Skip to main content

tv   Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith  FOX News  June 26, 2018 6:00am-9:00am PDT

6:00 am
quarterback. >> michelle malkin will be here. it will be a great show. if you can't see it on tv run to the radio. happy birthday, sean.
6:01 am
>> president trump: we're defending our borders. if you don't have borders, you don't have a country. it's happening. it's not build that wall anymore, it's continue building that wall. we're building it. the democrats want open borders, they want anybody they want including ms-13 pouring
6:02 am
into the country. they want to protect illegals coming into the country much more so than they want to protect you. and that's not where we're coming from, okay? so -- >> sandra: now brand-new reaction coming from president trump and the white house as democratic congresswoman maxine waters doubles down on her calls over her urging people to harass members of the trump administration. this after sarah sanders was kicked out of a virginia restaurant over the weekend. >> eric: we have team fox news coverage for you this morning. doug mcelway is standing by in lexington, virginia, he is at the red hen restaurant but let's begin with john roberts on the north lawn of the white house. >> getting tense on a lot of fronts these days with the immigration debate now at a fever pitch. the president continuing to push congress for an immigration reform bill. the compromise measure the house has yet to take up.
6:03 am
they may take it up tomorrow. it may push to friday or even beyond that. what this is really boiling down to for the president is a real push to get money to build the wall and some other immigration reform measures. the president rejecting a number of ideas that are aimed at dealing with people after they cross the border, including calls to add hundreds of new immigration judges. here is the president last night. >> president trump: i don't want judges, i want ice and border patrol agents. that's what i want. i want -- that's all. [applause] and we want to tell people i'm sorry, you're coming into the country illegally. we don't want you in the country. >> the president's argument is he wants to stop people coming into the country rather than having to deal with them after they're here. the harassment of trump administration officials. last night protestors gathered outside the home of steven miller, the president's point person on immigration. their efforts fell on deaf
6:04 am
ears, though, stephen miller was not home but with the president in south carolina. after being run out of a restaurant in lexington, virginia, over the weekend sarah sanders yesterday in the daily briefing called for civility. listen here. >> we're allowed to disagree but we should be able to do so freely and without fear of harm. this goes for all people regardless of politics. healthy debate on ideas and political philosophy is important but the calls for harassment and push for any trump supporter to avoid the public is unacceptable. >> after california congresswoman maxine waters called for people across the country to harass trump administration officials wherever they see them she got pushback from nancy pelosi and chuck schumer and this from the president this morning. the face of the democrats is now maxine waters who together with nancy pelosi have established a fine leadership team. they should always stay
6:05 am
together and lead the democrats who want open borders and unlimited crime well into the future and pick crooked hillary for president. the president still talking a lot about hillary clinton even though the election is almost two years ago. here is what happens, eric. if the immigration bill does not pass in the house or if it passes in the house and doesn't pass in the senate, everybody is back to square one. the only thing out there is the executive order the president signed the other day subject to a pending ruling from a judge, the california district court and central district of california. so the only other option may be for congress and the president to consider a stand alone measure to keep these families together. if this bill does not pass in the house either tomorrow or sometime before the end of the week, the president's options will be very limited. >> eric: a busy week. thanks so much. >> sandra: the red hen restaurant in virginia that refused to serve white house press secretary sarah sanders
6:06 am
reopens today as it faces blowback from supporters of the trump administration. doug mcelway live from outside the restaurant in lexington, virginia. i saw in one of your earlier live shots they are outside washing windows getting ready to reopen this morning. >> they did that yesterday after the president said tweet about it being a dirty place. there is a growing sense around here in lexington it was a bad mistake on the part of the owner of the red hen to boot sarah huckabee sanders out. we have since learned that the owner of the red hen is also the executive director of a business group in lexington called main street lexington. a passer by who purports to be a member of that same group dropped us off a flyer yesterday. it read our business which is completely inrelated to the red hen and lexington is under attack. my business is receiving calls and letters saying they refuse to bring their business to
6:07 am
lexington because of this woman's actions. this incident goes without saying is resonating across the country. maxine waters was ex coreiateed for her remarks over the weekend where she implored her supporters harass trump administrations officials at any time any place. the criticism of waters is not coming just for republicans. a spokesman for tim cain said he believes civility and respect from everyone are important to a functioning democracy and adheres to the biblical principle. senate minority leader chuck schumer sent a clear message to waters, cease and desist. >> no one should call for the harassment of political opponents. that's not right, that's not american. >> shortly after that waters called a hastely convened press conference where she tried to defend her remarks. >> trump is the one who is
6:08 am
creating lies, trying to have people believe that i talked about harming people. there is nowhere in my statement any time, any place that we talked about harm. >> the red hen is scheduled to open tonight at 5:30 and we'll see what the day brings. >> eric: the president weighing in on tomorrow's closed door hearing before a congressional committee for the f.b.i. official known for his anti-trump text messages peter strzok. the president tweeting this. the hearing of peter strzok and other hating frauds at the f.b.i. and d.o.j. should be shown to the public on live television, not a closed-door hearing that nobody will see. we should expose these people for what they are. there should be total transparency. let's bring in alan dershowitz, harvard law professor and author of "the case against impeaching trump."
6:09 am
why can't the american public see strzok for ourselves and denied that opportunity that we pay his salary explain his evident personal bias? >> the american public should see strzok testifying. there may be issues that strzok claims are national security or confidential and that would give him an excuse if it was in public not to testify. that's very easy. you can have part of it behind closed doors. when he is asked to explain what he meant by i'm going to stop trump from being elected president, the american public has to see this. when he says that has an insurance policy, it really sounds like interference by a leading person in the f.b.i. with an american election. the american public has the right to see that. we can get an easy compromise. generally it should be open to the public and on television. if there are issues that he claims require disclosure of secrets or confidential information that can be
6:10 am
initially done behind closed doors, a decision made. if it is not subject to classification it could be released to the public. >> eric: can he sit and have the lawyer say don't go there. we've seen that in the past in other hearings. he said in his text trump is a disaster, i'm riled up. trump is a blank idiot. no way he will be elected, omg, this is blank terrifying. wouldn't he be asked, mr. strzok, what did you mean by that and did it influence your official duties investigating both hillary clinton and also investigating the russia -- >> he will try to weasel out of that by saying oh, i was just joking. oh, i was just sending tweets to a friend. the american public has the right to judge his credibility to see his face, to see his behavior. this is something that will be determined by credibility and
6:11 am
credibility requires that we see his face. i had a case many years ago where i man i wanted to cross-examine was in the witness protection program and the government wanted him to testify with a bag over his face. i persuaded the court the essence of cross examination is for the fact finder, the jury, the judge, to see facial expressions to determine credibility and we prevailed and he was required to testify without a bag over his face. strzok should not be allowed to testify with a bag over his face which is what he wants to do. >> absent a public hearing, do you think -- let's say you were his attorney would you advise him to come up to the microphone and issue a public statement? doesn't he have an duty as an official, a public official, to explain what he did to the american public once and for all? >> look, if i were his lawyer i would tell him never to speak about this ever in public because it will be so embarrassing to him. there is no excuse he can make.
6:12 am
he will either lie, which he may very well do and gets him into perjury trouble, or he will have to acknowledge that he really meant it when he said i'm going to stop the election of president trump. he didn't mean the way i would mean when i say i'll try to stop the election of president trump by voting for hillary clinton or contributing to hillary clinton's campaign. that's legitimate way of trying to stop the election of somebody when you prefer the opposing party. he didn't mean that. he meant stop it through the f.b.i. stop it through his high office. stop it through investigations. that's inappropriate. and there is no way he can explain away that statement. he will try and that's why they don't want him to testify in public because he will become the laughingstock if he tries to explain that this was just a joke or just pillow talk. it won't work. the american public has the right to see that. it would be the same if it was somebody who said he will try to stop hillary clinton from being elected president.
6:13 am
that's not appropriate talk for a high-ranking f.b.i. agent who is part of the investigations in this case. >> eric: thank you, we'll see if indeed he issues a public statement or goes into the congressional hearing in a back door. thank you. >> sandraas we've mentioned another deadline comes and goes. the justice department rebuffing requests for the house intelligence committee for information on a potential informant. so what is their next move? ohio congressman brad wenstrup joins us on that. >> eric: the supreme court deciding not to take up the case of the florist who denied service to a same sex couple. coming up we'll speak that with florist >> sandra: president trump going to bat for henry mcmaster. how is the south carolina feeling about his chances? we'll ask him when he joins us live next. >> president trump: henry was
6:14 am
there at the beginning. he is a fighter, he is tough, he is strong. please get your -- out tomorrow and vote.
