presidency. good evening, i'm katie tur in new york. welcome to mtp daily. today the white house doubled down on president trump's call for congress to investigate his unsubstantiated claims that president obama wiretapped trump tower during the campaign. this is not the first time president trump has made baseless and bizarre claims, but it's certainly the most provocative and potentially the most damaging. without offering any evidence whatsoever, the current president of the united states says he knows for a fact that the former president tapped his phones. and now he's calling on congress to investigate, and they have agreed, this is going to get messy no matter what. either the president is right or he is wrong. and if he is wrong, he will hav abused the -- he will abuse the office of the president to prompt a congressional investigation into a political faux. and not just any political faux,
the previous president, but if he is right, the federal judge would have approved the wiretaps, meaning that there was probable cause that someone in trump tower was engaging in criminal activity. neither is a pretty picture for this white house. the only se their row that could vindicate trump would be a wide ranging conspiracy at the highest levels of the obama white house involving federal law enforcement and potentially the courts. what hard evidence does the white house have of that? none. president obama is publicly denying president trump's allegations, nbc news has confirmed that fbi director comey wanted the jus fit department to publicly rebutt president trump's allegation because they are wrong. because it is wrong. and the former top spy chief, james clapper is also denying the allegation. republicans that sit on or atop oversight and intelligence committees like tom cotton, marco rubio, jason chaffetz, and devin nunez all say they see no
evidence to support the president's allegations. although none of them see that as a reason not to investigate the president's claims. and today the president's top aids attempted to put a decidedly different spin on the president's aserngss. the president stated in no uncertain terms that his statements weren't just claims, they were facts. but that's not what the white house is saying. >> the american people deserve to know if this happened because if it did, this would be the greatest overreach and the greatest abuse of power we've ever seen. >> as part of the house intelligence committee investigations into possible russia connections which have not been proven, the president would like this to be part of that investigation that the committees would use their oversight authority to see whether or not this in fact happened. >> the white house has yet to provide a single piece of hard evidence that corroborates the president's statements and it's critical to note that the initial source for wiretapping allegations seems to be a
conspiratorial rant by conservative talk radio host that got picked up by the right wing website breitbart news. and now those appear to be mr. trump's sources of information, not the fbi, the white house, says president trump didn't ask the fbi director about this. today the white house dodged the question of how the president knows what he's claiming to know. >> he's the president of the united states. he has information and intelligence that the rest of us do not. and that's the way it should be for presidents. >> i haven't had the chance to have the conversation directly with the president, and he's at a much higher classification than i am, he may have access to documents that i don't know about. >> president trump statements fit a larger pattern of conspiracy mongering that began before he even entered politics. and since taking the oval office, he's fed off conspiracy theories, he falsely claimed millions of illegals voted in the election, all of them for hillary clinton. he's falsely claimed the press was covering up terror attacks. he's claimed the courts are conspireing against him and now
he says president obama tapped his phones. let's bring in republican congressman chris stewart of utah who is a member of the house select committee on intelligence. congressman, thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you. >> great, let's start with a simple question, tell us why you are taking the president's claims seriously after all, you're on the intel committee, what hard intelligence do you have to support his claims? >> oh my heavens, the problem is we have all sorts of claims made by all sorts of people and news organizations that we don't have evidence of right now. >> a what specifically are you talking about made by all sorts of news organizations. >> for example, we've had some people claim that there's direct ties between trump campaign officials and russian kgb or gru agents. i'm not aware -- >> what news organizations have claimed that? >> there's several. i could say who they were, but that's not the point -- >> could you, i don't think any
news organizations have claimed that there were direct ties between the trump campaign and russian spies. >> well, certainly that's a narrative. that's what we've been talking about for a couple weeks, isn't it? this kind of idea that there may be claims of that. and that's what the intelligence community is trying to determine. and, i mean, i listen to your monologue introduction, and i certainly respect your view, and i think you have a point of view there, but i think it's an indication of why this is best done in a serious body that's nonpartisan and the intel committee is by and large nonpartisan a it's also not done where people can grand stand or make claims, whether it's the president or whether it's other individuals who make claims that really, the facts don't substantiate them yet. and we're determined -- we'll investigate this. wherever it takes us. there's other things that we are looking at as well that are at least as important as this, and we make a commitment to the american people will find out and report back to the american people. >> do the american people have a
