Skip to main content

tv   Erin Burnett Out Front  CNN  February 7, 2017 4:00pm-5:01pm PST

4:00 pm
miable for security-related reasons and other reasons. but not to make this sort of across-the-board without exception policy that applies to infants, school children, grandmothers, to people who pose no plausible threat whatsoever to this country. so i guess i just ask the court not to lose sight of that statutory claim especially because i do think it goes -- it helps drive home that the court can review this order, p court should review this order, and should gift the constitutional and statutory scrutiny that it deserves. if the court has no further questions we would ask that you -- well, first weed ask that you treat this as a mandamus writ and deny it but if you're going to treat it as motion for stay we'd ask you deny it and if you have reason opinion doing so. thank you. >> thank you. we let mr. purcell go a little
4:01 pm
over so i'll give you five minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you, your honor. i want to address a couple points. first din. it does not suggest we look behind a national security determination made by the president where that determination at the four corners of that determination are explicitly based on the congressional determination that the countries at issue are of concern and does not go beyond that. >> i thought you were duce using din and man dell for your main authority for the unrevi unreviewability. now you're saying they're distinguishable. i'm a little confused whether you're relying on those cases or not. >> we are definitely dere lying on them for the limits courts review these types of issues. i'm adding that when you have the document itself -- and that's the best evidence of the intent of the president, it relies exclusively on it relies
4:02 pm
on the calls of congress and the decision made in 2016 about the safety concerns presented by the specific countries at issue, that is the end of the inquiry and should be. in fact, counsel for the other side sitecyted this cardenas decision and in describing the state of the law the court clearly said congress could have enacted a blanket prohibition n on -- on -- on -- i think it was describing mandel on communist aliens. here we have the president making a categorical determination based on the identification of countries of concern. and there's nothing -- >> i don't think you answered the question that was asked earlier about what if the order said no muslims. you've been analogizing to cases
4:03 pm
that were about people who were communists who advocated overthrow of the u.s. government. are you saying that the external evidence here that is alleged, that the intent here was to ban muslims, is equivalent to that? >> if there were an executive order that prevented the entry of muslims there would be people withstanding to challenge that. and i think that would raise establishment cause, first amendment issues. but that's not the order we have here. this order is limited to the countries defined by congress. on the refugee -- >> -- argued that that was the motivation and plaintiffs have submitted evidence that they suggest shows that that was the motivation, so why shouldn't the case proceed perhaps to discovery to see if that really was the motivation or not? >> we're not saying the case shouldn't proceed.
4:04 pm
but it is extraordinary for a court to enjoin the president's national security determination based on some newspaper articles. and that's what has happened here. that is not -- that is a very troubling second guessing of the national security decision made by the president. and the notion that we are going to go back and -- >> stop. stop. now deny in fact the statements attributed to then candidate trump and to his political advisers and most recently mr. giuliani, do you deny those statements were made? >> judge clifton, no. i would note that judge robart himself said that he wasn't going to look at campaign statements. i do -- and i think -- >> that's a different point. i understand the argument they shouldn't be given much weight, but when you say we shouldn't be
4:05 pm
looking at newspaper articles, we're all in the fast track here. both sides have told us it's moving too fast. either those kind of statements were made or not. if they were made but not to be a serious policy principle, i understand that. but if it were made, it is potential evidence and a basis for argument. it want to make sure i know what's on the table. >> those were in the record but i think my point is narrower that in the expedited procedure of a tro, taking this extraordinary action of halting this order that the president determined was in the national security interest of the united states is an unwise course and it should be stayed. >> if you thought there was a problem this is too preliminary, if we let it go forward to preliminary injunction hearing, do you have evidence that you would present?
