tv Inside Politics CNN November 21, 2018 9:00am-10:00am PST
welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. stunning details of how the president pushed to prosecute hillary clinton and james comey and how his own lawyers warned him such an abuse of power could get him impeached. the president's lawyer shares with cnn some of the questions asked by the special counsel and suggests there could be a fight over executive privilege if robert mueller now has new questions about the presidential transition or after mr. trump took office. a warn tweet praising saudi arabia for lowering oil prices.
the president defiant as leaders in both parties condemn his decision to ignore that the crown prince may have ordered the killing of jamal khashoggi. >> reporter: we really are a moral country and the president just traded that for 30 pieces of silver. >> saudi arabia needs us more than we need them. it's not too much to ask an ally not to butcher a guy in a consulate. >> busy news day this day before thanksgiving. we bin begin with new president that the presidencies the justice department as a weapon and cares little for the constitutional guardrails. "the new york times" reporting the president wanted to order government lawyers to prosecute two people high on his enemy list, hillary clinton and former fbi director james comey comey. sources tell cnn he's asked on multiple occasions to ask rod rosenstein and matt whitaker how investigations into clinton were moving forward. the episode this past spring is
detailed by the times and triggered an ex-krord nair warning. then white house counsel don mcgahn told the president no, he lacked the authority to order prosecutions. mcgahn wrote a memo outlining consequences. it broke on the same afternoon the president's lawyer says their client submitted answers to questions by the special counsel. jeff zeleny is at mere lago. >> reporter: john, good day. the white house is not saying anything at all about this. the president is not tweeting anything about this. he's at his golf course. he's been there for about 3 1/2 hours or so. we certainly know when the president disagrees or does not like a story he talks about it either out loud or social media. he's been absolutely silent about this because of this reason, john.
this underscores what we know along the way. the president repeatedly asked justice department officials along the way over the last way or so why they aren't investigating more of these clinton-related activities, why they haven't appointed a special counsel. sometimes he's quiet about it. we do know this is not a one-off. we do not believe the president took the memo and thought, i can't do this anymore. the question here, john, is this, and what folks on capitol hill and others are watching for. is he going to act new acting attorney general mat whitaker to do something else here? is he going to use this as a part two shake, who he picks for his new attorney general nominee going forward into the next year? all these questions are relevant for that reason. the forward-looking aspect of this, what he intends to do with his justice department going forward. all of this, most white house observers believe, the intent of this is to muddy the waters over his investigation, over the
russia investigation by adding more special counsels and more investigations so he doesn't have to necessary think talk about the russia investigation alone. >> excellent point, jeff zeleny from mere lag go. with me to share reporting and insights, molly ball with the time, cnn's manu raju, michael shear with the times and alana shore. should we not be shocked that a president of the united states, never been in politics before, maybe early on you can get if he doesn't understand how the justice department is supposed to be independent. he was reminded of that on many occasions. i want to read something else from the times report. the president has continued to privately discuss the matter including the possible appointment of a special special counsel to investigate mrs. clinton and mr. comey. he has also repeatedly expressed disappointment in fbi director wris fer ray for failing to investigate ms. clin done, calling him weak one of the
people said. >> part of what this underscores is as much as we've been focused in recent days on these answers to the questions about collusion that the president has apparently now submitted back to the special counsel, that the broader question of obstruction of justice and what the president did or didn't do to put pressure on the justice department is part of a really long pattern of a kind of idea of a relationship between the presidency and the justice department that completely shatters all of the norms and protections that have been in place under democratic and republican presidents going back at least to nixon. those i think are going to be the subject of further investigation. and for people who think that the mueller probe is winding down, keep in mind that there's a whole other piece that hasn't really been fully engaged at least between the special