6:15 am
6:16 am
they're all going in the same direction but in very different ways and pampers gives all of them our driest best fitting diaper. pampers cruisers with three-way fit. they adapt at the waist, legs and bottom with up to twelve hours of protection for all the freedom to move their way
6:17 am
in pampers cruisers only pampers diapers are the number one choice of hospitals, nurses and parents. >> president trump: we are going to win so much you people will get so tired of winning you'll say governor mcmaster, please, we can't stand winning anymore. governor mcmaster, go to washington, talk to the president, we can't win anymore. >> south carolina loves donald trump. donald trump has kept every promise that he has made. we love him, we will make america great again and we'll help him do it and do it right here in south carolina. >> sandra: what a night it was in south carolina. one republican is getting a big boost. that was last night mr. trump campaigned for governor henry mcmaster ahead of the primary
6:18 am
against businessman john warren. let's bring in south carolina governor henry mcmaster. great to have you on the program this morning. as voters head to the polls. how are you feeling this morning? >> i feel great. that was a great t last night. the president came in, the people went wild. the place was packed. our economy is booming. he is right. we're winning and we want to keep on winning. >> sandra: why is this president going the bat for you, governor? >> we're friends. we met a few years ago, peggy and i met him. we love him, he is terrific. we recognized he was justat america needs. he has turned the whole world around and making america great again and that gives us the opportunity to make south carolina even greater. we are booming economically and that's the key to everything. we're for him. i have agree with him 100%. i'm for him. he is for me and we want everybody to go vote today. >> sandra: is there a certain political risk for this president to head out there the
6:19 am
night before this heated primary runoff and stomp for a vulnerable republican? >> there is no risk for donald trump coming to south carolina. people love him here. as you know, we are the first in the south primary. i supported him. i was the only one around here supporting him then. he won that primary and went on to win the nomination. i nominated him at the national convention. the people in south carolina are delirious over donald trump. not a stronger place for him in the world. we know he is changing the world. he is changing everything. and the economy is booming. we have oh -- a team from the white house and the governor house's. we'll keep the team together and keep winning. >> sandra: you are running against someone who also closely aligns himself with the president. businessman, marine, outsider. first of all, he is a good candidate? if he wasn't running against
6:20 am
you would you see him as a good candidate? >> i think i'm the candidate that we need to keep in office now. i've been here almost two years. we've set records on economic growth and development. with $6 billion in new capital investment, almost 21,000 new jobs. i have a record of performance and accomplishment. the president said so. the president and i are a lot a like. we're about the same age. we see things exactly the like. i am for him, he is for me. he wants people to vote for me and so do i. >> sandra: governor, how important is the president's endorsement in this race? >> the president's endorsement is wonderful. it is very important because there is a lot of division in the country. not so much in south carolina, but people are criticizing the president unfairly without basis. but in south carolina we love him and we know what he is
6:21 am
doing and why he is doing it. we stand with him 100%. for him to come here and campaign for me twice and also president pence over the weekend is superior. a wonderful thing not only for my campaign and me but for the people of south carolina. we love him and he loves us. we'll win this election and keep on winning. >> sandra: i only have a few seconds left. at this point 9:20 a.m. eastern time, what are your chances for victory in this runoff today? >> chances of victory we're working hard. i would say 100%. we're planning on winning, winning, keep on winning just like the president said. >> sandra: thank you, a big day ahead for you. a big night last night. thank you for your time this morning, sir. >> eric: governor, who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks. look at the first responder. this pup going viral for a skill that could save lives.
6:22 am
your heart doesn't only belong to you. so if you have heart failure, ask your doctor about entresto. it helped keep people alive and out of the hospital. don't take entresto if pregnant. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. entresto, for heart failure. i'm 85 years old in a job where. i have to wear a giant hot dog suit. what? where's that coming from? i don't know. i started my 401k early, i diversified... i'm not a big spender. sounds like you're doing a lot. but i still feel like i'm not gonna have enough for retirement. like there's something else i should be doing. with the right conversation, you might find you're doing okay. so, no hot dog suit? not unless you want to.
6:23 am
no. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade®. 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention.
6:24 am
call now tow to learn more.
6:25 am
>> sandra: a touching scene between two former presidents. clinton paying a visit to bush yesterday. he wore somespecial socks for the occasion, blue and black ones with clinton's face on them. the 94-year-old has been in and out of the hospital since the death of his wife, barbara, back in april. a spokesman saying he is in good spirits following his latest hospital stint in maine. the two former presidents having a little fun there. >> eric: a great example of respect, friendship and civility in former rivals. the trump administration saying
6:26 am
they're walking back some of their, quote, zero tolerance policies at the borders. we're learning that border patrol won't be criminally charging some parents for illegally entering our country d is not what attorney general sessions wants, though. brian yenis joins us live from mcallen, texas with the details of what's going on down on the ground. >> we're at the u.s. customs and border patrol protection. their processing center in mcallen. the first stop for immigrants caught illegally at the border. yesterday the commissioner spoke to a small group of reporters here and what he said was they could no longer enforce trump's zero tolerance policy. they do not have enough space. ice detention facilities do not have enough beds. under trump's zero tolerance policy all adults, including parents with children, were prosecuted criminally. now the commissioner says parents will be given ankle
6:27 am
monitors and released ensuring they go to their court hearings. cbp said in a statement this is temporary until the government figures out what to do with all of these families. in the statement u.s. customs and border protection is working through implementing the president's executive order in conjunction with the department of justice and taking temporary action until congress can find a lasting solution to family separation. we encourage them to act. so at least temporarily catch and release is back. u.s. attorney general jeff sessions said yesterday that zero tolerance isn't going anywhere. >> if we refuse to prosecute these adults for illegal entry as many of our critics want us to do, that would be a disservice, i think, to the people of this country. it would be an insult to those who come here legally. >> as for more space, officials tell fox news that the army's fort bliss is expected to house
6:28 am
migrant families and the air force's good fellows air force base in texas will house unaccompanied minors. >> eric: of the released parents are talking. what are they saying? >> 32 separated parents were released into the custody of the enunciation house in el paso. none have been rei newt i had with their kids. her 4-year-old son was taken from her while he was sleeping. >> it was only today that i spoke with the social worker. my son is very young and very shy. i said i wanted to speak with him but she said he is angry with me. he thought i had abandoned him. >> these parents have ankle monitors and lots of questions how the remaining 2053 children in 100 shelters in 17 states will be reunited with their parents. when and how are the big
6:29 am
questions on the border. >> eric: seems like a slow protest. thanks so much. >> sandra: congresswoman maxine waters defending herself over criticism over controversial remarks. >> don't put this on nancy pelosi or anybody. put it on trump. trump isthe one who is creating lies. >> sandra: the latest war of words sparking a new debate over civility in politics. >> eric: the supreme court, we're awaiting two high-stake decisions in cases that could have serious fallout nationwide. when they come in you'll hear them here first at "america's newsroom" rolls on for this tuesday morning. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable
6:30 am
after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings devop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you.