reason to trust anybody in congress right now to do things in a nonpartisan way, after all the infighting between the two parties? don't they deserve a special prosecutor or some sort of independent committee that does not have ties to the republican or democratic party? >> see, that's where i think that the intelligence community is different than that. and i guess i would ask you, say give us evidence of the intel committee being partisan or evidence of the intelligence committee working in a partisan fashion, i don't think that we have. generally we've agreed on these things and we've been able to reach across the aisle, which is once again why it's spornt to do this not with the cameras blazing, but in a more serious fashion and in regards to a special probation report, i think there's sometimes a role for that, but we've also seen times where special prosecutors failed as well. >> let's get back to the original question, congressman, do you believe that there is reason to investigate and figure out whether -- do you believe that there is a reason to
investigate whether president obama wiretapped donald trump's phones? >> i think that there's been an accusation made, and so we have to be responsible -- >> there's been an accusation made, he stated it as a fact. we didn't say we should investigate -- this as a fact happened. >> well okay, to me that's an accusation. and if there's been an accusation made and i don't know why you would object to us investigating that. if we investigate it, and we say no, that's not true, then the american people know. if we investigate it, and we find evidence of it and we share that with the american people, once again, then they know. isn't that a better outcome than putting your hands over your ears and say nothing we don't to want look at it. i don't think the american people would support that. >> my question more is donald trump said this on twitter on saturday morning, he presented no evidence to support any of his claims, the white house has presented no evidence to support any of his claims, his white house spokes people don't seem to know where he got that information from all anyone can tell by tracing the origin of
the story it came from a right-winged radio and then to breitbart news and then to the president. so if he is saying now you must investigate it without offering any evidence to do so, is that oversight on congress's part? is it capitulation on congress's part? or is it ka lugs on congress's part? >> i love that, yeah, it's certainly collusion. once again, i think that's one view, i'm not sure that i agree with that. look, once again, we've had an allegation here. what should we do? say no we're not going to investigate that and then if there's other allegations and say no we're not going to investigate that either. we don't get to pick and choose which allegations we pursue and which we don't. we owe it frankly to you, we owe it to your listeners, we agree to the american people to say we will investigate wherever this takes us. we're not going to say we're going to go down this path and not going down that. that's not a responsible investigation. and frankly, i think it's nits for you to suggest that that's
what we should do. how can i go to the american people and say, i'm not going to investigate these allegations? people expect us to investigate them. >> why aren't republicans taking the allegations that russia interfered into the election -- >> oh my heavens, why would you say that? give me evidence of -- give me evidence of us doing that. we've been looking at that since september. i think it's again i think it's nuts for you to come on and say we didn't take that seriously. we've been doing that since september. >> reporter: there's a ton of evidence to -- there's a ton of evidence to -- >> if you'd let me finish my thought and answer your question, i came back in august and said, russia's going to interfere with our elections. we started holding hearings on this in september. it's just simply not true for you to say that we didn't take it seriously. we absolutely have take telephone seriously. we've had the number of investigations about this, a number of hearings and we're just barely getting started. we'll continue to look into
this. >> do you believe that the fbi director, james comey, is lying when a u.s. official tells nbc news that he asks the doj to rebutt it, do you believe he's lying when he says that is donald trump was not wiretapped? >> of course i don't -- >> director of national intelligence, the former director of national intelligence was lying. >> of course not, i would never -- >> why would they not know about this? >> well, again, i'm not saying that they didn't know, i'm saying of course they didn't lie. but as an example coming back to the previous analogies i made, there's certainly a narrative that the trump administration tied to the russians in some way to influence the campaign, that's certainly out there. and the dni, previous dni said yesterday, we have no evidence of that. therefore, would you want me not to pursue that? of course we will. we'll pursue all of these investigations. we owe it to people to be conclusive and to be thorough in this. >> congressman stewart, thank you so much for joini us.