counsel and the president. that is going to happen before this is all over. >> the democrats are about to take charge of the house. i assume if there's an actual memo, one would assume the house judiciary committee is going to say share. >> no question about it. already, too, there's a push to try to figure out exactly the conversations the president had with matt whitaker, not just about this, but about a range of issues. now that we've learned he had discussions with matt whitaker about whether or not there was a prosecution on going against the president's opponents, democrats will want to know that. chuck schumer yesterday sent a letter to the inspector general and justice department to investigate it. we'll see if the inspector general does his own investigation. but what happens on capitol hill, that will also be a question going forward. the white house needs to understand that these things before would be ignored for the most part by capitol hill. not anymore. that's a big warning sign. the other point is the president claimed he didn't know matt
whitaker. we know that's not true. these reports show he knew matt whitaker and talked about things. >> talked about seeing matt whitaker on television and liking him and bringing him in. as i said, this is shocking when you see a president repeatedly pushing, why aren't you prosecuting my enemies, using your powers to prosecute people i don't like. shocking, but let's go back to the campaign, not surprising. >> if i win, i'm going to instruct the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to look into it. there has never been so many lies, so much deception. we're going to have a special prosecutor. >> it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of donald trump is not in charge of the law in our country. >> because you'd be in jail. >> remember back at the time, there was bipartisan disbelief
that a candidate for president would say, if i win, i'm going after my enemies. >> the weaponization of law enforcement, the turning of the apparatus of the state into the personal tool of the leader, that's third world dictator stuff. i think what trump's defenders point out is, well, he didn't actually do it. he didn't make it happen. he seems to have tried repeatedly. this was not an idle spurt. it is true this president says a lot of stuff and a lot of it doesn't happen or is just off the top of his head. in this case the rule of law benefits from the fact that he's not tremendously focused. he'll tell someone to do something and go off somewhere else and either forget about it or be focused on other things. but yes, if he were to find a way to do this -- i think one other thing. this is sort of the thing that trump and his allies feel is being done to him, is a politically motivated prosecution. but under our system, under the
rule of law, there is, as you mentioned, a wide oh a long treatise, a big rule book governing this stuff for a reason because we're supposed to have an independent justice department. >> supposed to have an independent justice department. >> one thing we haven't mentioned is lindsey graham who agrees with a lot of this talk, weaponizing law enforcement, going after anti-trump bias. he's about to become head of the senate judiciary committee. the senate might have someone blocking and tackling for trump. >> mr. whitaker said a lot of things when he was a commentator, a conservative activist. he has a first amendment right. now named acting attorney general. the president has set him up in some ways. the question is when will we see more transparency for mr. whitaker, talk to reporters, talk about what he said prior to after. in terms of the prior, he sounds a lot like the president. >> well, you know it is pretty interesting that we don't have a
special counsel appointed for the former secretary of state having an illegal e-mail server in her house and we appoint a special counsel with zero evidence of any ties between russia and russian nationals and the trump campaign. it's an interesting world we live in, interesting times, and sometimes i always have to just remember that black is white and white is black in these situations. >> i don't know if he knew it at the time. but a great audition at the time for a job with the trump administration. to be fair to mr. whitaker, these are things he said before he came into government. the president has named him to this position, and he has been not available to answer questions about how he views the job now and what he said before. >> remember, he's going to be the first witness that the house judiciary committee wants to call up next year. we'll see if he resists that, see if there's another attorney general nominated at that point.
he'll be in the post for some time, assuming the nomination came today, that confirmation process is going to take some time. he's going to have a lot of say about what happens in this key time of the mueller investigation. that will be a question for next year. >> will he be allowed to serve? his appointment has already been challenged. and there are differing legal opinions on this. everything that the justice department does under him is going to be challenged until the court resolves that question of whether his appointment was legal. >> we do know that the president is happy with him and wants him there for at least the time being. up next, president trump submits his answers to the special counsel. the question now is what does robert mueller do next? i'm ken jacobus and i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. what's in your wallet?