6:31 am
6:32 am
this scientist doesn't believe in luck. she believes in research. it can take more than 10 years to develop a single medication. and only 1 in 10,000 ever make it to market. but what if ai could find connections faster. to help this researcher discover new treatments. that's why she's working with watson. it's a smart way to find new hope, which really can't wait. ♪ ♪ >> eric: wall street trading getting underway. the big board there, encouraging numbers after the
6:33 am
dow dropped 320 points yesterday. you know it was down by as much as 500 points at one point but you can see it has clawed back a bit as investors are looking for a comeback after reports president trump is clamping down on chinese investment in the u.s. and bolstered trade war concerns that sent stocks diving but climbing back up there on wall street today. >> sandra: we'll keep watching it. meanwhile another fox news alert this morning as we await two major decisions from the supreme court. yesterday the high court granted the appeal of a washington state florist who was fined after she refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding. the case now heading to lower courts where they will figure out how an earlier supreme court case involving a colorado baker affects this case. joining me now is barronelle stutzman, the florist at the center of the case and her attorney kristin wagner. thank you for being here this morning. barronelle, i want to get your reaction to the supreme court's
6:34 am
decision not to take up this case. >> well, we were elated that they will send it back down to washington state supreme court and in jeff's case he doesn't have to choose between his faith and livelihood and that's what we hope the washington state supreme court court will also say. >> sandra: it goes back to the lower courts. what do you expect? >> we expect to have a fair hearing. both sides of the marriage debate deserve to be treated with respect and their beliefs shouldn't be disparaged. they both belong in the marketplace. we're hopeful. >> sandra: barronelle, give us the background on your case. you really wound up at the center of a firestorm. i suppose you could have never predicted this to be the case. what exactly occurred here that resulted in this ending up in the supreme court? >> yes. this was not on my bucket list when rob came in to talk to me
6:35 am
about his wedding. i waited on him for 10 years and it has been a joy. when he came in and talked about his wedding i told him i could not do it because my faith in jesus christ and he said he understood and we talked about his wedding and mom walking him down the aisle. he asked if i would recommend another florist, which i recommended three. we hugged each other and rob left. >> sandra: it's a fascinating case that captivated the nation. in light of this masterpiece cake shop decision, kristin, perhaps you can give us an idea as this heads down to the lower courts how that is going to affect the decision making and the result of this case. >> well, the supreme court wiped out the washington supreme court decision in barronelle's case and said you need to reconsider her case in light of what we said in masterpiece cake shop. the court there said religious hostility by the government has no place in a pluralistic
6:36 am
society and affirmed that people of goodwill are on both sides of this debate and that all americans should not be forced from the marketplace or the public square because of their reasonable belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. >> sandra: barronelle, are you still active with your business at the moment? >> yes. >> sandra: how has it affected it? >> i'm very thankful and grateful. business has been steady. people are very -- they support us very well in our area. so we're very grateful for that. >> sandra: kristin, it is going to open a much bigger question perhaps, you know, more serious disagreements down the road, perhaps, as to what discretion under what circumstances businesses can refuse their services or their products to same sex couples. where do you expect this to go long term? >> well, i think the other side
6:37 am
is mischaracterizing what we've argued for at masterpiece and the court decided. it isn't about denying service to anyone. the only cases being litigated here are to force people to participate in custom work, handmade, hand tailored, one-of-a-kind work and to express a message or celebrate a religious ceremony. this isn't about denying service. barronelle serves everyone and welcomes all people into her shop as she served rob for 10 years knowing that he was gay. >> sandra: kristin, thank you. barronelle thank you for telling your story and you are a business owner and as you just told us, you are still actively in your business today and we'll continue to watch it as it heads to the lower courts. thank you for coming on the program this morning. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sandra: a police dog in spain showing off his first responder skills in a video that has gone viral. look at mon choh. he is going up and down because
6:38 am
he is performing cpr on a police officer pretending to be unresponsive. he checks the officer's chest. places his ear by his mouth. what an amazing dog. poncho continued this until the officer got up. wonder if it would have worked in real life? >> sandra: a daring rescue caught on camera. >> let's go. she is going. >> sandra: that's a charter boat. it caught fire at sea. how a tragedy was averted and the people who came to their rescue. >> eric: lawmakers are threatening action after the department of justice ignores a request from the house intelligence committee for some answers coming up. ohio congressman brad wenstrup is here. we'll ask him his reaction to the d.o.j. saying no. i'm ray and i quit smoking with chantix.
6:39 am
in the movies, a lot of times, i tend to play the tough guy. but i wasn't tough enough to quit on my own. not until i tried chantix. chantix, along with support, helps you quit smoking. it reduced my urge to smoke to the point that i could stop. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures,
6:40 am
new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. my favorite role so far? being a non-smoker. no question about it. talk to your doctor about chantix. the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you
6:41 am
to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.
6:42 am
>> sandra: a horrifying scene off the coast of ft. lauderdale when a charter boat burst into flames. there was part of the rescue as the fire began in the engine area of the vote before spreading to the rest of it. all six people on board were brought to safety. >> eric: they're lucky. >> you would suggest they have all the documents when we have tens of thousands of documents that have not been delivered. as we speak right now, we have a valid subpoena that has not been really responded to appropriately. and it's 97 days and ticking. so for them to suggest that we have everything is just factually incorrect. >> eric: house eedom caucus mark meadows reacting to the ignored request for more documents related to the russia
6:43 am
case alleged informants. devin nunes giving the justice department until 5:00 p.m. last night for more information. the justice department declined that request, meaning no dice. ohio republican congressman brad west trupp. he cites the need to protect human sources. do you buy this and why not hold knit a closed session? >> i would agree this is kind of a hoax as we've been playing this cat and mouse game with them for some time. we have the same level of clearance they do. we're in a position that we are to have oversight over this type of process. and they are keeping it from us. and so we keep targeting and get more and more specific on what we're asking for and we'll continue to do so. i do think we're getting closer but it is very obvious and
6:44 am
obvious to the american people there must be a problem here if they aren't letting those of us that have the authority to see these type of documents not see them. so we will dig further and further. i think we're getting closer and closer to the truth. >> eric: they talk about confidential human services in this letter. isn't that a backhanded way of admitting or confirming there were confidential human sources perhaps targeting the trump campaign, the fact that they write that in this letter? >> exactly. this is what we want to know about. who were they? and where did they actually go? they give us a pretty broad phony excuse as to why they can't answer the question. they can answer the question. look, this thing is getting more and more obvious to the american people. the i.g. report that came out showed there is tremendous bias within the agency. you know what amazes me about that is that they were using their official phones for these texts. they must have felt comfortable enough that even their superiors wouldn't bother them.
6:45 am
nowhere in there is a text that said regardless of our political feelings, we have to do this in a fair manner and go about things in a fair manner. people are getting this, right? so we'll get closer and the walls are closing up. i would hope christopher wray would be part of a cleanup and not a cover-up. >> eric: peter strzok will probably say those are my personal feelings to the woman i was having an alleged affair with or whatever and it didn't interfere at all with my official duties. my official duties were neutral. i approached the investigation professionally and my personal views had nothing to do with the execution of my professional responsibilities. >> you must have a political bias if you believe it didn't play over into his professional duties. as i said nowhere did he profess that his professional duties would be upheld. people in this position need to
6:46 am
have honor, integrity and be truthful people. i know a general who once said his family didn't know who he voted for because he is to be non-political. used his official phone. his superiors have easy access to. he felt comfortable knowing someone could see what he has to say. >> eric: the president says it shouldn't be behind closed doors when strzok appears tomorrow. do you think it should be televised and we as the american people should see what his explanations are? >> ultimately yes. i'll be curious to see after tomorrow if there are leaks. leaks in the line of what you just had to say where he will have his excuses as to how it didn't parlay into what he was doing professionally. we'll wait and see what happens after that tomorrow. >> eric: would you call on him to step up to the microphones, to the media, before or after his testimony and explain himself to the american people on the steps of the house building?
6:47 am
>> well, that might depend on who the media is these days, right? i would hope the american people sooner rather than later find out what has taken place and what this man and several others like him were all about. and the question comes in when it comes to the russian investigation is why was it launched to begin with? i hope we get an answer to that. that goes back to the informants and everything else and all the information we want to know about that. >> eric: quickly, do you suspect that the informants were sent out there to sick on president trump for political reasons or because there was sincere worry and concern there could have been russian influence? >> i think they should have to prove one way or other which way it was. >> eric: we'll find out what mr. strzok perhaps says tomorrow as we await his explanations. thank you, congressman. >> sandra: president trump calling out harley davidson again this morning after the american company announces a plan to move some production overseas.
6:48 am
charles payne will be on deck. president trump urging voters in the state of south carolina to vote for governor henry mcmaster in the runoff election. next we'll hear from his contender, john warren. you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed?m let's get someone to say it with a really low voice. carl? lowest price guaranteed. what about the world's lowest limbo stick? how low can you go? nice one, carl.