4:06 pm
>> we definitely would like the opportunity to present evident in the district court and the scope of -- >> can you tell us anything about the type of evidence you would present so we can consider whether further proceedings are needed? >> another point is the scope of the suit and injunction would need to be narrowed as the parties focus in on the actual harms. the harms that washington has cited focus on residents of washington. but the order goes way beyond that to the arias of the most concern of the president, people who have never been to this country yet and have no connection to washington, no connection to the united states, and no claim of constitutional rights either on their own or through washington. >> if i can ask my colleagues to indulge me for a moment, that raises a serious concern on my part and the scope of the order, most obviously having to do with the lawful permanent residents
4:07 pm
which the government's position is they're not inclued in the scope of the order, i have to say is there any legal authority for the council of the president to have power to instruct the other departments or instruct us as to what the order means? the president can amend the order but i'm not sure the council to the president has that authority. why is it we should be looking at this reconceived order and why is it we should rather than trying to narrowly carve out the injunction you're seeking, practical problems, i don't know how we should write such an order. why shouldn't we look to the executive branch to more clearly define to what the order means rather than looking through the lens of subsequent interpretations? >> two points. one, the guidance from the white house counsel is the definitive interpretation of the order and
4:08 pm
the white house counsel speaks for the white house in this context. second in our reply brief at the end on page 11 we had kind of our suggestion for the kind of order that would actually address the harms identified by washington. i'm going to read that. at most the injunction should be limited to the class of jijs on who the states' claim rest. previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel or return to the united states in the future. that is the core of the harm they've identified. when we're talking about an injunction entered on such a preliminary basis, it should be limited to the claims that the state is making and not issued more broadly. if there are no further questions, i encourage the court to stay the injunction or to limit it to the presentation of the state of washington.
4:09 pm
thank you. >> thank you, counsel, for your very helpful arguments. this matter is submitted. we appreciate the importance and the time-sensitive nature of this matter and will endeavor to issue our decision as soon as possible. thank you again for appearing on such short notice. we are adjourned. court for this session stands adjourned. >> i'm wolf blitzer in washington. you just heard the live oral arguments on whether or not to immediately restore the president's travel ban. erin burnett has full analysis of the hearing. good evening. i'm erin burnett. you've been listening to the oral arguments on the fate of president trump's travel ban. let's talk about what we have heard. jeffrey toobin is with me, former federal prosecutor paul callum, alan dershowitz, aryan devogue, tony blinken, and nurtds in the obama
4:10 pm
administration, and david urban, former trump campaign strategist. to the lawyers first. what did you hear, jeffrey? >> let me preface this saying i am the world's foremost authority on being wrong based on just listening to oral argument. you cannot pretend that oral argument is exactly what you will get in the decision. but you seem to have two judges on opposite sides. judge friedland seemed -- -- and judge clifton seemed more sympathetic to the trump administration, the republican appointee from hawaii. judge camby, the 85-year-old carter appointee, walter mondale's brother-in-law, he seemed more sympathetic to the washington attorney general but was a little harder to read.
4:11 pm
that's my take. but it's very tentative. >> paul? >> i agree with jeffrey. similar take. i thought you'd have friedland voting for washington state, clifton will vote for the government and camby is on the fence. i suspect that in the end he's going to go with the government because the tenor of the argument seemed to suggest concern that this is a presidential prerogative and also a lot of concern that maybe the record isn't complete here. maybe we need a hearing in the lower court before we're going to make such an important ruling. of course if they vacate the stay and send it back they'll have a bigger record to look at. >> alan? >> i have predicted from the beginning this court is not going to upset the current stay because that would create chaos. i do think that the government was not well represented on this appeal, that the lawyer for the government did not have answers to the hard questions. he could have made a much, much more compelling argument.