presidential lawyer rudy giuliani says the president was asked what he knew about his son, don junior's meeting with russians who promised dirt on hillary clinton, also asked about the president's public statements about russia and democratic e-mails. the answers were submitted yesterday. giuliani telling cnn's pamela brown it's likely mueller's team will have followups. if mueller now wants to ask questions about after the election, including potential obstruction of justice after mr. trump became president, that could bring a fight over executive privilege. the president pretty clear on whether he would ever sit down for an interview with mueller. >> i think we've wasted enough time on this witch hunt. the answer is probably. we're finished. we gave very, very complete answers to a lot of questions that i shouldn't have even been asked.
i think that should solve the problem. i hope it solves the problem. if it doesn't, i'll be told and we'll make a decision at that time. probably this is the end. >> it's interesting. pam brown joins our conversation. the president there, questions i shouldn't even have been asked, gives you insight into his mindset. rudy giuliani said, they submit these questions, the mueller team will look at them. if there were followups, can you give us more detail about that, we'll consider them and answer them if necessary, relevant and legal, if it was something that would be helpful, relevant, not a law school exam. trying to tell mr. mueller what to do. good luck. >> it was really interesting. it's clear that the president and his team of lawyers believe that the ball is in their court or that's what they're trying to project. if they want to have any followup questions, we'll look at it. we'll assess, we'll decide whether we want to respond. it may not be that clear kut. but what clear is this may not
be the end. you heard the president say in that interview we think this is the end. in talking to giuliani and my sources, this is likely not the end. there are likely to be followup questions, and the door is still open for robert mueller to seek an interview with president trump. that is certainly not off the table. i will tell you sources close to the president believe that it wouldn't go that far because now they have matthew whitaker as the acting attorney general. they don't believe he would approve a subpoena to interview the president. so there is this sort of position that, among the president and his legal team that we've cooperated. we've responded to robert mueller's questions and we're on firm legal ground. >> which raises a lot of questions of what does mueller do next? does he decide not to subpoena the president and i'll write a report. does he subpoena the president? or does he decide, fine, i'll run out the clock, we'll see who replaces matthew whitaker. ?
it's fascinating moment. submitting answers to round one opens the door to a long list of other questions. >> it's pretty remarkable they did submit these written answers. what it tells you is they do want to appear cooperative. they don't want to stonewall from the beginning. now they're taking the position that the president is not cooperating further. they did want to appear cooperative at the outset. you look back to the clinton impeachment and a deal was reached to avoid a subpoena fight for the same reason. the president didn't want to appear uncooperative. he did not want to ap pour that he was stonewalling the investigation. as pam was saying, we don't know what the next steps are here. there are going to be decisions made and the trump team is not in control of that. >> the key is don't want to appear non-cooperative. we don't know what they said in these answers. they could be nonresponsive and prompt followup and perhaps that could prompt the mueller team to push for further answers and maybe the trump team is not giving as much negligence
because they know have an ally on their side with the acting attorney general. >> on that note, from my reporting, there were questions that the legal team booked at including the transition peer, after the election, before inauguration. the president's legal team used that as a legally gray area that could be protected under privilege. it's unclear how, if or if that was resolved. that's been aic thing point. there's still the open question of obstruction. >> from a political perspective, the political dynamics that were in play when bill clinton wanted to appear not to be obstructing an investigation and so submitted -- essentially settled the question, it's unclear to me whether that is in play. this president doesn't seem bound by the same dynamics of whether or not -- he already appears to have been obstructing the investigation in all sorts of way. whether or not that kind of political pressure will work on him, as he notes and his team notes with mueller, is unclear.