6:49 am
hey i've got an idea. just say, badda book. badda boom. badda book. badda boom. nice. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com
6:50 am
6:51 am
>> president's endorsement is wonderful. for him to come here and campaign for me not once, but twice and also vice president pence over the weekend is just superior. it is just a wonderful thing not only for my campaign and me, but for the people of south carolina. we love him and he loves us. we'll win this election and we'll keep on winning. >> sandra: that was governor
6:52 am
henry mcmaster making his predict for tonight. the president held a big rally last night in south carolina throwing his support behind the governor. our next guest is running against mcmaster and he says he is not worried about the president's visit or that big endorsement. let's bring in candidate john warren. good morning to you. it was a big night last night. a big night for your state. a lot of people showed up to that rally. does it bring -- make you nervous that could actually lead your opponent to victory? >> no. this election is clearly not about president trump's record. it is about henry mcmaster's and it's a record of failure. the people are tired of it. we have so much corruption in our state. lack of accountability in government and so much incompetence in columbia. they want a businessman. they want a conservative and a marine. that's why we'll be victorious tonight. >> sandra: you are talking about yourself a businessman, a marine. but you are also an outsider and mcmaster claims you don't have the political experience to lead the people of your
6:53 am
state. how do you respond to that? >> governor mcmaster confuses accomplishment and experience. he has a record of failure. we've lost $4 billion on a failed nuclear reactor, 50th in education, overtaxed. our state still funds planned parenthood and our roads and bridges are crumbling. i do not have experience in any of that. what i have is a record of accomplishment on the battlefield and a record of accomplishment in creating a company and creating hundreds of jobs and that's what's needed in columbia. >> sandra: you say it isn't about the president's endorsement which your opponent did receive last night. on a very big platform. but isn't this race in large part about donald trump and his policies? both of you as republican candidates are claiming to be very closely tied to the president and his policies. >> well, president trump endorsed governor mcmaster long before i got into this race. so a lot of my supporters are donald trump supporters.
6:54 am
so i think what we need to focus on is who will be the better governor for south carolina. i look forward to working with president trump come january. >> sandra: what is your support for the president? where are you closely aligned with president trump? >> i think president trump has done an incredible job of appointing conservative supreme court court justice and getting comprehensive tax reform through the congress, which has had a tremendous impact on the economy. he has deregulated a lot of things to help economic opportunity as well. and he has even ended the cold war in korea. the main thing i would differ with on the president is his endorsement for my opponent. >> sandra: interesting. how do you think this is going to go? a big night last night but an even bigger day today. what are your chances for victory? he says 100% for him. >> what you saw two weeks ago in the whole reason we're having a runoff is because governor mcmaster who is known by everyone could only get 42%.
6:55 am
the conservative reform movement in south carolina is strong and united and united behind me. so we're very confident that we'll be victorious tonight. >> sandra: what will the race say about the overall political environment and chances for republicans in the november mid-terms. >> they'll choose the businessman, conservative and marine because they're tired of career politicians who bring more problems. we want someone to bring conservative reform solution. this is his eighth statewide race. you showed him. he didn't talk about any of his accomplishments. >> sandra: based on the things that you're saying about your opponent, the president just endorsed last night and your support of the president. what does it say about the president that he is endorsing
6:56 am
henry mcmaster. >> i think the president is a very loyal person and he endorsed him in december long before i got into this race. i'm a businessman similar to the president and i look forward to working with him in january. >> sandra: we are all watching this race. the nation is watching. john warren, thank you for your time this morning. we'll be watching tonight. >> thanks for having me. i appreciate it. >> eric: supreme court expected to wrap up its term today as we await decisions on president trump's travel ban and whether non-union public employees still have to pay union fees plus coming up ron desantis is our headliner this morning and will weigh in on the controversy over what maxine waters has said to go out and harass members of the trump cabinet.
6:57 am
with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... simply enter youstinationls, and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices...
6:58 am
so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com
6:59 am
[ drum roll ] ...emily lapier from ames, iowa. this is emily's third nomination and first win. um...so, just...wow! um, first of all, to my fellow nominees, it is an honor sharing the road with you.
7:00 am
and of course, to the progressive snapshot app for giving good drivers the discounts -- no, i have to say it -- for giving good drivers the discounts they deserve. safe driving! >> sandra: reaction pouring in from both sides of the aisle as the battle for civility ramps up in washington welcome to a brand-new hour of "america's newsroom." i'm sandra smith. >> eric: hello, i'm eric sean in for bill hemmer this morning. the word you keep hearing a lot about, civility as both president trump and democratic congresswoman maxine waters, they refuse to back down from the time. >> sandra: lawmakers saying enough is enough. the newsroom news feed. today's top stories from the journal lifts. >> california democrat maxine waters called on supporters to push back on trump cabinet members. >> you see anybody from that cabinet, you get out and you
7:01 am
get a crowd and you push back on them and tell them they aren't welcome. >> i've seen personally how that kind of inciteful language can lead to something dangerous. >> i was asked to leave a restaurant this weekend where i attempted to have dinner with my family. i was asked to leave before i work for president trump. >> it's the latest in a series of decorum busting moves. >> follows a week in which members of the hispanic congress heckleded the president in the capitol building and a congressional intern hurled and f bomb and kristjen nielsen was shouted out of a restaurant. >> no one should call for the harassment of political opponents. that's not right or american. >> she held a news conference to insist she never called for any violence. >> there is nowhere in my
7:02 am
statement any time, any place, we talked about harm. protest is about peaceful resistance to the kind of actions that we are experiencing from this president. >> it does exemplify the extremes to which people are going. the extremes to which people are feeling in reaction to this president. >> president trump: the democrats don't like border patrol, they don't like your police, they don't like anybody. they want to protect illegals coming into the country much more so than they want to protect you. they are only good at one thing. resist. >> i'm not saying it is his fault but we need to stop this and behave in a civilized manner. >> sandra: today's headliner is one of the lawmakers signing a resolution for congressman maxine waters, house judiciary committee member and candidate for florida governor ron desantis. your thoughts as you were listening with our audience at the mood and temperature of the
7:03 am
al environment right now. >> i think the hard left in this country is totally off the rails and maxine waters is really the pied piper for the unhinged left which was going on for a long time. what she did this weekend crossed a clear line. think it was to violence but certainly do things that are outside the democratic tradition by harassing people. so i'm proud to be leading an effort with a few of my colleagues to censure her in the house and ask for her resignation. i don't think she is fit to serve with that. here is the thing, sandra. this would be bad anyways. this is a year after my republican colleagues at baseball practice got shot up by an unhinged left wing anti-trump lunatic and he targeted us because we were republicans. you know how i know that? i was fortunate enough to leave practice probably three minutes before he started shooting. he came up to me and one of my other colleagues and asked if
7:04 am
it was republicans on the field. we said it was. we had no idea he would do that but he was deliberating targeting republicans. the left is so unhinged right now it's dangerous. >> eric: that is chilling that he came up to you. why do you think this is so dangerous? maxine waters is saying -- denying she is calling for violence but she is calling for protest and resistance but the danger to you is violence. >> well, i think it's crossing the line. look, there is democratic debate is tough and you hold people accountable but you do that through commonly accepted means. yes, protesting fine. but harassing people i think crosses the line and yes, i do think when you are stirring up people like that, i think you are likely to try to incite somebody to do something that could be very, very bad. so i just think it's irresponsible and we've seen too many instances.