>> good to be with you. thank you so much. now let's go to the panel. so guy wx let's react right there to the congressman. he's saying that the republicans are taking the allegation of russia hackings into the election just as seriously as they stand to take this claim that donald trump's phones and trump tower were wiretapped by president obama. mike, start with you, is that based in fact? is there a fair statement? >> well katie, your assessment of it is right, but what we're seeing is those people going out, especially the administration officials you showed at the top, they're going out and they're defending this because i'm told the president believes it. we had a senior white house official telling us that the president thinks he's going to be vindicated, absolutely convinced he will be, but at the
same time, katie, you listen to the administration officials statements and you see a little moving of the goal post. we heard sarah huckabee there saying, if again and again, and that white house official said to me, even if it turns out that they weren't surveilling trump tower, the president will have a very good case to make that the there was a lot of sabotage by obama. that's very different than going all the way with wiretapping. but, he believes it and as this official said to me, what you're hearing from the people inside the white house, they say the president has a very good nose for these things. >> a very good nose for these things. do you think the president's nose for these things, whenever he brings up some idea he has in his head or if he tweets an allegation, does congress have to act right after that if if he tweets that the president -- the former president wiretapped him? does congress have an obligation
to investigate his claims? >> i don't know that anybody has an obligation to take this accusation mor seriously than the president and his own aids seem to be taking it. the president was invoking knicksen in watergate in one tweet and within an hour, he was back to talk about the apprentice and arnold schwarzenegger. you have sean spicer and sam huckabee sanders saying if the president is on to something, they're not even willing to stand by this as an accurate statement as something he knows for a fact. i don't know how much investigation it bears. >> maria, this is a really inflammatory allegation. it would be the biggest political scandal -- i can imagine the biggest -- >> like russia hacking and
influencing our elections, katie, there's that. >> your take that this is being treated in the same way -- do you believe the republicans are taking the russian hacking as serious lil as they're desire, potentially, to take this idea that president obama did something extraordinarily nefarious towards the end of his presidency? >> absolutely not. the fact that stewart did not recognize that darrell issa, congressman darrell issa asked not just for a recusal of jeff sessions but states that the republicans are not aligned with russia. but they're moving like molasses on this whereas this idea that the president was wiretapped by the former president is not only outrageous, but it's his team is actually right, the trump team is right. the president does have a nose for this. he has a nose for markets, headlines, what makes people tick and it's a bait and switch. he recognizes he's in hot water with the russian investigation, american people are not appreciative and what does he do on a saturday, he creates a news
storm where there wasn't one. >> this is not standard operating procedure, i know the fbi doesn't comment on ongoing investigations, but at some point, doesn't the fbi director and don't trump officials and the obama administration officials have an obligation to the american public to come out, put their names on things, and say, here is what we know and here is what we don't know in order to shed a little bit of daylig exactly on what's going on in washington right now because it seems like no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, you're not trusting anybody, mike. >> well katie, there was reporting today that the fbi director was incensed about this and we can argue about what his ability or obligation to speak publicly is, but he certainly let it be known very quickly what was going to be happening those leaks were not an accident, but let's look at what's happening here. so by calling for a congressional investigation, and by the white house, that's kind of a punt, right? they can refer so many questions to congress, but, eventually,
there's going to be a day of reckoning, and you have congregating things. that means they can subpoena documents, they can take testimonies. and there are some people, i reported it this morning in our news letter and some people in the president's inner circle who believe this is true, but they don't all. there are some that believe that in the end they could be embarrassed, in the end the president might have the accused his predecessor of a crime without enough evidence. there's so much question about why he would say this, there's a democratic theory, katie, that the president was going on super offense and saying, maybe some transcripts are going to leak that are bad, why not get out ahead of that, why not make it sound like a political dirty trick, then if transcripts come out of people in my orbit talking to russians, then i can say aha rather than being on defense. talked to a republican who knows the white house thinking intimately, he said, you're
overthinking it. that theory certainly is plausible, but that would mean they're playing chess. i think they're more playing trivial pursuit. >> oh gosh. what day are we on now, guys? guys, stay with us. we'll come back later on in the hour. coming up though, what president trump is alleging about wiretapping would be a historic scandal for president obama. i'll talk to senator jack reid. the top democrat on armed services committee. plus the president signs a new travel ban executive order and already new lawsuits are in the works. will the revisions be enough to pass the legal test? and with north korea saber rattling just got a whole lot scarier. stay tuned. dear predictable, there's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden,
but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia hidden in every swing, every chip, and every putt, is data that can make the difference between winning and losing. the microsoft cloud helps the pga tour turn countless points of data into insights that transform their business and will enhance the game for players and fans. the microsoft cloud turns information into insight.