>> in president clinton's case, what tipped the scrapes was when they realized the evidence the special counsel had, from testimony by the witnesses, the other evidence we won't discuss on television. they finally said we have no choice partly because of the evidence. to the question of whitaker, i said in the last segment, we should be fair to him and judge him by his actions as acting attorney general, not by what he said beforehand. there was the question -- jeff sessions recused himself. rod roens stein said i oversee robert mueller, he's on the right track, everything he's doing is fine. redon't know what whitaker thinks. the president says this. >> it's up to him. he's well aware politically, astute politically. he's a very smart person, respected person. i really believe he's going to do what's right. >> you won't overrule him if he decides to curtail -- >> i would not get involved. >> on the one hand, i would not
get involved. that's the right answer. again, trance late for me. he's going to do what's right. i really believe he's going to do what's right. matthew whitaker knows what the president thinks is right because he made that clear. jeff sessions never should have recused himself or allowed the investigation to go forward. rosenstein is out of favor with the president because he did. translate that. >> i don't think we know -- we don't know what matthew whitaker is going to do. what we know is what he told republicans on capitol hill to keep them on his side, he won't interfere. as lindsey graham said, it's because whitaker is concerned about how he's viewed, this will reflect on him personally. he has to worry about how the president views him, too. >> he owes the american people transparency. needs time to get settled. got it. this footnote about the special counsel and how he plays hardball. george papadopoulos was supposed to go to court.
the defendant has no pending appeal. his motion is made for purposes of delay. he hasn't presented a substantial legal question likely to result in reversal. nancy pelosi moves closer to regaining the speaker's gavel. and watch this. >> now that the democrats have taken over the house of representatives -- by the way, would you call it a blue wave? >> i think 39 seats is a pretty wave-like event. but then they make us kraft mac & cheese and everything's good again.
tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
so, let's talk about conference calls. there's always a certain amount of fumbling. a lot of times it doesn't work. we have problems. comcast business goes beyond fast. by letting you make and receive calls from any device using your business line. and conference calls you can join without any dial-ins or pins. (phone) there are currently 3 members in this conference. i like that. i like that too. i would use that in a heartbeat. get started with innovative voice solutions for a low price when you get fast, reliable internet. comcast business. beyond fast.
comcast business. ♪ welcome back. another nancy pelosi critic reversed course as she again used old school horse trading to fight off calls for new leadership. congressman brian haggans of buffalo was among 16 democrats that signed a letter demanding pelosi step aside. he now said he supports her for speaker because he said she agreed to put two priorities, infrastructure and earlier access to medicare high on the democratic agenda. higgins follows marcia fudge who says she's on team nancy days after she was saying she was mulling a run for speaker herself.
it's old school, but it works. >> this is congress at its finest. leadership races are not won among the voting population. it's among the caucus, the members elected to congress. the members, they want faith in leadership in exchange for votes. a lot is based on personal relationships. some of it is concerns about backlash for opposing the leadership. that's why people aren't betting against nancy pelosi because she has so much power to influence rank-and-file members, how effective they'll be in the new congress. she still has a math problem she'll have to resolve. there are enough democratic detractors, incoupling freshmen who say they'll vote against her. if the higgins situation is an example of, this she could flip other people if they don't have a viable candidate. >> that's two big questions. the question is does the
opposition crumb snbl. >> she's also clearing the way for david cicilline, showing the caucus, look, i have the power to create a new leadership position to resolve these problems. at this point she's guilding the lilly, who else can do what i'm doing right now. it's working quite clearly. >> someone try to square the sishlg for me. higgins says, the answer is simple, i took a principled stand that often requires a pragmatic outlook in order to meet with success. huh? >> it is abundantly clear. this is the part of the job nah nancy pelosi is good at. there's a lot of other parse she isn't good at. assuming she gets through this fight, it may have been a positive for her because it really has allowed her to showcase and to -- as linda said, really show off her abilities to move her members and get everybody into the tent. picking them off one by one like a sniper and have them make a humiliating show of their