7:05 am
the baseball practice is obviously the most serious one. just our attorney general in florida pam bondi was getting harassed by left wing activist this weekend going to see a movie about mr. rogers. it has gotten off the rails. >> eric: what about those who say it's donald trump's fault. nancy pelosi is blaming the president. >> well, when you are in a situation like this where this president has come in and this has been the response of people like maxine to him, they were never -- they never gave him a chance on day one to have a civil disagreement. she wanted to impeach him before he got sworn into office for pete sake. i remember his election and inauguration. there was resist, resist with the mantra from day one. there was never an attempt to have a dialogue with this president. >> sandra: congressman, you are running for florida governor. we just interviewed a couple of the candidates in the south
7:06 am
carolina runoff that's happening today after the president gave an endorsement to henry mcmaster in that state last night during that rally. you have received the full endorsement of the president. how important is that right now? >> i think it's very important. if you look, he is the most popular republican president amongst republican voters in modern history. in florida and that includes ronald reagan and his overall rating in florida is now over 50% because i think people see that he has devered results on a wide variety of fronts. people feel the economy is doing better but you look at something that i was working hard to move our embassy to tel aviv to jerusalem. it has a lot of resonance in florida and how he stood up to raul castro after obama gave away the store. i think it's a critical endorsement. i'm honored to have his support. voters will say desantis is
7:07 am
fighting the good fight. he is an iraq veteran and the president's endorsement, good enough for me. >> sandra: speaking of which things you've been working with the president on congress, immigration, fixing the crisis at our border. what is next in this heated debate in washington, congressman? >> if you want to deal with the border it is simple. you can do a targeted bill that people like mark meadows and ted cruz have offered that would say if people are coming illegally across the border not through a port of entry you keep the family together, you do a speedy asylum adjudication, most of these asylum claims aren't valid and so you do it and you can repatriate the family as a family unit. what the democrats want to do is they want to say any adult who crosses the border illegally, if they have a minor with them, then they should be released into american society. so they want to institutionalize catch and release which is a huge incentive for more illegal
7:08 am
immigration and dangerous illegal immigration when you bring minors across some of this dangerous area. their position is totally irresponsible and the president is right. the democrats want an open border. >> eric: the attorney general is raising some of these issues yesterday in a speech and listen to what he had to say. >> if we refuse to prosecute these adults for illegal entry as many of our critics want us to do, that would be a disservice, i think, to the people of this country. it would be an insult to those who come here legally waiting their turn, making their application, and most importantly, it would encourage and has already encouraged more adults to bring more children illegally on a dangerous journey that puts these children at great risk. >> eric: you have that view and the democrats say they don't want an open border. they want controls. how do you think it will end up? >> the democrats haven't been willing to support us on doing
7:09 am
any meaningful border controls. they'll support fig leaves if attached to an amnesty. that is not what we need to do. you can't give somebody coming illegally immunity from prosecution. an average american would not have that. if you were to violate federal law. the fact that i have two kids wouldn't give me immunity. you have to apply the law across the board for sure. the asylum process we should change override the court decision so the families can stay together and repatriate together but no immunity from prosecution for someone coming illegally. >> sandra: a lot of folks looking forward to testimony from peter strzok this week. as we know from that inspector general report, he did hold this f.b.i. agent -- he did hold an extreme bias of the president. but the i.g. found it wasn't used in decision making at the f.b.i. but still congress wants to ask him questions. the president is concerned that this will be a closed-door hearing happening tomorrow with peter strzok. the president tweeting this out, the hearing of peter
7:10 am
strzok and other hating frauds at the f.b.i. and d.o.j. should be shown to the public on live televi, not a closed-door hearing that nobody will see. we should expose these people for what they are. there should be total transparency. what are your thoughts? will it be closed door? we could see him testify publicly later but at least for now. >> i think it's public. let the american people see this guy's bias firsthand. i would, though, push back a little bit on what the i.g. found. he said the decision not to charge hillary wasn't necessarily because of bias because you had other people that didn't have the text messages involved in that decision. he did say once strzok opened the russia collusion case against trump's campaign that he decided not to pursue the huma abiden emails in the homestretch of the campaign because of his bias. he wanted to stop trump, like he said in his text message, and wanted hillary to be
7:11 am
president. his lack of action on the huma/hillary emails, the i.g. said a reasonable person would likely conclude it was driven by his bias. i think the bias has infected this thing from day one but particularly on the so-called collusion investigation. this whole thing was started by peter strzok based off virtually no hard evidence. >> eric: what if strzok denies that and appears before the committee in front of the microphones and publicly says those are my personal views but they did not influence my official duties as an official of the federal bureau of investigation. >> that's what he said to the i.g. the i.g. said his explanations certainly with regards to the post hillary decision with the russia collusion and the huma emails said strzok wasn't credible. when he was confronted with his text messages about talking about the meeting in andrew mccabe's office where he said you can't take the risk of a trump presidency and you need an insurance policy, he basically played dumb like he didn't remember that meeting.
7:12 am
i.g. horowitz said it wasn't credible at all. his explanations have already been provided to the i.g. and the i.g. didn't think they held very much water. >> sandra: congressman ron desantis great to get your thoughts this morning. >> eric: thank you. >> sandra: all right. tune in to america's election headquarters as fox news hosts the florida republican gubernatorial debate. congressman ron desantis and adam putnam will go face-to-face this thursday at 6:30 p.m. eastern time. tomorrow we'll be speaking to adam putnam. >> eric: fair and balanced and even on the fox news channel. trump versus fallin. the president and tonight show host man-to-man trading jabs over twitter and over the air. what is behind this growing feud between those two? it's the topic for the 24/7 crew. >> sandra: plus presidt trump fighting fire with fire after
7:13 am
democratic lawmaker maxine waters called for the public harassment of administration officials. the a-team is here to tackle this one next. first, cnn reporter jim acosta taking serious incoming at last 's trump rally. >> we have about couple thousand people in the room so far. they are letting the press corps know how they feel about what we're doing here. it is no secret he will hammer the issue of immigration until the mid-term elections coming up this fall. and even with families, the president believes it's a winner for the republican party. you might take something for your heart... or joints. but do you take something for your brain.
7:14 am
with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.
7:15 am
7:16 am
7:17 am
>> sandra: this just coming into our newsroom. as you know, we were waiting on a couple big supreme court decisions to come down this morning. the one on the travel ban, the decision on the travel ban is out right now. our team is reviewing this. we will get that to you as soon as possible. meanwhile, the supreme court has ruled for the crisis pregnancy centers in this free speech dispute that reached the high court. the supreme court says a california law that forces anti-abortion crisis pregnancy
7:18 am
centers to provide information about abortion probably violates the constitution. it was a 5-4 ruling that also will cast doubt on similar laws in two other states, hawaii and illinois. our very own shannon eam is outside of the supreme court as these decisions come out. shannon, the travel ban decision, what do we know there? >> it is a 5-4 decision authored by john roberts saying the proclamation is squarely within the scope of presidential authority under the ina, the immigration law. he says there is no contention the plaintiffs cannot say that they have been -- their rights have been violated. essentially he is saying here that the president acted within his authority, within his scope when he drafted the travel ban. they also note there are a number of majority muslim countries that have gotten themselves off the list because they have complied with what came as part of travel ban 3.0. if your country will give us
7:19 am
the relevant information we need they will properly vet people and they will actually get that information together before we allow those people into the country we'll take them off the list iraq, sudan and chad are off the list. all kinds of things built in that make it a fair and legal way to handle this. he says also the proclamation creates a waiver program. he says based on all these different things that are part of the proclamation the government has set forth a justification to survive a rational basis. what happens now they're reversing and remanding the case and sending it to the lower court with these instructions. this the is way to consider the case. what it is saying the president is completely within his authority, within the framework of immigration laws as they exist now to do what he did in travel ban 3.0. there are some concur -- chief justice john roberts writing
7:20 am
this. not a surprising split there but i have to say during the arguments there was a lot of talk about whether or not the president's statements during the campaign and when he first became president about a muslim ban or locking down the borders whether those things should be allowed in or not or just look to the text of the law. what the majority has done here. skimming it, it looks like they stuck to the text of the proclamation itself and not delve into the other comments. the lower courts who ruled against this ban found the president's statements and those of his staffers referenced rudy giuliani and others saying people who have been supporters of his surrogates of his had made similar comments and those lower courts viewed all of those comments as a whole in looking and striking down the travel ban. it looks like here by 5-4 in an opinion authored by the chief justice they looked to the text of the proclamation and said the president didn't go beyond
7:21 am
his powers. at first reading it looks like it is a big win for the administration on the travel ban but looks like further court action will take place now. it is sent back to the lower court with strong guidance and very strong statements from the supreme court. >> sandra: the president has said he has acted in accordance with the law and his executive power to protect national security in all of this. to recap if you could, shannon. we'll open it up to our a-team panel, the president is receiving a limited sort of endorsement of this executive authority. the supreme court upholding the selective travel restrictions into the u.s. this is one that critics have labeled a muslim ban. the ruling is 5-4, shannon. >> it is. what they do is point to the immigration law that gives the president this power. there was discussion during the arguments the last case they heard in april about if you don't like the law, maybe congress should rewrite it.
