not at all the case. >> certainly true that there is precedent here and they are invoking laws that had named these countries. it is also the case that it is an expansion and most experts say those were not the source countries. nobody needs to remind our viewers who lived through 9/11 and other attacks that involved immigrants from other countries. the debate obviously will continue. kelly o'donnell, as always, thank you for your reporting. >> reporter: thank you. good to be with you. joining me here in new york city out on the streets,
correspondent rehema ellis. protests throughout viarious parts of the city. what can you tell us? >> i'm here in foley square near the federal courthouses and this square is filled with thousands of people. that's an unofficial estimate from what i can see. people are still pouring in to this area. they were gathered earlier over at battery park. just an eyesight of lady liberty. they gathered, rallied there and marched up here to the area of the courthouse. standing here with me now is angela buckalow. she's a student. she can tell us why you are out here. >> as a white person i need to stand in solidarity with my muslim colleagues, friends, detainees at jfk, some of them go to my school in stoney brook. >> what are you saying and what do you want the trump administration to hear from you?
>> that we can't stand for this and we need everybody here to continue fighting against this administration on the racist, fascist policies it's implemented. >> are you at all surprised by the size of this crowd, how massive it is? >> i am, and i'm not. i got to battery park, it was a lot smaller. but it's new york and we're passionate and it's not going to stop. >> reporter: the question becomes one of what do you do after this rally? >> we have to listen to our colored friends and family and everybody that we know and we have to combat white supremacy every day in our daily lives. >> reporter: thank you. one of the things you're hearing here and some of the chants say no ban, no wall. we are immigrants. one person had a sign that said ninth generation immigrant. a little boy was on his shoulders and said my mother is an immigrant. so this is a city of immigrants, as is our nation. but maybe no more so than right here. city officials tell us that
something about nearly 40% of the residents of new york city are, indeed, foreign born. so, the message about immigrants resonates strongly here. ari? >> nbc's rehema ellis am new york city. we'll be checking back with you. thank you. one of the groups at the forefront of this fight has been the aclu, filing that petition on behalf of detainees. joining us now is the busy man in this firestorm, anthony romero. thanks for taking time for us. >> not everyone follows this every minute of the day. >> no. >> you went to brooklyn federal court. >> right there in the courthouse. >> what happened? >> we were there at this emergency hearing to ask the judge whether or not she would provide a temporary stay of the executive order. we've been working through the night. friday afternoon when we finally saw the final version of the executive order we were able to compare it to the earlier drafts. and then we were ready for
possibly the legal arguments that we would have to use. we thought maybe weeks ahead. we didn't quite appreciate the fact the chaos of the incompetence with which this executive order was rolled out. >> you were preparing for something that fs going to take weeks? >> weeks. >> you didn't think there would be the kind of problem that would give you an emergency hearing? >> a moment of the keystone cops. an executive order that's now a long form of a tweet. it hasn't been fully vetted by the lawyers. that was clear, listening to the arguments from the u.s. attorneys office, such that they could muster. it was clear seeing the reactions and lack of preparedness from government officials at airports or transit officials or embassies or consulates or employers or students. they just rolled this out. and then you have individuals caught in the web. >> how do you know -- you're
asserting that the career justice department lawyers hadn't been given enough information to be prepared. >> they were not able to answer the basic questions the judge was putting before them, lacking information at that time they talked about, not knowing fully how to answer the key questions of the judges. >> in your experience litigating with the federal government, how unusual was that? >> astonishing. usually someone has tried to dot the i, cross the t. >> regardless of policy? >> worse than obamacare with the health.gov website. such a clear, massive misstep. they couldn't tell their lawyers, government officials at the embassies, their government officials at the airports and what happened then is that people got clipped in all of this. people who had lawful visas then were not allowed to enter the country. why not? here is my visa, my green card.