4:12 pm
he didn't begin well and he didn't really focus on what the court's concerns were. i think he could have made a much stronger argument on the whole establishment clause issue. here you have the united states government taking the position that this is islamic terrorism as distipg wished from the prior administration. that's their position. why should anybody be surprised that the seven nations are neighs of islam? consider what was one of the greatest successes in american history, the war refugee board in 1944. that was focused on specifically rescuing jews because they were the victims of nazism. here you have a statute focusing on rescuing minoritysunnis, kur. this is not an establishment clause violation. i'm shocked that the government did not make a stronger argument for that. >> in fact, the washington state
4:13 pm
attorney, the solicitor general, purcell, when he was asked about the issue of religion, there were back and forths. he said even though it was is the same seven countries that congress under barack obama had designated as troubled countries in terms of entrance to the united states it was all about intent because president obama hadn't said he wanted to ban muslims and donald trump had during the campaign, that that is the standing for there being religious disrim nation. >> you saw it was brought up, comments the president made before about muslim bans. you saw that was a big part at one point when one of the judges was saying what about these comments that were made outside? do those count? do we take those into consideration? >> let me play a couple of exchanges here i think are important and get your understanding of where this is going to come out.
4:14 pm
this is an exchange between noah purcell and judge clifton. in this the judge makes it very clear he does not think noah purcell has made his argument. >> presented an enormous amount of evidence especially considering again that we -- the time between our filing -- our complaint was filed a week ago monday together with a temporary restraining order motion together with the declaration. so unlike cases -- well, we had extraordinarily little opportunity to actually gather and present evidence in the district court. >> you faulted the government for exactly the same thing. don't tell us you need more time. you sought the temporary restraining order. don't tell us maybe you'll gather it later. if you can't demonstrate likelihood of success what you have in the record so far, and maybe you can, i'm not saying you can't, but i haven't heard a lot of reference to evidence and
4:15 pm
a lot more reference to allegations and i don't think allegations cut it at this stage. >> that was a very damaging exchange for the washington state position because, you know, it's important to remember here, this is a very extraordinary remedy that washington received here. this is an executive order of the president of the united states that is ip validated across the entire country on the abayh sis of the say-so of one judge and judge clifton is saying what's your evidence? why should we do this if you don't have any evidence? and mr. purcell is saying we haven't had time, don't have enough evidence. he said then go to court and then come back here and prove your case. >> go ahead. >> he makes a compelling case that we need a better record here. this is something if you send it back to the trial court they can develop the record.
4:16 pm
later on -- i don't know if we'll be playing this clip but there's an exchange also i think is a critical exchange about the obama administration designating these seven countries as requiring extra scrutiny and yet when the trump administration focuses on the same seven countries it's called discrimination against muslims. one of the judges says, well, why wasn't that discrimination against muslims when the obama administration did it? and i think that was one of the more compelling arguments that was made for the government's position. >> i think the key issue here is the very narrow one, are they going to now say that we withdraw the washington state injunction and create chaos at the airport, not telling people whether they can stay or go before we decide this issue? when the united states government decided to act and say to the people coming into the country and to the airport people, act as if this order had never been issued, they sealed their fate. it was over.
4:17 pm
no court is going to overturn that and create chaos. so i will bet you anything that this court is going to uphold that ip junction. how do they decide on the merits? how they decide on the merits i don't know. but no court, conservative, liberal, democrat, is going to throw it back and say chaos, chaos. that's not how they behave. >> there were a couple crucial issues. one was did washington state have the standing to go ahead with the restraining order. the other is whether muslims are being targeted or not. let me play this exchange. i believe this is what paul was referring to, between noah purcell and judge clifton. >> do you have any information as to what percentage or proportion of adherents to islam worldwide are citizens or residents of those countries?