7:22 am
we aren't going to rewrite laws. the judicial branch isn't about that. that's what conservatives would argue. it is about interpreting the law, not rewriting it. if you don't like the law go across the street and take it up with the capitol. the chief justice by language the immigration law grants the president broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the united states. the president lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings following a worldwide multi-agency review. i refer to the state department and others set up a framework for these countries saying if you can't provide us this information about the people you want to send here, you will be on the list because we can't trust or verify who is coming here. the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest. if he thinks there is a problem and don't pass the review he is within his powers to limit the entry. plaintiff's attempt to identify a conflict to the other things in the law fail to overcome the
7:23 am
clear statutory language. so again, they are looking to the language of the statute and the language of the proclamation. the administration calls it is proclamation. a lot have referred to the executive order. the third version of the travel ban and today it survives scrutiny. >> sandra: you'll stand by. we expect more decisions to come down. let's bring in e a-team. marie harf, fox news analyst. rachel campos-duffy, fox news contributor and caitlin huey-burns is national political reporter for real clear politics. caitlin, do you first as you are now seeing the travel ban 3.0 as it has become known at issue here with the discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion. shannon just put it, a win for the trump administration at least for now? >> at least for now. it is a win for now. we'll keep going through the
7:24 am
opinion and see what ills is in it. they looked at president trump's statements in campaign and twitter. a lot of people were arguing it spoke to his motivation and possibly unconstitutional. it looks like the court has said we need to consider those but really look neutrally at the order itlf. this was order number three. the third time it looks like they may have gotten something legally right here. the bigger question, sandra, isn't the legal one now because this appears to have been settled. it is whether this is a good policy. whether it prevents people from coming into the country that we don't want here. that's a separate question that i think will probably still be a controversial one. >> sandra: i have to follow up with that, caitlin. all these decisions coming down and calling marie caitlin. >> i think the point you were making about the president's comments raise the question of what he will do next. what he might feel empowered to do on this. remember, he has shown really no restraint in terms of talking about immigration and
7:25 am
really tough, controversial terms. i would expect him to weigh in any minute now via twitter and i'm wondering if he will even try to go further with this. we know that immigration for him is an issue that he wants to talk about during the mid-term elections and right across the street from the supreme court lawmakers in the capitol are weighing a couple of immigration proposals and policies. i'm wondering what this will prompt the president to do. >> eric: why do you think the high court discounted the president's statements that the lower courts took into consideration? >> i'm not sure. i understand why people would look at those statements and go this is -- trying to say it was a muslim ban. he is saying no, it's a travel ban. the court obviously agreeing with the president. i'm not sure exactly how they based it on. as marie said as it goes to the lower court they could reconsider those. i think it's really important to remember the context in
7:26 am
which those statements were made or those tweets were made during the campaign. there were some very serious terrorist attacks at the time and i ran on wanting to keep our country safe and making sure we know who is coming in. many of these countries, some of them muslim or not have governments that we don't trust their documents. we need to know who they are and they need to meet these standards for us to let these people in. >> eric: in some instances the government isn't functioning. >> they appeared to take the government's word the countries listed are included they don't base adequate info. it looks like the court came down on the side of that being the reason. >> sandra: shannon standing by outside the supreme court and more from justice sotomayor. >> she is one of the dissenters. she says the united states of america is a nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. they embedded the principle of
7:27 am
religious neutrality. it leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly as she ques here a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national security concerns. she said the repackaging does little to cleanse presidential prok lowmation of the appearance of discrimination based on the evidence in the record a reasonable observer would say it was motivated by anti-muslim animus. they turn a blind eye to the pain and suffering the proclamation inflicts upon individuals. the statements of some of his surrogates saying he was going to have some type of quote muslim ban or shut down the
7:28 am
borders or lock it down until we could make a decision and further vet these people. but after the first two bans were really completely stopped in their tracks they came up with the third version that had the multi-agency review involving the state department, homeland security and other agencies where they would work with these countries to say we want to vet the information you'll provide us. if you cannot provide us legitimate identifiable information for people who want to come here, we can't work with you. we can't trust who you are sending. we have a nation of borders. we need to be able to as the president said it is all about national security. the third version was much different than the first two. it did include the worldwide review. it is clear that justice sotomayor in her descent was more than willing to factor in the outside statements other than just looking to the text of the proclamation and the law on immigration. the majority stuck to those two things and said the president hasn't gone too far and acting within his authority. again, they send this case back down to the lower court to
7:29 am
reconsider and the guidance the supreme court has given them. for today the travel ban has a win and we'll see what happens in the next step or if it ends up here again. >> sandra: shannon standing by outside the supreme court. interesting to hear that sotomayor perspective. 5-4 decision, though. chief justice john roberts wrote the opinion and he wrote the presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. i just wonder going back to december if the court had really signaled their eventual approval of this travel ban when they allowed this to take full effect. >> this is an extraordinary endorsement of presidential power. we've seen it grow over decades. this is an endorsement as a broad reaching take on presidential power. listening to justice sotomayor's descent the court disregarded president trump's own statement not just as a candidate but as a president that spoke to his intent.
7:30 am
they were looking at whether the intent was discriminatory. to disregard all of his statements that are very clear. there is no lack of clarity about how president trump felt about what he called the muslim ban that it seems a little bit odd to me the court seemed to overlook presidential statements that speak directly to intent here. >> eric: are you troubled by that? >> i am. legally and morally and from a policy perspective i'm troubled by it. >> i don't hear anything about religion in the ban. i'm confused why supreme court justice sotomayor brought up religious liberty and religion. i will say this roberts has only written two opinions in this session. clearly he felt strongly about this. he wrote this one. >> eric: it is an endorsement of presidential power. the president would say to protect our country. >> the president did say over and over again while he was a candidate that this was -- he wanted a muslim ban. he said those words. i think we have to take that into context of the broader
7:31 am
conversation. i also think this was a very narrow decision which shows that i think the supreme court might become more of an animating force in terms of voters in the next election, right? this is certainly among republican voters the idea of having one more seat on the supreme court, four decisions as important as this one. it wasn't necessarily clear this would actually come up. this is a big deal. it is a big deal to have -- for a president to pick a supreme court justice. >> i think you could probably weigh in on this rachel. the political implications for this being the first supreme court decision on a trump administration policy. >> absolutely. a huge win for him. he has a lot of wind on his back. the economy, he is being proven right on this. i know you say he called it a muslim ban but he talked a lot about national security. i don't think it is unfair to bring up the context of when and how all these comments came
7:32 am
forth. we had a situation when he was running there were serious terrorist attacks and people wanted -- it is why he was elected. >> protect the country. >> the only person who can do these big national security moves is the president. >> congress has a role. i would ask then if it's about national security why is saudi arabia not on it. more attacks have happened by the saudis than other countries. from a policy, not a legal perspective, i want to take a hard look how certain countries made the list and why certain countries didn't to see if it's a policy to do what its supporters say it will do. >> there are non-muslim countries on tlis as well. >> i don't think we needed a new ban. we had serious vetting of people coming from some of these countries that have a terrorist threat.
7:33 am
this ban was something he promised politically. i think he felt it was following through on a campaign promise and that's why you saw them out of the gate try the first attempt very quickly which was so haphazardly done it was proven quickly unconstitutional. i think there are ways to handle the terrorist threat under existing immigration laws that you don't need this type of ban for. >> sandra: is shannon standing by? i think it's important to get this in here how careful chief justice roberts was not to endorse either trump's statements that caitlin just mentioned about immigration in general, and muslims in particular. he said quote we express no view on the soundness of the policy, roberts wrote. >> he talks about that and says the plaintiffs are constantly referring to the fact the president's words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance but the issue before us is not whether
7:34 am
to denounce the statements. it is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive neutral on its face addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. in doing so we must consider not only the statements of a particular president but also the authority of the presidency so he says we're not getting to those statements. it is not part of this case. essentially what we have to do is look at the proclamation itself, whether it is neutral on its face, whether the president is within his executive power. they don't get into a discussion. the defense does. a lot of talk about what the president said and the majority lays out what the president said and what plaintiffs are complaining about but they say it is not our job the judge the statements. our job is to look at the piece on its face and the law on its face and go from there. for the majority those comments -- they didn't factor it in. the authority the president has when it comes to national security and immigration. >> sandra: can you give us a heads-up what's happening inside the supreme court now in the last day of the term.