i'm allowed to enter the country. they would say talk to mr. trump. that doesn't show much preparedness. the order itself is a muslim ban. >> i want to get to that. i want to go in pieces because there's a lot to follow. >> there's a lot. >> just to finish what you won last night, why did the judge side with you and who is protected by your victory here? >> the judge sided with us. she fully understood from the get go the irreparable harm people were about to experience if they were put back on airplanes and deported back to their countries of origin. she fully understood that there were not just two clients named in our lawsuit but perhaps dozens of individuals, including one person, we're told by our sister organization, about to be placed on an airplane against his will back to syria. >> did you win partly because this was done anyway sloppy way? >> absolutely. they played right into our playbook. had they done this properly, it would have been a much longer
constitutional legal argument that would have drug out in the dorts. the fact that they were not ready and their pants were caught down. they were not ready for prime time. clearly the judge understood the impact. government officials tried to mute out our case saying the two individuals named in our lawsuit were in the process of having been released. >> and no longer had injury if they were released. >> she quickly went to the class. because our lawsuit was brought on a class of individuals who were granted visas and had the ability to enter the country and now was in question because of the executive order. that's when she hit the pause button. she was wanting to preserve the status quo. irreparable harm to individuals who would be returned back to syria, iraq, iran, facing persecution or death, the equities were in our favor. >> that was for what we might call the urgent part. all the images we've been seeing around the country this weekend. >> exactly.
>> now to the broader part. donald trump started running for president saying we're going to ban people based on religion. >> exactly. >> by the end of his campaign he was saying different things. today there is a new marker. in the past 15 minutes president trump says, quote, this is not a muslim ban. your view, because you have litigation that goes just broader than the urgent part. you are arguing in can court this is a religious ban. how do you prove that if the text doesn't mention muslim orris llama and as president trump just said many other muslim countries are unaffected? >> let's be clear. i'll get to legal arguments and why we think it's clearly a muslim ban that will fall afoul of the statutes. it's dog whistle politics. how can you have a man who runs on a campaign statement to ban all muslims and put out an executive order that goes right there and only with damage control, people turning out at streets, airports and courthouses say it's not a
muslim ban? the dog whistle has now been heard by many people. we know it's a muslim ban. no matter what they say, how they spin. why is it a muslim ban? they picked seven countries, predominantly muslim countries. not all the muslim countries in the world. seven of them are predominantly muslim countries. smoking gun in the executive order is that beautiful little line that is a sweet spot for us. it's the one that carves out an exception for minority religious. >> minorities in predominant muslim countries. >> minority jews, not shias, not sunnis. religi religions. not denominations. also add to that our lovely president was on the christian broadcast radio station, talking about the need to protect christians from persecution and from murder and from -- >> which is a real problem. >> which is a real problem and
we should do that. but the fact that he would use that to juxtapose one religion when the ban is against another religion -- >> if you can't convince a judge that this is a religious ban, do you lose? >> no. we litigate over and over again. he has walked into a buzz saw. this issue plays out in multiple scenarios. this is a legal quagmire they walked into. i think we will succeed in this case. we have great plaintiffs, clients and lawyers. it continues to affectuate this ban, they'll be back in court. >> last question, does this case go to the supreme court? >> i have a hard time imagining it doesn't. obviously it has to work its way up through the federal district court and court of appeals. ultimately, when it goes to such a matter, such magnitude of such significance coming from the white house, you bet.
this ends up being his obamacare moment. >> anthony romero, one of the key litigants in this fight. up next, we're joined here in our new york studio with one of the members of congress who has been on the front lines today and last night at the drum attic scenes at jfk airport where he helped to secure the release of one traveler being detained. stay with us. >> discuss the application on the basis of religious discrimination violates every tradition of this country and we're here to say this should stop and be revoked. special edition? because, actually there's 5. aaaahh!! ooohh!! uh! holy mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. which one's your favorite? (laughter) come home with me! trade up to the silverado 2500hd all star edition and get an average total value over $11,000