4:18 pm
my quick penciling suggests something less than 15%. >> i have not done that math, your honor, but to be clear -- >> given all those countries are countries that have been previously tagged as subjects of concern about terrorism, granted it's because of perhaps radical islam sects, so there might be a religious motivation behind the terrorism, but i have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when in fact the vast majority of muslims would not be affected as residents of those nations, and where the concern for terrorism with those connected with radical islamic sects is kind of hard to deny. >> the case law is very clear that to prove religious discrimination we do not need to prove this harms only muslims or that it harms every muslim. we just need to prove it was motivated in part by a desire to
4:19 pm
harm muslims. >> how do you infer that desire if in fact the vast majority of muslims are unaffected? >> well, your honor, in part you can infer it from intent evidence. there are statements that we've quoted in our complaint that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against muslims given we haven't had discovery yet to find out what else might have been said in private. i mean, the public statements from the president and his top advisers reflecting that intent are strong evidence -- >> tony, this goes to the crucial issue again, the same seven countries were identified by the obama administration. your state department executed that. it was different but it was the same seven countries. it seems they're honing their argument on donald trump at one point during the campaign talked specifically about banning muslims so his intent is different. >> two things. yes, he talked about the
4:20 pm
campaign about banning muslims. and rudy giuliani told us the president came to him and said how do i do this in a way that doesn't violate the law. so there's concern about intent. back to the obama administration, after san bernardino congress sought to impose further restrictions and there were some in congress who were looking at actually shutting down immigration, shutting down refugees. the administration had to work with congress and we were trying to keep this in check. and we focused on four countries out of the seven and there was no ban. what we did do was take away the possibility of people who had pass ports in those countries and other countries who could come in without a visa under the previous law, we took that right away, requiring a visa. but there was never any ban imposed by the obama administration. >> think back to the establishment argument. the constitution says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. it is such an incredible stretch to apply that to an anti-terrorism regulation that
4:21 pm
focuses on countries where there's a history of terrorism even if there are other countries that have a history of terrorism. then to say the other additional argument is that because it rescues people who are the victims of religious discrimination. that is not an establishment argument. the supreme court is not going to find an establishment violation based on that statute no matter what the intent is. i think there are other arguments, but i think the establishment argument is just trivial and frivolous. >> go ahead. >> i think it's important to note that a district court judge in boston has already examined the issue on the establishment clause on religion and said this was not a muslim ban. he's already spoken to this and we seem to be forgetting that that district court judge ruled exactly the opposite as the lower court in the ninth circuit. >> right. that was of course regarding two green cardholders, professors,
4:22 pm
in massachusetts. david, a question about awe gus frie flentje, a 19-year representative. he was a bit at loss for words i think it's safe to say in a couple of the exchange and questions. let me play one of them. >> the district court's decision overrides the president's national security judgment about the level of risk. we've been talking about the level of risk that is acceptable. as soon as we are having that discussion, it should be acknowledged that if the president is the official that is charged with making those judgments. i'd also like to -- >> so are you arguing then that the president's decision in that regard is unreviewable?
4:23 pm
>> the -- yes. what we -- there are obviously constitutional limitations but we're discussing the risk assessment. >> did that exchange concern you. >> no, erin. i think the president has the authority. the president is given wide latitude on matters of national security. i think he not only has the authority but the duty to issue an eo like he did in this case. >> the other issue that kept coming up repeatedly, paul, they kept referencing other cases, and these other cases basically boiled down to whether people who are american citizens were allowed to basically appeal on the behalf of non-american citizens for restitution in u.s. courts. and they kept referencing this. flentje wasn't totally prepared for a lot of those questions but it kept coming up. >> an important issue the lawyers talk about is standing, do you have a right to go into court and bring the lawsuit. obviously most of the people affected by this live in other countries and don't have
4:24 pm