7:35 am
what else we're waiting ? >> it's interesting to me as a court watcher. what they do when they have a big case like this, the person who wrote the majority opinion will read a summary from the bench. they're doing that inside now. if somebody feels passiote about their descent that they will, the descent has an opportunity to read a portion of the descent from the bench. last check the chief justice was reading from the majority opinion. a big and important case. i would imagine the descenter will go after that and find out if there are any more opinions today. we are led to believe there is another day in the term. we're waiting on the union dues and water dispute case. we don't know if we'll get them today. the other one we'll find out once they wrap up this case whether we get another case or whether tomorrow or thursday was the last day. monday was the scheduled last day of the term. they all have places to go, travel plans and lecture assignments. they want to get out of here. we should know soon what they decide to do with the rest of
7:36 am
this week. >> eric: is this a landmark case for another reason, in effect the majority decided to basically not pay attention to the president's tweets and what he said but just stayed on the law. we can see this in future developments and in future cases. no matter what the president says or his supporters they will narrowly look at the piece of legislation. >> it is interesting that you point that out. this presidency is like none we've seen before. the president communicates with the world via twitter even if it's something that's a big deal on national security, domestic or foreign pollz. it is interesting the court is saying here what our job is to look at strictly the text of what he did and not the statements he said outside of this. for this president it's a significant ruling because of how much he wants to go straight to the people and use social media to get out his messages. >> they have decided right now to mow the lawn with all of us out here reporting.
7:37 am
thank you, sir. it looks good. >> eric: it has to get done. >> yep. >> sandra: there is a lot going on. there could be an extension of the term, one more day. it's an uncertainty now. as far as what else we're waiting on. the decision on public sector unions on the docket we'll be waiting to see and hear about the stability of public sector unions out of the court. for now the supreme court upholding the trump travel ban. marie, if i could have you put your political hat back on having worked in the state department. but now looking at this as a victory for the trump administration, this is going to be the headline. >> absolutely. caitlin is right. i think this might entice the president to go further on the immigration issue. he thinks it is a winning one politically. one thing a lot of my former colleagues and i from the obama administration have talked about lately is the fact that we were not as successful at getting judicial nominees at lower kaourts through.
7:38 am
the trump administration has pushed judicial nominees up and down the system. those nominees on the bench will have influence for years to come on court decisions big and small. obviously i don't agree with the trump administration's choices for a lot of these but from a political perspective they've been successful and resonates with republican voters as we go into the mid-terms. >> very savvy at his part. >> after covering both campaigns extensively for 2 1/2 years it was very apparent that the company lessing force among republicans, even those reluctant to support a candidate like trump, was the idea of having power over judicial nominees. >> sandra: the a-team will stand by. we have a lot more. stay right there. we'll be right back on this breaking news. people would stare.
7:39 am
psoriasis does that. it was tough getting out there on stage. i wanted to be clear. i wanted it to last. so i kept on fighting. i found something that worked. and keeps on working. now? they see me. see me. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you- cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have
7:40 am
an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. never give up. see me. see me. clear skin can last. don't hold back... ...ask your dermatologist if cosentyx can help you find clear skin that lasts.
7:41 am
with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done!
7:42 am
simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com >> sandra: the supreme court reaches a decision on the
7:43 am
travel ban. we just got reaction from president trump. he tweeted two minutes ago. supreme court upholds trump travel ban, wow. let's go to shannon bream at the supreme court and now officially reaction from the white house, shannon. >> sandra: a good day for them. they should be celebrating this. the case will continue through a trip through the lower courts. 5-4 decision day the chief justice wrote that it's found on legitimate purposes. inducing other nations to improving practices. the text says nothing about religion. five of the seven nations have muslim majority countries but he goes on to say that fact alone doesn't give support to an inference of religious hostility given the policy covers 8% of the world's muslim population. they disregarded the president's statement and stuck to the text and found the travel ban 3.0 survives for
7:44 am
today. >> sandra: shannon bream outside the courthouse for us. judge andrew napolitano is with us live as the supreme court has upheld the trump travel ban. your reaction, judge. >> you know, the lower federal courts in california, sandra, kept harping on the words of the president when he was a candidate. and the discenters went on it. the supreme court majority said today we don't care what he said as a candidate. we only care what he wrote as the president. and when he wrote this executive order, he cited his authority under the constitution to formulate the foreign policy of the nation and to secure the nation's borders. and he cited the statute that congress gave him which permits
7:45 am
him to exercise an absolute and total ban on people from countries whom he believes would be harmful if they enter the united states. that's all the court wants to look at. i have to underscore this is a preliminary ruling. that means the travel ban is the law of the land but if someone wants to say i'm entitled to an exception from it, they can apply for that exception in a federal court. but the federal court must presume that the travel ban is valid because the supreme court has declared that it is. >> eric: why under the law is it significant that the majority basically did not consider the president's words as a candidate and narrowly foixed just on the law. >> that's a great question, eric because sometimes when the supreme court makes a ruling like this, the president has the authority to exclude people from countries when he believes their presence in the united states will be harmful to national security. it also makes other rulings at
7:46 am
the same time. and one of those other rulings that comes from this opinion today when we are construing executive orders of the president, we will construe not what he said about his executive order but just what he wrote in the executive order. that is very, very profound when you have a president who doesn't always use an economy of words and often characterizes his own behavior as he seeks to do. >> eric: what does it mean going forward? >> that executive order signed by donald trump and any subsequent president will be interpreted only on the basis of the words that are in the order, not on the basis of what the president or the person running for president said about the order outside of the four corners of the order itself. >> sandra: all right. chief justice john roberts wrote the majority opinion to bring everybody in here as a 5-4 decision for the supreme
7:47 am
court to uphold the trump travel ban. as you are both talking about some of those provocative statements about immigration from the president's past and muslims in particular, john roberts wrote we express no view on the soundness of this policy. we do know that justice sotomayor dissented. she said the proclamation was motivated by anti-muslim animus and said others ignored the facts, misconstruing the legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering it inflicts up indivials. >> this is a harsh and stinging dissent and it summarizes the view of the trial and appellate court judges in hawaii and california who have up to this point invalidated the
7:48 am
president's travel ban. but as eric pointed out in his question to me and as i attempted to reply in my answer, the court will not look at anything that is outside the four corners of the pages of the order. they don't care about whether this policy is wise. they don't care about why the president said he is doing this. they only care about what the president did and whether it is constitutional. and because it is a, foreign policy, and b, relies on a statute that specifically authorizes him to do it, it is constitutional. not necessarily wise, not necessarily prudent, not even necessarily fair, but constitutional. and therefore it's the law of the land. >> eric: what does it mean, judge, as the chief judge wrote that they do not comment or express a view on policy in terms of a judicial matter. >> they aren't supposed to comment on policy. policy is for the president and
7:49 am
the congress. policy is this wise and prudent will it work or harm innocents. that is not their concern. does the constitution give the president this power and whether he exercised it consistent with the constitution and they've answered both of those questions with a resounding yes. i understand -- i know her well, i understand justice sotomayor's dissent and a lot of people will be bitterly disappointed by this. but she is looking at things that are outside the order and the majority is just looking at the words of the order. they don't care about the rhetoric in the campaign in which the order was promised. they only care about what the order did, how it came about and whether it is consistent with law and the constitution and the answer is yes. >> eric: what does it mean going forward for immigration and what the administration may next propose in dealing with that contentious issue? >> a great question.
7:50 am
if a person believes that they should not be subject to the order, say you are a professor who has been paid by the university of hawaii some significant fee to give a speech but come if one of these muslim countries, you can make an application to an appropriate federal trial court. the court cannot rule that the travel ban is unconstitutional but a trial court could find that it doesn't apply to a particular individual because that individual will produce more good than harm once they come here. courts can always do that. but they must assume as a baseline that the travel ban is constitutional because the supreme court has just told them that this morning. >> eric: also blocking from north korea and some venezuela government officials i might add. >> sandra: i want to continue reading portions of the chief
7:51 am
justice roberts opinion here. finally got this, almost 100 pages in my hand of the entire decision and ruling. the chief justice wrote the conservative majority opinion here. he writes the proclamation is squarely within the scope of presidential authority under federal law. the sole prerequisite, that entry would be dentistry mental to the interests of the united states and the president fulfilled that here. what does this say, this decision by the supreme court, judge, say about presidential authority and its range. >> that it cannot be second guessed by the courts. a great question. this goes to the heart of the difference between the majority and the minority. the dissenters would question whether or not the president had a basis for this decision and whether that basis was an
7:52 am
animus against muslims. the majority is ruling we will not question the president's basis unless it is so irrational that nobody could except it. if the president said 2 plus 2 equals 22 the court isn't bound. but the president said it is more likely than not that harm will come to the united states by the unbridled admission of people from these seven countries the court is in no position to second guess him because the court lacks the tools with which to second guess him and the president has enormous tools available to him in the executive branch from which to come to that conclusion. >> eric: what do the opponents do? >> well, eric, this is a preliminary ruling, not the final ruling. by that i mean that somebody trying to enter the united states in brooklyn or trying to enter the united states in honolulu from one of those countries can make an application to enter. they can't claim the ban is
7:53 am
unconstitutional but claim it doesn't apply to them by demonstrating that they are not harmful to the country and they will produce good when they co here. that's for trial courts to decide. but whatever the trial courts do when they hear those applications. trust me, they will come, the trial courts are bound by the supreme court's ruling today, which is that this travel ban is in force and is lawful and is going to be enforced at all the entry points starting this afternoon. >> sandra: do you think there was a hint this was eventually going to be the outcome of this, judge, back in december when they actually let travel ban 3.0 be fully implemented? >> yes. it was a great observation, sandra. it was the same 5-4 vote that allowed it to be implemented at the time. there is not going to be any change at the port of entry as a result of the supreme court decision today except that the procedures will be permanent.