reverseless, she's clearly very effective of this. this is not thing her republican predecessors were good at, getting recalcitrant members to come into the tent with carrots and sticks, incentives and fear. she's good at that. the objections to her are mostly about the other parts of the job, the political parts of the job, the image parts of the job. she's not good at that part. what she is good at is legislating and keeping her caucus together. >> to that point, what she's good at, what she's been very good is twisting arms, horse trading, call it what you have, getting some of her critics to join the fold and getting a lot of high-pro filed help. you've seen labor leaders, women's groups, donors and a certain guy who used to be president of the united states. >> nancy is not always the best on a cable show or with a quick sound bite or what have you, but
her skill, tenacity, toughness, vision is remarkable. >> you do see, if you're launching a campaign for anything, you've got to be organized, identify your enemies and critics early on and get as much high-powered help as you can. she's been good at that. >> watching the clip of obama with the graying hair, it reminds you that, when he didn't have all that gray hair at the beginning of his administration, the democratic party was still struggling to move to a new generation of leadership. and here we are ten years later and they're putting it off again. this may resolve -- it looks like it's going to resolve in pelosi's favor and the democratic leadership in congress will look virtually identical with a couple of pieces changed here and there,
to the way it's looked the last ten years. they're just delaying what ultimately will be a necessary transition to a new generation. >> the question for pelosi going forward, how does she transcend to a positional leader. who they transition to, all the members, you hear members of the caucus saying they want answers. we'll see if she has to explain some of that, especially if the votes look closer. >> i was going to make that point. we've watched every day, every day this week she's made progress. if that's what it takes to get a couple more votes, that's what we might see. a congressman who hounded hillary clinton over her e-mails says he'd like to know more about ivanka trump's e-mail habits. it's like a game! (gasps) woo-hoo! got it! which car should we get? all of 'em! ooh, yeah! that one! this one looks nice. yes, and yes.
i like this game. i think we're winning! delivery? where? (doorbell rings) (man) it's here! what? (announcer) save $1,000 from carvana black friday through cyber monday. then go see "ralph breaks the internet," in theatres november 21st. about the colonial penn program. here to tell you if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget
are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you, too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed, and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. and with this plan, you can pick your payment date, so you can time your premium due date to work with your budget. so call now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner,
topping our political radar today, a mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy has been blocked by a federal judge saying it infringes on women's constitutional right. he went further to say no law is, quote, closer to the old mississippi. the bill's proponents previously told cnn, their words, not ours, the law in their view would do what's best for women. we now know how much it will cost to send troops to the u.s./mexico border, $72 million which covers the cost of deploying nearly 6,000 troops through mid december. president trump ordered them there ahead of the arrival of the caravan from central america. the cost could run higher if he
extends the mission or follows through on a campaign promise to send a total of 15,000 troops to the border. key members of congress say they intend to find out if ivanka trump violated laws with a private e-mail account. trey gowdy asked for more information about december 5th and the chairman wants a briefing. gowdy's likely successor, democrat elijah cummings says he's also likely to investigate. ron johnson says he's also concerned. the president says there's no controversy here. >> she wasn't do anything to hide her e-mails. i looked at it very briefly today. the presidential records, they're all in presidential records. there's no hiding. there was no deleting like hillary clinton did. there was no service in the basement like hillary clinton had. >> there are differences, but there also are similarities and
the hypocrisy and arrogance question is interesting. trey gowdy, chairman only for a few more weeks, says he wants answers. >> this is bipartisan interest already, not to mention that elijah cummings is excellent at his job and this is going to be a big, big point of contention. >> i caught up with ron johnson yesterday leaving the senate, chairing the homeland security committee, a republican, he's investigated the hillary clinton e-mail issue for the last two years. he says it's not like the clinton e-mail issue but has serious concerns that she may not have complied with the law. they're going to demand answers from republicans and democrats alike. we'll see if it is more like the clinton e-mail issue sthan the president is saying so far. >> one benefit of the clinton e-mail scandal is a lot of very serious things were said about the importance of cyber security. so a lot of these republicans have said -- and democrats in some cases, have said a lot about how important it is that
president trump defiantly keeping up praise for saudi arabia today. this despite bipartisan outrage after a presidential statement yesterday that amounted to a free pass for saudi arabia and its crown prince, mohammed bin salman, the man the cia believes ordered the murder of journalist jamal khashoggi. today the president, oil prices getting lower, great. like a big tax break for america. enjoy. he continues saying, thank you, saudi arabia, but let's go lore.