protection. >> not u.s. citizens. >> tay talked about the mandel case, a free speech case, involving a socialist belgian professor who wanted to come many into the united states during the nixon administration and wasn't allowed to because he was a marxist. the claim in that suit was american citizens are being deprived of their right to hear free speech. the other case that was cited frequently was a case involving a woman who married a foreign national and he wasn't allowed in and could the wife bring a lawsuit. so those had to do with standing issues. >> i think the standing argument went very well for the state of washington. i would be very surprised -- >> they brought those cases up. i'm bringing them up because there was a significant amount of time devoted -- >> i would be very surprised if this case is thrown out because washington state doesn't have the right to bring it. but that doesn't win the case for washington. that only gets them in court and i think on the merits about whether this stay is appropriate it was a much choser case. iams, alan. >> i agree with you, jeffrey, on
4:25 pm
the issue of the ninth circuit. but when you get to the united states supreme court, chief justice roberts is not going to find standing for the state of washington and he very well may have at least three or four other people. this is going to be a very hard sell to the united states supreme court for standing, which tries to avoid these kinds of issues like the plague. i think they will probably find a lack of standing but on the merits, you know, they may win. they're going win this injunction, they may win in the ninth circuit, even on the merits or part of the merits. once they get to the supreme court it's a much harder sell even with only eight justices. >> david, one of the questions that kept coming up was the issue of whether there was immediate risk. why had donald trump gone ahead with this executive order, did he have evidence because they had to as part of the proof that the case would have likelihood of proceeding. here's how that exchange went down. this is with the government
4:26 pm
lawyer awe gus flentje. >> in 2015 and 2016 both congress and the administration made determinations that these seven countries posed the greatest risk of terrorism. and in doing so restricted visa waiver to people who would even travel to those countries over the last five or six years. the executive order relies on that determination. >> i understand the concept of that but it's pretty abstract and it's not like there haven't been processes in place to take some care with people coming from those countries. indeed, those are the determinations in the statute and by the prior administration you're pointing to. there stl myny reason for us to think there's a real risk or circumstances have changed such that there would be a real risk if existing procedures weren't allowed to stay in place while the new administration conducts its review? >> well, the president
4:27 pm
determined that there was a real risk. that's why the president determined that the best course was a temporary -- it's a short halt in entry for 90 days while these procedures are looked at. >> david, obviously they didn't have any specific reasons. and it's not required that he would need to, but they certainly seem to want that. he didn't have any specific threats. >> i'm not privy to the classified briefings that the president gets on daily basis. but i would just state that the president has not only the duty but the obligation in these instances and his duty is paramount to keep americans safe. if he deems arianna, the suprem
4:28 pm
were the justices watching? >> that's what makes this hearing so potentially important because there's only eight justices right now. if this were to go to the supreme court and divide 4-4 then whatever the ninth circuit held is what would hold for now. that gives more port-au-prince to the ninth circuit than if there were nine justices. >> the plaintiffs could have sued but they're smart. the aclu figured out if they appeal this they thai might lose in the first circuit but they're better off relying on the washington stay and that would probably give them a better opportunity to win the case than if they appealed. so we might not get two cases coming to the supreme court at the same time. >> tony, let me ask you one fundamental question here that kind of gets at the heart of this and it's this -- what we're
4:29 pm
fundamentally talking about is whether donald trump can temporarily halt visas from these countries for 90 days while they go through the processes and see what they want to add back in. would you say from your position at the state department that there's no need for looking at that vetting? it's absolutely perfect. there's absolutely nothing that needed to be changed? or does he have a point that need to be looked at? >> look, you're always looking to see if you can improve things and make them better. as you're doing that, you don't take a step that far from advancing the security of americans is actually going to undermine it. what this has broadcast to the entire world whether this is intended or not is it's a muslim ban and we are somehow at war with islam. that is the biggest recruiting bonanza for isil that it could ask for at very time when hef is isil its heels in iraq and syria.