airport for two days consecutively. in battery park across from ellis island and the statue of liberty, protesters are turning out to criticize these orders. joining me now, a ban in the middle of this fight, jerry nadler whose district includes manhattan and brooklyn. judiciary committee. we're looking for the folks watching. we'll keep an eye on these protests, looking here across new york city, the aerial shots show huge gatherings. gatherings across the courthouse last night where the aclu had that victory. we'll keep an eye on these protests and joined by congressman nadler. you looked at a lot of constitutional issues, vocal during the bush administration when there was a lot of debates about the limits of executive power. big picture. what do you think we are seeing over the last three days? where does it fit in your mind
with the history and precedent for these kind of battles between what a president said he can do and what the court and constitution says he can't do? >> the executive order of the president is about as clear a case of an order or presidential action that is clearly unconstitutional and clearly illegal on a separate basis that i've ever seen. >> it's unconstitutional because it's a violation of the -- discrimination on basis of religion. they can say all they want but that's clearly what they're doing, including the fact that they say that members of minority religions and countries from which refugees are totally banned can be considered on a ba case by case basis. the discrimination act of 1975, our basic immigration law says in so many words you can't discriminate on the base of national origin, period. whether it's religion or not,
you can't discriminate by saying not from this country. >> what part of constitution, though, do you think it violates? >> a lot of these people have procedural due process issues, fifth amendment issues and discrimination on the basis of religion. that's keet one. >> what about the immigration argument that has made before that this is a different area where the president has more authority and the level of rights extended to individuals inside the united states does not always work for people entering, trying to enter? >> the president does not have the power of immigration. it's a subject of congressional power. 1965, basic governing statute says in so many words you can't discriminate on the basis of national origin. from 1954 to 1965, national origins quota systems they called it, which very much discriminated on the basis of national origin, intended to block greeks and jews and did so
effectively. the president is discriminating on the basis of national origin. it's open and shut. >> through a constitutional door that's not allowed and even separately because lawyers like to have more than one argument, through the door of federal law. >> it clearly does. >> okay. but i'm going to -- >> yes. >> i'm going to do the interview. the second door you're talking about is that congress has already spoken to this. if it were a blank slate, maybe the president would have room to maneuver. you're making at argument that the '65 law says you can't even do this. there is still, as you know, language that the president has the power to determine when things are detriment to security interest. i want to be clear on what you're stating. are you saying that power doesn't even exist or it could exist when exercised faithfully but it's being exercised --
>> 1952 law and cannot trump a 1965 law. a later law always prevails over a former law. he has no discretion. >> so your view is that there isn't any game in town? >> that's right. >> if you take the other hypothetical and say you have a bigger event, pearl harbor style event and the president immediately says i'm suspending immigration from the country we believe is responsible for the attack. are you putting in the legal view that he wouldn't have the authority? >> i think he has to go to congress. >> now what have you been up to? let's throw the law books out the window. you were at the airport, working on these issues for some of your people that might be in your district. tell us what it was like. >> i went to the airport to help whoever. i didn't know that they were in my district. i don't think they were in my district, in fact.
>> sure. >> besides being illegal and unconstitutional, this action is unamerican, disgusting and stupid. and immoral. and i went there to help people caught there. now, remember, the people subject to this, the refugees especially shall have been subjected to incredible vetting. it takes two years, on average, for the vetting for a refugee. these are people who have been vetted, reviewed by the defense department, all the different departments and judged to be fine and not a threat to the united states. they had gotten their visa, put on a plane and suddenly they're not permitted to get off in this country. that's just wrong. especially two people we were dealing with yesterday had put their necks on the line by working with the u.s. military to protect american soldiers for ten years in iraq. their lives were at risk because they were viewed by enemies of the united states, as collaborators of the united
states and suddenly we're going to send them back to get murdered for the sin of helping the united states? that's immoral as well as what messages that sends to anybody in the muslim world who might want to work with us. >> one of the several parts of this policy where there are questions about not only the legality, but the basic -- which matters because -- we're out of time. acting rationally or not. i'm sorry we're short on time. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> coming up, we'll hear directly from rachel maddow who will call in and explain her thoughts overall these developments over the weekend. as we go to break i want to take a listen in live to some of the protesters and people gathered on the streets of new york. of shrimp and for just $15.99 you can pick 2 of 6 new and classic creations on one plate new flavors like sweet bourbon-brown sugar grilled shrimp and bold firecracker red shrimp are too big to last so hurry in.