i'm ricardo, a sales and service consultant here at the xfinity store in bellevue, washington. here at the store, we offer internet, tv, phone, customer service, home security. every situation is a little different. it could be about billing, simple questions like changing the phone number. sometimes, they want to upgrade, downgrade, but at the end of the day, you want to take care of the customer. one of the great things about comcast, there's always room to move up. of course, it depends on you, how hard you work. ♪ welcome back too mtp daily. late last night and early this morning, north korea launched five ballistic missiles. four of which which fell into the sea of japan. the launch comes on the heels of the beginning of the annual
joint u.s./south korea military exercises last week. and the launch also comes amid new reporting over the weekend from the "new york times" that raises alarming questions about nuclear capabilities of north korea. and how the united states is able to counter them. the times interviewed obama and trump administration officials and reviewed public records and found, quote, the united states still does not have the ability to effectively counter the north korean nuclear missile programs and those threats are far more resilient than experts thoughts. the danger was so significant that former president obama warned president trump north korean nuclear threat is likely to be the most urgent problem he will confront. we'll be back with more mtp daily in just 60 seconds. ♪ why do so many businesses rely on the u.s. postal service? because when they ship with us,
their business becomes our business. ♪ that's why we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ here, there, everywhere. united states postal service priority : you or is it your allergy pills? holding you back break through your allergies. introducing flonase sensimist. more complete allergy relief in a gentle mist you may not even notice. using unique mistpro technology, new flonase sensimist delivers a gentle mist to help block six key inflammatory substances that cause your symptoms. most allergy pills only block one. and six is greater than one. break through your allergies. new flonase sensimist. ♪ weomeack to mtp daily. democrats are calling the president's wiretapping claims
ridiculous. and saying it's further proof the investigation surrounding president trump's ties to russia should be handled by a special prosecutor. joining me now is rhode island democratic senator jack reid. he's the ranking member on the armed services committee. senator, thank you for joining us here. >> thank you, katie. >> the president is calling for an investigation into wiretapping without any evidence, you're calling for a special prosecutor to investigating -- to investigate the kerkss between trump's campaign and the russians. do you have any evidence of wrong doing? >> well, we have indications by the intelligence community in public that with high confidence they believe and know that the russian government was involved in the election, hacking, that it was ordered by putin, that it was not just hacking, it was a massive disinformation campaign. so there is enough evidence that's been confirmed on the table that we should have a special prosecutor. indeed i have republican colleagues called for a special
prosecutor. in fact i believe president trump should be the one demanding a prosecutor because that's the only way i think we're going to clear the air. independent voice for the american people not for any particular party. >> do you have any evidence though that there were collusion between the trump campaign and the russians? not just the russians hacking into the political system. >> evidence is in terms of public statements, in terms of patterns of behavior. i know there's been some focus on paul manafort who had connections to the ukrainian president. to his deposed by the square revolt, who had close ties to russians. there was contracts, so there's enough out there in terms of associates of the president that had some dealing business or otherwise that would again call for a special prosecutor to determine the fact and report to the american people. until that's done, there'll be a