critics say leaving the clear impression for a price, america will turn a blind eye to murder. the dismay and disbelief is bipartisan. this is senator lindsey graham on fox last night. >> saudi arabia needs us more than we need them. it's not too much to ask an ally not to butcher a guy in a consulate. we have a historic opportunity here to tell the people in the mid east there's a new sheriff in town. if you disrespect us and trample over civilized norms, you'll pay a price. if you want to keep mps, that's your decision. as long as you make that decision, you'll have a hard time with me. if you want to replace him with someone that's not crazy, that would be a good move. >> passionate statement from senator graham. the president, his friend, 100% disagrees with him, though. what happens here? >> the president probably wins. one thing that one of the other republican senators has been
folked on this, bob corker yesterday along with paul menendez, they demanded the administration make a determination to determine whether or not sanctions should be levied against the crown prince, mbs. if it doesn't, then congress may move forward with something else. there will be pressure from the hill from certain quarters, but also silence, too. we have not heard from mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader, haven't heard from house speaker paul ryan. the president in a lot of ways is keeping his allies on the hill silent. >> i want to read to that point, that letter under the magnitsky act forces the administration to at least go on the record. it forces them, the law requires they go on the record if they ask for a finding. the letter says in light of recent developments we request your determination specifically address whether the crown prince is responsible for mr. co-shogi's murder. we expect a determination within
120 days. now, the president in his statement said could be the crown prince, might not be and essentially said, but i don't care. >> now you have corker and menendez making a bipartisan request. you're going to have to care, have to decide. they already made a similar request that resulted in the sanctions against 17 saudis that the administration ruled out weeks ago. there's precedent to force the administration to say more here. it's important to remember that congress doesn't yet have a great avenue to strike back at the president, mcconnell for his point is not likely to call up any kind of sanctions bill. even stopping an arms sale isn't possible right now because bob men en in dez has an informal hold on that. with menendez doing what he's doing, we can't even have the senate voting to disapprove of these sales which they might do. >> part of the problem, presidents always struggle with the question of how do you balance diplomatic necessities off against human rights. most presidents try to lei out a kind of comprehensive foreign policy approach or strategy.
there's a -- there are various documents that are traditional annual and biannual approaches that are laid out in writing. this president has, if anything, left foreign policy to be a case by case, i'll approach it by my gut, and if there is any sort of policy, a thing that connects all his different actions in foreign policy, it's just that it's transactional. it's just that he's going to kind of make a decision as to what he thinks is good for america financially or in some sort of a power dynamic, and he doesn't have a broader foreign policy vision to put it into. that's what makes these things very difficult. >> as you point out, this certainly would not be the first time that america maintain ed a relationship with an unsavory human rights record. it wouldn't be the first time
these interests had to be balanced, and it certainly would not be the first time we overlooked human rights travesties because there were other interests at stake. what's different is the message coming from the president. in the past american presidents have always tried to strike that note of moral leadership, talk about american values, even if it was only lip service. you can call that hypocritical. this is the thing that the congress also can't do anything about, is the words coming out of the president's mouth and the signal he sends. you talk to republicans in congress and they say, sure, the president says stuff, but we're maintaining america's relationships, maintaining the defense budget, maintaining the russia sanctions, keeping all this on an even keel. what they can't change is the things coming out of the president's mouth are sending a powerful signal to the world about american values. >> on this particular issue, russia and others, we've seen others in the administration say pay no attention to what the president says, watch what we
do. his top diplomat coming out yesterday saying, the world is a nasty place. up next, the final midterm contest of 2018 and race takes center stage. i'm all for my n. i'm all for backing the community that's made me who i am. i'm all for my theatre, my barbershop and my friends. because the community doesn't just have small businesses, it is small businesses. and that's why american express founded small business saturday. so, this year let's all get up, get out and shop small on november 24th. i got croissant. small business saturday. a small way to make a big difference.