when i was too busy with the kids to get a repair estimate. i just snapped a photo and got an estimate in 24 hours. my insurance company definitely doesn't have that... you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance welcome back. we're doing special coverage tonight because of thee protests across the country on president trump's executive order that bans refugees and citizens of seven countries that ban them from entering the country on a
temporary basis. the president put out a statement this past hour. it says, quote, this is not a muslim ban as the media is falsely reporting. this is not about religion. this is about terror and keeping our country safe. some travelers in transit to the u.s. when the executive order went into effect are still being held at american airports. protesters, of course, have been gathering at airports all weekend, demanding their release. there has been a wave of international backlash as well to the travel ban. german chancellor angela merkel's spokesman says terrorism doesn't justify putting people of a particular origin or particular faith under general special. french minister saying accepting refugees is a duty of solidarity. terrorism knows no nationality. discrimination is no response. that's the translation. also uk foreign secretary branding the policy, quote, divisive and wrong. a lot going on around the world even as we've been looking so
much inward at our responses here and our protests. for more, we want to go to laura kennedy, former ambassador and former deputy assistant secretary of state. thank you for joining me. we've talked a lot about the reaction here at home, which relates, of course, to the rights and the treatment of people who might be coming from all over the world who either are here, are american or would be american. i would like to start by getting your sense of how the rest of the world is viewing what america has been doing over the past two days. >> well, thank you for having me on the show. i am retired now, but one of my last posts was geneva for three years, as the ambassador we work there had with the full international community. we depend on good relations with all of our member states of the united nations, our allies in
particular. this is a bed rock of our foreign policy. so, i'm not on the front lines of diplomacy anymore, but everything i see and i hear reflects a widespread, global sense of amazement that we are going against what have been traditional american values that have been a source of our strengths international ly. i also believe many of our partners believe this recent action is very counterproductive to our security goals. >> well, let's pause on that, ambassador. >> yes, sir. >> as you're speaking we're looking at the images of new york city, what continue to be large and vocal protests in different parts of the city, at the airports last night, at the courthouse where the aclu won a partial victory on saturday night.
they are now in bryan park, downtown. you're saying there is a raw security aspect to this, regardless of one's opinions that the way that this is being done, according to our allies and according to what you understand, may also itself be counterproductive? >> yes. i believe that that is a widely shared view. it's certainly my view. for example of the seven countries put on this list, one of them is iraq. we look to iraq to fight against isis. as you know, mosul has been a center of this fight. how do you expect the iraqi people, the government to work with us in what president trump is our goal, to defeat isis, when we put their country on a no go list?
this executive order is widely interpreted, despite the disavows of the white house, as being an anti-muslim ban. there is nothing that is better positioned to evoke anger amongst muslims around the world and offend countries, muslim majority countries that we would wish to partner with in the fight against isis and many other national security goals. >> how will countries respond to this? >> well, that's very much in play. you mentioned, of course, the conversation with angela merkel. when the chancellor of germany, in effect, has to give a tutorial to the president of the united states on refugees and international conventions, that's not a good sign for u.s. leadership. i have seen -- i haven't been
able to verify this, but i've seen reports that the iraqi parliament will take reciprocal action and introduce measures that would ban americans from entering iraq. i saw a news report. that may not be the case. but there are ramifications throughout the board. >> and walk us through that diplomacy. to confirm part of what you're saying, several countries have held that out as a prospect before. we have a president here who has talked about a quote, unquote, america first approach. one of the practical problems with that, regardless of whether one thinks it's a good idea in theory in trade, is other countries responding in kind. in your view, to lay it out for our viewers, what is the cost of americans potentially not being able to travel to various countries? >> well, this is a global world, like it or not. we are an exporting nation. we export all over the world. this is very important to our
economy. so, this would damage our economy greatly if americans can't -- businessmen, all sorts of people are no longer welcome in countries. we talked about special relationship. i saw online there's a petition circulating in britain to parliament to not invite the president of the united states to the uk. >> wow! >> it had 600,000 signatures and is climbing rapidly. our closest ally. what does that tell you? let alone states that -- muslim majority states whose populations would be deeply offended by what is being interpreted as an anti-muslim ban. >> right. and you've really helped to lay some of this out for us. whether this is a good idea, whether this is legal, whether this is being implemented effectively and responsibly, regardless of what one thinks of the idea and then there's this
extra global window of what are the responses in cost. whov those been measured and who will pay for those here in the united states? laura kennedy, former ambassador, thank you for your time today. >> thank you so much for having me on. thank you for your coverage. >> sure. >> really appreciate it. thank you. we'll keep an eye on these protests. washington, fairly quiet. new york, very much alive. lot of spontaneous gatherings. they don't seem to be dissipating as night falls. you're watching msnbc. >> i'm happy for myself, for the other families and i hope it's everywhere, not just here at dfw. i hope it's nationwide. we're not going to sfop until we see our parents and everyone sees their families here and nationwide. even when this is done. this ban should be lifted. this should not be here. sir! 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?