lingering suspicion about what happened. we all want to get this behind us. i would hope the president does too. >> do you believe that there should also be an investigation into whether or not pdent obamairetapped president trump, afterall, that would allow the public to know once and for all one way or another? >> well, the idea that the president wiretapping the trump campaign flies in the face of the process that you need a court order to conduct a wiretap. that may or may not have taken place, but it's not the president's discretion, not the president's power or prerogative to do that. again, it seems as if president trump was reacting to something he read, not verifying the facts. there's been absolutely no even preliminary factual predicate advance for an investigation. so, i think in many respects, it's just simply the president trying to confuse the issue, trying to bring together both
these russian associations with his campaign and some of the intelligence findings and bringing president obama in as a way to just confuse the situation. >> do you have confidence in chairman burr on the intelligence committee to conduct a fair and nonpartisan investigation? >> i think chairman burr, together with ranking member mark warner, both richard and mark are moving forward. i think they could move with more, but some of that is a result of the institutional arrangements with the intelligence community in terms of sharing information. but at this juncture, i think there is a committed effort to try to find the facts, again, i think that would be better served by a special prosecutor because it goes beyond simply intelligent matters, it goes to potential criminal matters that could be and would be handled by the fbi and ultimately the department of justice. >> it seems like the democrats are having less and less reason
to work with donald trump from all of the public statements. if that is the case, how far are you willing to go in order to resist -- for lack of a better word, resist the trump administration. are you willing to put your foot down and try to stall or stop a vote on the debt lit? >> well, first of all, what we want to do is continue to ask for, i think appropriately, an investigation which the american people and we all can believe in. and we have to keep insisting upon that. and i think what we want to do is try to get our republican colleagues, ultimately, we'll be a bipartisan effort that i think moves forward. and so we're working in that first before any other consideration. >> are you willing to work with donald trump on any upcoming legislation? >> i think we have to look at what the president proposes. he talked a lot in the campaign about infrastructure, that's something that we certainly agree, the way you do it, how
you do it effectively and efficiently, but i would love to see significant infrastructure program in the united states. >> do you fear retribution from the democratic voters, liberal voters? >> no, i think what people are doing and it's not specific to democrats or republican. i think they're really confused of it because of the behavior of the president. this is very unusual. the whole approach to the presidency, i've never seen, you know, anyone, republican or democrat conduct the office in such a way he has. tweeting in the middle of the weekends, making accusations. you know, going ahead and telling jeff sessions don't recuse yourself moments before jeff sessions recuses himself, at least partially recuse himself. i think the confusion is baffling and unsettling, many, many americans regardless of party. >> given all this confusion, would you advocate or would you ask the fbi director to come out
personally and rebut the claims we know from a u.s. official he'd asked the doj, but do you think it's about time the fbi director came out and said what they are investigating and what they are not investigating? >> they have to, i think, make it very clear on this particular issue of the alleged contact to president obama, i think that's something that has to beade clear urging the dartment of justice to do and not having it done will not answer a very fundamental question. i think yes, the director should come forward at the appropriates time and now is that time. >> thank you senator reid of rhode island. appreciate your time. still ahead, the president's most controversial executive order gets revamped. we'll have the details of the revised travel ban and the opposition it still faces. stay tuned. t come in a box. it's not a banner that goes on a wall. it's not something you do now and then. or when it's convenient.
at bp, safety is never being satisfied. this is one gorgeous truck. special edition. oh, did i say there's only one special edition? because, actually there's five. ooohh!! aaaahh!! uh! hooooly mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. it's truck month. get 0% financing for 60 months plus find your tag and get $5500 on select chevy silverado pick-ups when you finance with gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.