4:30 pm
not a single refugee has committed a terrorist attack against americans since lef. it's homegrown terrorists who are more likely to sign on if they feel alienated, discriminated against and they will become recruiting prey for isil as a result of this kind of action. >> i disagree with tony. i don't believe isil or isis need any encouragement to rise up against the united states. >> they don't need encouragement. but they need tools and arguments and this is handing them on a silver platter an argument to recruit more people. >> i don't believe that. i don't believe they need any encouragement to recruit people. >> we'll talk with a former undercover cia agent and get his point of view. thanks to all of you. i want to go to jim acosta out front at the white house. don't know whether the president was watching. he may well could have been watching that live himself. we are waiting for a formal
4:31 pm
response. >> reporter: that's right. i asked a senior white house official about that and this person did not know whether or not the president was watching those oral arguments. he is an avid watcher of cable news so it's possible he might have dipped in. who knows. what the senior white house official just said is they expect to have some kind of comment when this decision comes down from the ninth circuit. so, you know, they fully expect to put something out as soon as that decision comes down. the question, though, this official said is whether or not we hear that decision later on tonight or whether it takes a day or even longer. that part is still up in the air. what you have heard from this white house over the last couple of days erin is not only do they feel very confident about this executive order and, you know, all the legal arguments in favor of it, they feel like it's within the president's authority to defend the nations borders, but they also have been executing a pretty consistent
4:32 pm
public relations strategy in the last 48 hours to ramp up the rhetoric on national security, on terrorism. there was that whole back and forth between the president and the news media over whether the media was adequately covering terrorist attacks and so forth. earlier today as the president was meeting with law enforcement officials, a group of sheriffs at the white house, the president said he is willing to take this case all the way to the supreme court. here's what he said. >> we're going to take it through the system. very important for the country regardless of me or whoever succeeds at a later date, we have to have security in our country. >> going to go to the supreme court, do you think? >> we'll see. hopefully it doesn't have to. it's common sense. you know, some things are law and i'm all in favor of that. some things are common sense. this is common sense. >> reporter: white house press secretary sean spicer asked what would happen if they get their
4:33 pm
way at the appellate level, he said this executive order, the travel ban, all of the extreme vetting measures that are in that executive order would go right back into place. so they are looking to get this started all over again, reinstating this travel ban if this appellate court rules in their favor. so, you know, they feel very confident that this is going to be decided in their favor. they were asked -- sean spicer was asked today, what happens if this gets all the way too the supreme court. you have a supreme court that is deadlocked 4-4, that temporary restraining order from the state of washington in federal court could potentially stay in place. and they did not have a thought-out answer to that. i think that is something we'll have to keep watching. ? thank you very much, jim acosta. i want to go to congressman will hurd but a quick moment with paul and jeffrey. how quickly will this come? >> wednesday or thursday. >> they'll go fast. >> this week no question.
4:34 pm
>> and that worry about a tie. you don't see that because you think this is of utmost importance. they want a decision. >> i have to disagree. i think it gets set back for a trial. i don't think it goes to the supreme court. if it does i think john roberts will sit down, knock heads together and say we have to have a decision on this. it's too important to the country. i don't think it will be a split decision. >> thank you both very much. i want to go to the republican congressman from texas will herd on the homeland security committee, former undercover cia officer. i don't know if you heard the debate about whether the executive order was provide tools, recruitment, a message that the united states is against muslims to those who wish to do us harm.
4:35 pm
you were undercover cia. how do you see this? >> a sipe of distrust to our allies in the region. we have men and women on a military base in iraq. who's protecting that base? iraqis. we have special forces in syria, and they're shoulder to shoulder with who? syrians. this is an issue that will cause friction with many of our partners. we've seen in iraq there were the opponents of the current administration in iraq trying to use this as an example to kick u.s. forces out, to not cooperate. we have to remember that we live in a dangerous world and to fight islamic terrorism we need allies and we need partners. in a place like iraq many iraqi men and women have given their ultimate life to put isis and al qaeda on the run in order to keep them off our shores.
4:36 pm
>> the trump administration has picked the seven countries, same ones congress had identified under president obama but handled it differently. didn't do an outright ban or talk rhetorically. you're a member of the house intelligence committee. are you aware of any intelligence that this is a real and present danger necessary for a ban? >> there are no credible real threats on the homeland as of two days ago. but one of the things i -- this past congress i sat on a task force that looked at foreign fighters. there's over 200 americans that have gone into iraq and syria to fight with isis. one of the problems that we saw was that our european allies weren't vetting known travelers against watch lists, information we were providing about people connected to terrorism. there are visa loopholes and issues that need to be tightened up and we've passed legislation in the last congress looking at some of those issues.
4:37 pm
we're looking to reintroduce those in the house. they passed in a bipartisan way. >> the threats as you see them are likely to come from europe, by way we've seen europeans with european passports able to perpetrate acts, that's what you're saying, not these seven countries. >> it's a lot quicker to be fighting in a place like iraq or syria, slip into turkey, get into europe, find a fake european passport, and come through one of our ports of entry. that will take a significant amount of time. these are people who are smart and committed.