wwoo!! wait, what?! everyone's excited about the chevy vehicles at the chevy black friday sales event. i can get used to this. wooow! and you will be too when you get 0% financing on our award-winning chevy cars, trucks, and suvs. how is that even possible? now, get 0% financing for 72 months on most 2019 equinox models.
or, make no monthly payments until next year. the black friday sales event ends soon. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. whenshe was pregnant,ter failed, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today.
judges, bush judges or clinton judges. that's a direct contradiction to the president's words just yesterday on the white house lawn. >> the ninth circuit, we're going to have to look at that. every case, no matter where it is, they file it, practically -- i mean practically, for all intents and purposes, they file it in what's called the ninth circuit. this was an obama judge, and i'll tell you what, it's not going to happen like this anymore. >> the president referring to a setback for the administration in the new asylum policy. this is remarkable that the a.p. asked for a statement for the court and the chief justice decided to issue one. just that decision as opposed to, we don't talk about these things or no, decided to issue a statement. we don't have obama judges or trump judges or clinton judges or bush judges. a public fight. >> justice roberts didn't pick this fight, the president did.
this has been literally years of attacks on the legitimacy of the court and individual judges and finally provoked a reaction from the chief justice. that just tells you how far it has gone that after literally years of not responding to this, there is a feeling that his attacks on the legitimacy of the court are a real threat and has has to be someone to speak against them and stand up for the independence of the judiciary. >> just another example of the norms that has not only gnored, but shoved aside and tried to blow up. >> the president is wrong on two parts, right? it hasn't only been the ninth circuit. for example, the travel ban case was in other courts as well. and he -- he said, well, this is not going to happen. he really has no control over that. he can over time appoint different judges, and that can have an effect in the kind of
rulings that he might get, but it is, as most people who learn this at a young age in school, it is an independent branch of government. it's the third and independent branch of government. there's nothing his administration can do to change where cases come out of or what judges say when they get them. >> what's also remarkable about this push back, you look at the way justices, judicial nominees have avoided weighing in on things like that at all. look at the way brett kavanaugh answered those questions in the core fir! hearings. he wouldn't go near anything what the president said about the judiciary. neil gorsuch gave a little pushback. ave. nau said he didn't want to get anywhere near the political arena. for the chief justice to make this in the wake of the president's statement is remarkable. >> undeniable that the kavanaugh fight exposed the underside of these judicial battles.
clearly something roberts is conscious of. >> at the moment we're all looking at the new court. kavanaugh is on the court. justice kennedy is gone. the focus was more on anthony kennedy, this is a big moment for john roberts. for him to pick a fight with the president now, the president at mirra lago, wait for twitter? >> the chief justice speaks for the court. this is not a statement he issued independently and without running it by his fellow justices. he speaks for the entire court, the entire bench in this and they must have agreed it was worth weighing in. >> and worth risking what, as you say, could be twitter attacks from the president. >> and attacks from the president's allies. roberts himself has not necessarily ingratiated himself with some of his rulings with conservatives, the obamacare case being one of them.
>> yet another of the institutions under constant attack by the president. in this case pretty serious senior pushback. thanks for joining us for "inside politics" today. have a nice thanksgiving. don't go anywhere. brianna keilar starts right now. don't go away. i'm brianna keilar live from cnn's washington headquarters. under way right now, using his power to target his political rivals. did the president go too far this time? rudy giuliani reveals two of the questions robert mueller asked of the president including one about donald jr. the new fury over the president pardoning the saudis in a murder comes from his political allies. and what about the troops on the border away from their families for the invasion that is not. the president's telling response. up first, keep your friends close and your enemies under