♪ oh the fishes will laugh as they swim out of the path ♪ "when the ship comes in" by the hollies ♪ and the seagulls they'll be smilin ♪ ♪ and the rocks on the sand it's so peaceful out here. yeah. introducing the new turbocharged volkswagen alltrack with 4motion® all-wheel drive. soon to be everywhere.
special coverage of the fallout and reaction to president trump's executive action. rachel maddow joins me now. thank you for making time on a busy sunday night, rachel. i wonder what you make of what we've seen over the last several days and what you think the trump administration is trying to achieve. >> first of all, thanks for having me, ari. i'm glad you're there. i'm glad that msnbc has been so hon this story over the course of the weekend. you know, there are radical and unprecedented things happening in our country. and there's -- i mean, part of my reaction is that i am both stunned and impressed by the number and the scale of the
protests that erupted immediately in response to this. i mean, seeing people at airports all over the country last night, seeing the aerials that you're showing of battery park city and other places around the country where people are continuing to protest and bodily rushing to the scene where they think they can help. i was particularly both sort of -- on a personal level, moved but at a news level, impressed with the reports from, for example, legal groups that help refugees that put out a call, general call to the legal community asking for volunteer attorneys, people to come help. and they got 3,000 volunteers in a matter of hours. the way that the american public and certain classes of american advocates, people who feel like they can help in these circumstances, the way people have responded is stunning. we knew this administration was
going to be unpopular and controversial. we knew that from the day after the ip august ration when protests crowds dwarfed the crowds that came out to celebrate the inauguration. on a moment by moment basis, people are willing to go anywhere, show up anywhere they think it can help and push back. that's a thing to know about our country right now. we have change in government but we've had a change in what it means to be a civilian. what sort of civic virtue and civic involvement looks like. it appears that the anti-trump movement is going to be big, organic. both well organized and spontaneous. the trump administration didn't try to sugar coat it, and in part to see what reaction they would get and how far they could g that's the dynamic in terms of policy and style points right now. i think they're trying to see
what they can get away with before people go nuts. so far they're learning that people go nuts -- people go nuts without much provocation. >> the trump administration has very clearly refused to issue these orders and this executive guidance in the traditional way. which is to say put politics aside and previous republican administrations have relied on experts, bureaucrats, lawyers, security officials to carry out their policy goals. all of our reporting suggests the opposite here. do you view that as potentially a feature or a bug of what qulur ca -- you're calling this early testing? >> very good question. i do think that what we're seeing is political testing and
i think there's a reason we have these indications that they are not being written in consultation with the agencies who handle these matters, not even by lawyers, but speech makers, publisher of a right wing pro-trump website who has add himself to the security council. these are political actions both positive in terms of what they want their base to believe and campaign promises kept and, you know, willingness to sort of and that's what their base wants but they are also looking to see what kind of resistance they get. they're political actions more than they are policy actions. they are massive even if they are put together and, you know, even still -- ari, one of the
things that i think is fascinate i ing. >> the aspect by which this has kept secret law. he flashes something to the camera but that goes away. we're teld a new policy is in place but no policy language has been released. and it later gets revised and the chief of staff to the white house goes on tv the next day and says that's not the policy at all anymore. one of the hallmarks of not just a democracy is that you've got law that's written down that people can consult to see what the rules are. when it's the president saying, i said it. therefore, do it and, no, i don't need to write it down. this is just the new policy. that's weird. that may just be a product of
incompetence but may also be a test in terms of what norms they think they can break and how much they think they can change of what we think that is so structurally concerning because to give an example to what you just articulated, it was the policy of the united states under the trump administration on friday night that legal residents who are green cards couldn't get in. and it was then the policy we were told on saturday that they could. and then that was reversed again by sunday, first in an interview on "meet the press" on nbc with reince priebus and chuck todd and moments ago through short one sentence written statement provided by the white house, that that is indeed the policy. so to your point, if president trump signed something on friday, and it means the opposite the next day, and then the opposite of that the day after that, even if the underlying idea is good or bad, that seems to raise profound
governance questions and when we're dealing with who gets in or not or which countries we are on a good footing with or not. it is hard to imagine how you could continue to govern in the long-term like this. >> yeah, that's exactly right, ari. i think that, you know, we saw the way that the transition was bungled, right, the one thing you've got to be able to do had you're setting up a new administration is be ready to take over on day one. and we saw this administration be fundamentally unable to do that. doesn't mean they didn't take actions on day one, doesn't mean they didn't show up and do the swearing in. but the fact that they -- the day before the inauguration were asking very high level of the obama administration to please stay on, after having previously indicated them up to them right up in the day before the inauguration they should leave, it was just -- it was botched. - just the fundamental level of competence, it was botched.