4:38 pm
having spent 9 1/2 years and an undercover officer i recognize the threats we're facing. the reality is the world we live in is more dangerous than our parents' and our kids are likely to inherit a world that's more dangerous than ours. so doing everything we can to fight islamic terrorism is important but we have to have allies. >> you would hope from where you see right now obviously given your view on this ban that washington state's temporary restraining order is upheld. >> i think we need to pass legislation here in the house and the senate that deals with some of these visa loopholes that do things like help provide resource os doing countering violent extremism. the threat of isis, their ability to inspire people even if they're 7,000 miles away, is unpr unprecede unprecedented. we need to be taking the fight there and dealing with those issues. >> house republicans held a closed door meeting today about how to protect themselves and your offices at town halls
4:39 pm
rallying against obamacare, police town halls, backdoor congressional offices to be able to exit from. these are serious to contemplate. are you concerned about your safety because of gop efforts to repeal obamacare? >> i think any member that is doing public -- going public and doing town halls should be mindful of their security. we've had examples over the years of threats against members of congress and not just members of congress, any elected officials. so making sure that you're focused on security not only of yourself and your staff but the individuals that are coming there. that's something that's important. >> congressman hurd, thank you. >> thank you. >> bernie sanders and ted cruz will develop the future tonight at 9:00. next, breaking news, senate democrats threatening another all-nighter tonight. wait till you hear why. we'll go thrive capitol hill.
4:40 pm
and on a lighter note, jeanne moos on richard branson's splashy challenge to president obama. 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.
4:41 pm
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.
4:42 pm
looking for clear answers for your retirement plan? start here. or here. even here. and definitely here.
4:43 pm
at fidelity, we're available 24/7 to make retirement planning simpler. we let you know where you stand, so when it comes to your retirement plan, you'll always be absolutely...clear. ♪ time to think of your future it's your retirement. know where you stand. president trump's education secretary sworn in after one of the most continue tennest
4:44 pm
confirmations. the senate split 50/50 on betsy devos. for the first time a vice president had to cast the tiebreaker. tonight democrats holding the senate floor again another all nighter trying to stop jeff sessions. manu raju is out front. >> reporter: tonight president donald trump gets his secretary of education. >> the nays are 50. >> reporter: om after mike pence became history becomes the first vice president ever to break a tie. >> the vice president note votes in the affirmative and the nomination is concerned. >> reporter: betsy devos came under fire after last month's rocky confirmation hearings. >> thank you for the call today. >> reporter: prompting liberal activists to flood republican offices with phone calls and hold rallies on capitol hill questioning her fitness for the job. after two gop senators announced their opposition. democrats staged an all-night session, hoping to convince one
4:45 pm
other republican to block the nomination. >> it was the most embarrassing confirmation hearing i have ever seen. she could not answer the most basic questions about education. >> reporter: but republican s held firm and are furious at the slow pace of confirmations. >> the democrats are clearly sore losers and they refuse to listen to the american people who on election day said we're sick and tired of the delays that we've been having in washington. >> reporter: this week three more trump nominees could be confirmed including jeff sessions to be attorney general, steven mnuchin as treasury secretary, and tom price for health and human services. >> we're going to have long debates on sessions and debates on price. >> reporter: now trump's labor nominee, andy putzer in is
4:46 pm
facing controversy after revealing he hired a housekeeper who was an undocumented immigrant from guatemala saying he has since paid back taxes. similar controversies have sunk nominees in the past including bill clinton's choice for attorney general, zoe baird, in 1993. >> for all of my republican colleague who is say we should be treating trump's nominees like we treated democratic nominees, then this nominee should withdraw because similar
4:47 pm
4:48 pm
4:49 pm
others. the travel ban, which is has caused a lot of confusion and so forth was not rolled out with the preparation that i think they should have given it. and we're seeing results of that
4:50 pm
now. running the government is a lot different than running a business or a corporation where the ceo gives an order and it's impleme implemented. on the other hand, they've done things. the supreme court announcement was an extraordinarily good pick. i hope and believe that he will be confirmed. the rollout on that was absolutely perfect. on the travel ban. process meaters. particularly in this town and how you present stuff to the public. >> this president on the world stage, what do you think? let me start with this one. when bill o'reilly said vut season a killer, would you give the same answer president trump gave? >> i'm not going to answer that question yet. i will in a minute.