welcome back. advocates of gender rights today will not hear the appeal of virginia student gavin graham and the rights of transgender students use the bathrooms of the gender they identify with. this action comes also -- this action also wiped off the books an earlier lower court ruling in gavin's favor. he sued his local county school board when they barred him from using the bathroom matching his gender identity. the fourth circuit court of appeals ruled in his favor there citing obama era guidance or title nine looked at gender and
gender identity discrimination as the same. the supreme court was set to hear the case later this month, since the trump administration reskinned the guidelines, the lower court must look again in light of the change of policy on the transgender issue. today's court order by the way came with but it's not going away. number of other cases around the country bring up similar issues. so we are likely to see these questions raised before the supreme court again soon. there's more mtp daily just ahead, but hampton pearson as the market wrap. >> hey katie. we had stocks closing lower with investors expecting a hike in the interest rate. the dow was down about 51 points, the s&p declined by seven, the nasdaq was off by 21 points. gm plans to lay off 1,100 workers shifting production of an suv line to tennessee. gm is investing a billion
dollars in u.s. factories. uber may be hiring a deputy to help ceo travis deal with negative publicity. the ceo admitting today, quote, i'm not perfect, and neither is this company. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide. america's beverage companies have come together to bring you more ways to help reduce calories from sugar. with more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all, smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels, and signs reminding everyone to think balance before choosing their beverages. we know you care about reducing the sugar in your family's diet, and we're working to support your efforts. more beverage choices. smaller portions. less sugar. balanceus.org. here's to the wildcats this i gotta try .. bendy... spendy weekenders. whatever kind of weekender you are, there's a hilton for you. book your weekend break direct at hilton.com and join the weekenders.
youthat's why you drink ensure. sidelined. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. tech: at safelite, we know how busy your life can be. mom: oh no... tech: this mom didn't have time to worry about a cracked windshield. so she scheduled at safelite.com and with safelite's exclusive "on my way text" she knew exactly when i'd be there, so she didn't miss a single shot.
when you go back and look at the fact of some of the things the court said in terms of the conclusions what they looked at, what they didn't look at, there's concerns with how they came to the conclusion. you have to look at the court's guidance in order to worry about the next one. i think we did just that. >> welcome back. that was white house press secretary sean spicer speaking about the revised travel ban moments ago. president trump signed an order today behind closed doors. the secretary of state, the attorney general, and homeland security secretary held a joint news conference to roll out the new order and did not take questions. the revised order blocks
citizens from iran, somalia, sedan, yemen, syria, and libya from traveling to the united states for 90 days. iraq appeared on the first version of the list, but after assurances from their government iraq is no longer included. the new order does not revoke existing visas, it does not apply to green card holders, syrian refugees are no longer blocked indefinitely. it removes preferences for religious minorities and all of this goes into effect on march 16th. the aclu meanwhile said that they will file a lawsuit. lee is the deputy director of the aclu's national immigrants rights project. lee, thank you for joining me. >> thank you for having me. >> so this order has now been vetted in more traditional way. department heads have seen it, legal experts have seen it, presumably some folks in congress have seen it as well. they removed a lot of the more controversial language from it, it doesn't have a preference for religious minorities, like the first travel ban did, does that
effectively eliminate the argument that this is a document that practices religious discreme nation? >> no, we don't think it does. i mean, we expected it to be narrowed, that's what they did. they eliminated certain problems, but i think the core problem of religious discrimination remains. the fact that they cleaned up the document doesn't eliminate the taint of all those statements going forward, then you have the first executive order within the four corners of that document had discrimination. the fact that they've tweaked it now and made it neutral doesn't eliminate that religious discrimination. i think the courts have been clear that you have to look outside the four corners of a dock and otherwise you can miss the contt. i think the context is fairly clear that's been going forward. >> but they revoked the first document. so there is not a basis to use that as a, at least legally a basis to use that as the original document for this one. they're also, you know -- it's changed in such a way where they