that makes you feel like make we should watch for some other amateur hour signs here. >> my last question for you, rachel, a simple one. what does protest achieve at a time like this when some think, well, the crowds are just an activity? what is it in your view potentially measurably achieved? >> it is everything. at this point it is absolutely everything. the size of the protest movement, the character of the protest movement, the energy and creativity and fierceness of the protest movement is going to be the thing that determines what happens in terms of policy in our country over the course of this next year. it is going to determine what they think they can get away with. what they feel like they have to answer for. what they have to walk back. they already walked back so many things they tried to get away with because of the protests and the questions that they can't answer. the thing that will most determine the state of our country one year from today is the size of these protests now and their sustainability. >> rachel maddow, thank you very much for your time tonight.
>> ari, you're doing a great job. thank you for having me tonight. >> thank you. joining me now, arook palamaci and malcolm nance. >> i think the first thing that is clear is that this is going to play into isis' world view. isis, the organization, has not yet commented on the ban from the seven countries, but there is an enormous amount of chatter on channels on telegram run by supporters and members. in those channels they posted the executive order, pictures of it, and they're having discussions about it and the tone is that this is proof that america is going to crumble and be destroyed from within. >> so isis sympathizers, you're reporting tonight, like this. >> of course. of course. this is a confirmation of the world view that america is at war with islam. as you know, the obama administration and bush
administration before that went to great lengths to say that this was a war on terror. and not a war with a particular religion. these jihadist groups since the get-go said that's not true. that this is a wore ar on islam >> malcolm, what do you think? >> she's absolutely right. let's go way further back, osama bin laden when he formed al qaeda, the al qaeda organization, back in 1988, he adopted the world view that the only way to expand his crazy cults with was to create a cla between the west and islam. and right now that's what the 9/11 attacks were about, to get us to come into the muslim world and act like a bull in a china shop and the invasion of iraq did just that. isis -- >> when you look at this list of countries, in your experience, where do they fit into the list of the sources of greatest threat from an immigrant attack
perspective? >> they don't. they don't fit into -- >> so -- >> these nations. they're at the bottom of the list. the country that killed more americans, citizens of saudi arabia, killed almost 3,000 americans on 9/11. you know, and the largest number of terrorists that are ravaging europe are european -- are europeans of north african origin. these are -- these are people who can still come to the united states on, you know, the trusted visa waiver program. so these seven nations are just an example. i think that they're actually the low hanging fruit, and they were designed to test the waters to see just how far they can get away with. how much they can get away with. >> from your reporting on isis, and these threats, at least the ones that could come to the united states by a human delivery mechanism, do you also share that view of those countries or do you think some of the countries have an
immigrant threat? >> i agree with malcolm completely there has been 114 people that have been arrested in the united states for ties to isis. both in the preparation of a tacks, in the commissioning of attacks and attempting to join the terror group abroad and according to the database at george washington university, the vast majority of those 114 people are american citizens. so the threat is within. the problem with -- >> what about -- that tells you we have a domestic crime problem. we know that. what about the -- what about the ones that are from foreign countries, which is part of what the trump administration and others are emphasizing, there is a foreign threat, that's not false, there is some foreign threat, where is it? what about the rest of the people on that list? >> the foreign threat is from a multiplicity of countries. so, for instance, in france, you saw that eight of the ten attackers who carried out the paris attacks were french and belgian citizens, two of them had fake syrian passports. we don't know if they were syrians or iraqis or something else. brussels attack, three european, and other attacks in brussels
you've seen immigrants that have taken part. the threat is from a multiplicity of countries, not from one. >> part of what you're saying is that a purely country-based aapproach in your view is not a very logical -- from a security perspective. >> it relies on an outdated model of terrorism. the 9/11 model of terrorism, which is that people from abroad are coming into our country to attack us, and, in fact, the threat is in c-2. >> thank you. appreciate your insight. coming up, we have a clarification from the trump administration, something i was just discussing with rachel, that's breaking news. kelly o'donnell has it for us live from the white house. also, you're in the going to want to miss this, the top law enforcement officer in the state of new york, where so many of these battles are playing out this weekend, new york attorney general eric snyderman joins me live as well. discover card. i'm not a customer, but i'm calling about that credit scorecard. give it. sure! it's free for everyone. oh! well that's nice! and checking your score won't hurt your credit. oh! i'm so proud of you.