4:51 pm
the this president is a pragmatist, a successful businessman, and i think he wants to succeed. >> is there a moral equivalency between the united states and vladimir putin's russia? >> no. there is no moral equivalency, no, absolutely not. we have a free press, a solidly functioning democracy, respect for human rights andg:y things e that. having said all that, it's damn important we find a way to have the best possible relationship we have with russia. may not be a good one, but we need to have the best possible relationship we can. >> you can watch much or of that interview at out front, jeanne moos on president obama's adventurous
4:52 pm
tomorrow. g ten? paul, pauline... is pauline a guy? sorry. mike, mike, mike and mike. michelle. okay, you need uniforms, work gloves, goggles, hard hats, all the safety gear. i'm on it. well that's good, 'cuz i got 15 more new guys starting tuesday. i'm ready. you're ready? ♪ oh, i'm ready... am i ready? what? am i ready? you're ready. i'm ready! cintas. ready for the workday. what bad back?gels work so fast you'll ask what pulled hammy? advil liqui - gels make pain a distant memory nothing works faster stronger or longer what pain? advil.
4:53 pm
(vo) do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light. do not go gentle into that good night. ♪ ♪ ♪
4:54 pm
♪ what's the best way to get v8 or a fancy juice store?s? ready, go! hi, juice universe? one large rutabaga, with eggplant... done! that's not fair. glad i had a v8. the original way to fuel your day.
4:55 pm
barack obama on an adventurous hobby the secret
4:56 pm
service banned him from doing eight years ago -- water spoí here's jeanne moos.  good-bye, flew away in a chopper. next thing you know he's flying a kite. ♪ kite surfing in the virgin islands with a smile so big one poster )bcxcommented, ah, he lo younger already. how was your weekend? with the caption comparing obama's face to president trump's. tweet another, wait, he's having fun? is he allowed to have fun? why isn't he saving us? he can't even save himself from the golf course where even an ex-president;" gets keys from missing putts. in the virgin islands obama kicked backslt with his hat backwards in photos obtained by "the daily mail." he's got his pat hath to the back like it's 1990 and trump isn't president. get your [ bleep ] back here,
4:57 pm
with respect, sir. but obama kept falling in the ocean as he and his host richard branson learned new water sports. branson learned boarding while obama kite surfed. and when the two competed to see who could stay up longer, the former president won. if you're missing obama and looking for the next best thing to a hug, here it is. dreamed up by an inventer in new hampshire. >> it's 20 inches fingertip to fingertip and will; literally g you. >> reporter: like many hugs it can be awkward. where exactly do you put this hand-painted illustration? >> you can do the diagonal hug, right, around the neck and theb arm. >> reporter: he was devastated when donald trump won. he launched obama hugs and is now two-pointinù( an app that lets youtú4÷i turn your own ima into a hug back and front. and how many may be missing obama, does he look l
4:58 pm
>> that's an amazing smile. does he have teeth whitening or something? they're absolutely perfect. we'll be back.
4:59 pm
5:00 pm
thanks for watching us. "ac 360" starts right now. >> a case that could go to the supreme court. if you've lost track, it's worth noting this is happening less than three weeks into this president's term. we'll hear from our analysts. first pamela brown. >> jimmy:s us. the justice department, explain what arguments they put forward tonight. >> reporter: right off the bat it was a hot bench with these three judges peppering the justice department lawyer with questions on everything from evidence connecting the seven countries and the travel ban to