emphasize vetting as opposed to religion. so if the courts didn't initially rule on the constitutionality of it in that vein, what makes you so certain that they're going to rule in your favor down the line? >> two points, one is can they -- is this first executive order legally relevant? right, it's not the governing law anymore, but it's still relevant to show intent, absolutely. and the courts will look at the executive order to figure out what's the overall intent of what the government's doing? are they just trying to get around things by tweaking the document? and the second point i think is that all the statements will come in and you say, it's about vetting now because they're saying it's about vetting, we are all for vetting if it's done in an individualized way, looking at particularized threats from particular people. what we don't to want see are these group bans by religion, by country. >> but what make juice confident that legally this will be ruled
unconstitutional? >> right. well i would never predict what the courts are going to do. we will continue making our arguments. we are hopeful the courts will see it for what they are. courts have in the past. we don't think those courts that have seen it as religious discrimination will change their mind. can i predict the outcome? we are hopeful that the courts will see this for what it is. a tweaking to get around legal problems. and not a change from what the president declared he wanted to do which was a muslim ban. >> what we're seeing is a ten-day grace period where people will be able to figure out what exactly this document means, what -- how it should be rolled out, how it should be put in place at airports, people are bli you're not going to see the same confusion that you saw during the initial rollout. there's language in there that says green card holders are exempt, that visa holders are exempt. given that, and given that pt of the uproar was about what was happening at the airport and
part of the reason a stay was put on this because of the confusion. how does that effect the way that the aclu is going end to up arguing this case? >> we're pleased there's not the chaos assuming that's true. the administration's saying there is going to be a rollout, march 16th, so we're grateful for that. we don't think there was any reason for the chaos the first time around. i think it'll affect the urgency, but because march 16th is only ten days away and there are people in real danger overseas, we will move quickly to try and get the second executive order enjoined. >> it doesn't also single out syria for an indefinitely refugee ban. what's the aclu's response to that? >> well, i think we're happy that syria is not singled out more than the other countries, but we're not happy obviously with a ban as well. so i think the first executive order put syria in a particularly tricky position. you know, now it's still bad because it's part of the six country ban, but it's not worse. >> is there any version that the aclu would accept? >> we'd like to see
individualized particularized vetting. which is what all national security experts say. look at threats, not groups of people. so that's what we'd like to see. >> look at threats, not groups of people, what vetting would you need to see in place? if they're asking a series of questions at the airport, what will those series of questions need to be? >> i think you wouldn't to want necessarily get into first amendment protective activity, but i think national security experts know how to do that type of vetting. what we had in our case were affidavits from high level experts, both democratic and republicans saying, vetting can be done in a way to make sure that refugees can come to this country. and so, i think the national security experts know how to do it. i don't know that there's particular questions that have to be asked or not asked, but i think that there are ways to do proper vetting. we've always done that for refugees and we can't turn our back on refugees now. >> thank you very much for joining us. >> thanks for having me. up next, the first
post-election test of the lefts anti-trump ground swell. ll the movement have an impact at the pol? stay tuned. we've got a whole lot more on mtp daily coming up next. (vo) this is not a video game. this is not a screensaver. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ 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. well thank you. free at at discover.com/creditscorecard, even if you're not a customer.
dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia welcome back. we've been telling you that dollar couple of special elections to keep your eye on to see if the anti-trump momentum we're seeing on the left can result in actual election victories. and one of those is in montana. democrats there are hoping a
country and bluegrass singer can notch a key victory. states art council member won the democratic nomination on the fourth round of voting yesterday. the race is set to fill the house seat left vacant after ryan zin i can became security secretary. montana is red i every presidential election since 1992. the the state currently has two democrats serving in top positions. governor steve bullock and senator john tester. democrats are hoping strong support for public arts and primary support for bernie sanders can carry him in a race that will likely be a referendum on president donald trump. the republican congressional leaders fund already cut an ad hitting the liberal views and his support for obamacare. >> rob kwis may be entertaining, but the issues, he's out of tune with montana. quist supports a government health care plan more expensive than obamacare, more government control. fewer health care choices. higher taxes and more spending.
>> montana republicans meanwhile select their nominee at a convention tonight. the special election is set for may 25th. we'll be right back. so how old do you want to be when you retire? uhh, i was thinking around 70. alright, and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire? oh yeah sure... ok, like what? but i thought we were supposed to be talking about investing for retirement? we're absolutely doing that. but there's no law you can't make the most of today. what do you want to do? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. yea. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change. investment management services from td ameritrade.
it's time for the lid. one more go around with our panel. guys, thank you for joining me again and welcome back. so donald trump signed this new executive immigration order. immigration executive order today and did it in an extremely different way than every other one in the past. there were no cameras around him. he didn't have guests behind him. it was lacking the pomp and circumstance of the immigration oersd he's -- executive orders he's signed so far. so mike, why did he forego the cameras today? >> well, they recognize that they overreached in more ways than one before and they want to give this a chance to work. it looks like it's
court-proofed. it's notably less ambitious. fixes one of the problems they had before, and as one person inside said to me, this is what we should have done in the first place. they felt that doing a b done and pony show would call attention to the fact that fact a, they botch it. b this is retreat on several fonts fronts. this way for him to sigh we going ahead it fix a bunch of problem at once. >> they say the first one was legal. that's what jeff sessions have said. are theyoing to have to acknowledge at some point that the first one wasn't quite right that's why they need ed to come back to do a reviced order? is. >> they have a deeper problem than that. there's plenty of examples that
get shot down. trump's purpose is discremory and the court can look at that. if that's the case, it's not clear that there's any language that we can come up with that's going to survive court mus star. >> remember when donald trump was fighting against the initial roll out. he tweeted if the ban were annoyanced, the bad would rush into the country that week. a lot of bad dudes out there. they pushed it back from last week because they wanted it to live in the glory of the joint congress. now there's a ten-day grace period. does that cut into the argument that this was a national security order that needed to be
put in place right this second for the purpose of protecting americans? >> there was also a leak that the apn covered where homeland security declared none met the criteria of concern to this country. there's a lot of evidence that republican administration wanting to do a muslim ban, i think have a interesting time. it was interesting when we were watching kelly trying to distance himself to say we will work to enforce the laws. they were doing to spite the current principle they out. >> we are expecting replacement bill to come out later. is there any chance that paul
rayi rayian is going to get -- with on and sent up to president trump? >> there's a chance but it's going to be an extremely difficult job for ryan and mcconnell and it's going to require some kind of intervention by president trump down the line where he tells the r republicans to give up in the objections in the name of the larger -- >> are republicans going to capitulate to that? >> the hold outs are the people on the most conservative wing of the republican party who are objecting because they don't like refundable tax credits. they come interest districts where trump is popular and where trump may be able to exercise
some influence. >> go ahead. >> one of the problems that the republicans are facing, they are concerned it's going to hit the most vulnerable. you have expert that are saying this new tax credit is not goi to expand. it's not going to protect the neediest. coming from the republican party. >> quickly, what are republicans saying privately about their desire too repeal this bill? >> this is much better place in the house. just to agree with end game of breaking it down, in the house much better off. we're seeing they only wanted a clean repeal without the replace
part of it. now there's a replacement draft in place that looks like it won't be called obamacare light and i think you're right it will start to leak soon. the draft going to go first to the people they want supported. at this moment the amount of tax credit and how many people will be covered. and how much money will be in it and how much it will cost. >> thank you to the panel for joining me. >> after the break, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here. stay with us.
it has been an exhausting 45 days so i hope you will bear with me as we do this. we need a little musical interlewd in case you missed it my love of 90s ed music is started with twitter challenge not about high pock kracy. i'm sorry so pan you're my boy and i love you. goo goo dolls, they are good but top five in the '90s, really?
"meet the press" daily who is no fan of naked lady. ouch! twitter had plenty to say about my musical taste, as far as i know nothing's wrong. "for the record" with greta startsight now. breaking news attorney general jeff sessions updating confirmation hearing. back in january he made a statement that has him under fire. he wrote i do not recall any -- regarding the political campaign on these occasions or any other occasions. the attorney general trying t