7:54 am
the immigration people won't be walking on eggs wondering if they will lose their authority. this authority is now permanent as long as donald trump is president or unless he decides to rescind it. he may very well call um kim jong-un and say i'm taking you off the list. that would change some things. if anybody is allowed to leave north korea and come here because the president wrote this executive order, he can modify it or unwrite it however he wants. but unless changed by this president or a successor, it remains the law of the land. >> eric: does this give him, the president, expanded powers over this issue that he could expand this order to involve other countries or other issues? >> yes, yes. the president could amend this order and include mexico if he wanted to. now again, he would have to make findings that people coming from mexico are harmful to the national security of the united states. but the supreme court has said
7:55 am
if the findings are rational, wenot second guess them. as long i'll use my silly example. as long as he doesn't say 2 plus 2 equals 22 we won't second guess the president no matter his political rhetoric. this opinion may give upmhh if you will to donald trump the president to help resolve our problems at the united states/mexico border in the past two weeks. >> sandra: this is the first significant legal test of this administration's policies and power? >> it's the first significant test of this administration's legal policies and power with respect to immigration, absolutely. and it is a ringing, uncompromising endorsement of the choices, the legal and constitutional choices made by president donald trump. >> eric: all right, judge. we are learning that the remaining two opinions will be
7:56 am
released tomorrow. the court now is recessed for now. so that is the big bombshell today that the president and the united states reacted to it by saying simply wow. >> sandra: all right. judge andrew napolitano, thank you for jumping on this breaking news for us. the supreme court has upheld the trump travel ban 3.0 as it has been called. chief justice roberts writing that the majority opinion the proclamation is squarely within the scope of presidential authority under federal law rejecting claims of discrimination in that travel ban. we'll have more on this coming up at the top of the hour. join us for a new hour.
7:57 am
7:58 am
7:59 am
hear that sizzle? red lobster's lobster & shrimp summerfest is back! with lobster and shrimp together in so many new ways. like new cedar plank seafood bake, roasted to perfection. or new caribbean lobster and shrimp. but hurry in. this event ends july 8th. ♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am.
8:00 am
take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help. >> sandra: it is the top of the hour and we have oh fox news alert for you. a big victory for the trump administration. the supreme court upholding the president's travel ban. >> eric: quite a busy morning. hello, i'm eric sean in for bill hemmer. a 5-4 decision. the justices endorsing the president's authority to uphold selective travel restrictions into our country from several mostly muslim nations. >> sandra: shannon bream is live at the supreme court for us. a big morning there. the latest. >> it has been. right now this is a celebration for the white house and trump administration.
8:01 am
the 5-4 decision for now is in their favor. by its plain language the federal law, immigration law here grants the president broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the united states. the president lawfully exercised that discretion based on findings following a worldwide multagen review that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest. if you can provide us specific information that we have confidence people have been vetted before they come to our country. if you choose not to you'll be on the list of those who banned. some countries have worked their way off the list. many remain on the list. in a 5-4 decision today the court found for now that's the right decision. this will be sent back down to the lower courts and be more legal procedure happening with that but with now the force and thrust of this supreme court precedent acting and talking about what the president's
8:02 am
powers are in the executive branch. a lot of argument whether or not the president's comments during the campaign and after his election should be factored in. the plaintiffs cited numerous things talked about shutting down the borders. this is what the chief justice wrote. iis premised on legitimate purposes prohibiting nationals who can't be vetted. the text says nothing about religion. there are some heavily muslim dominant countries included but that fact alone doesn't support religious hostility given the policy covers just 8% of the world's muslim population and limited to countries previously designated by congress as posing a national security risk. two very scathing dissents. the one from sotomayor thinks the court got it wrong by ignoring what the president said. she writes the united states of america is a nation built upon
8:03 am
the promise of religious liberty. our founders honored that core promise by embedding the principal of religious neutrality. the court's decision fails to safeguard that principle and leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and she quotes here as a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states. because the policy now she says masquerades behind a facade of national security concerns. the court found the president was within his authority based on the text of immigration law and the travel ban has done the right thing. it goes back to the lower court reversing their decision and telling them to thoroughly decide this case on the merits based on the guidance they got from the supreme court. so it is possible the case ends up back here but now goes back to the lower court. it is a win today for the white house as they celebrate. >> sandra: quickly as far as any further decisions coming down, not today, tomorrow,
8:04 am
though, a day extension in the term? >> we have another day coming wednesday or thursday. we'll get the big union dues case we've been watching whether public sector employees can be forced to play fees to a union whose message they don't agree with it. ita big decision with a huge impact on unions in this country. we'll get it tomorrow or thursday. >> sandra: all about the travel ban. shannon bream outside the supreme court. >> eric: a big win for the white house. that's where john roberts is live on the north lawn with the action from the president. he had one specific word in his reaction to this decision. >> the president clearly happy at least in the initial read of the supreme court decision tweeting out a short time ago supreme court upholds trump travel ban, wow exclamation mark. the white house continues to read through this decision, though. it needs to figure out exactly what it means. particularly the part about it being remanded back to the
8:05 am
lower courts. that would be the ninth circuit and four circuit. so the white house does not know what the ultimate outcome of this is. on the surface the fact that the majority in the supreme court has thrown its support behind the president's authority to enact a travel ban based on national security purposes is a big win for the white house. now the president all along had said he thought that the first travel ban should never have been rescinded. this is the third iteration of that. the first one was attacked in the courts quite roundly after it was first released. but the president always maintained he didn't like the second one or the third one. he thought the first one should have held. and i wouldn't expect the president will go back to that first one but certainly he will probably stick by his guns that i do have the authority to initiate a ban like this and therefore that one probably
8:06 am
should have stood all along. it is important to point out at while the supreme court found this was not a quote muslim ban it was simply a ban of individuals from certain countries that couldn't be vetted properly, eric. the president did on several occasions during the political campaign, the presidential campaign say there was a need for a muslim ban. so we're expecting a statement from the white house soon. again the white house counsel's office, the president, communications shop all just reading through this to see exactly what it means. we should have a statement from them shortly. >> eric: john, do we know when we'll have more than a statement and see from the president himself and get his reaction? does he have a photo opportunity or event for the media today? >> there are a couple of events on the calendar right now in a medal of honor ceremony this afternoon. it is not likely he would say anything about it during that ceremony. but the first two events are closed. but i would expect they will probably open one of those up to the pool particularly based on this ruling from the supreme court and we happen to be the
8:07 am
pool network today. so if the president has something to say, i'll be there in person to hear it. >> eric: we'll bring it to our viewers live when the president reacts personally to this ruling, thank you, john. >> sandra: joining us now is georgia republican congressman doug collins, a member of the house judiciary committee and vice chair of the house gop congress. thanks for coming on the program. minutes after this travel ban ruling came down. your thoughts? >> the supreme court did what they should do. the president does have the authority. he had the latitude to look into national security and best interests of our country. instead of activist courts or judges who wanted to make up their own law when they said nothing about the previous administration doing things, they said it was proper and the supreme court did a right ruling here. >> sandra: how do you think this decision will play out in the broader context of the
8:08 am
immigration debate that is happening in this country right now? >> i think one, it confirms the president did what he thought was right and sent it back to the lower court to interpret it on presidential authority, which is a good thing. it also brings to highlight we need to solve the problem of immigration we have going on in our country and make sure it's done in the proper way with security, compassion, the things and the president the four pillars talked about many times and he said let's solve this problem and made it very clear this is not a political issue. we have to move beyond the political issue that the democrats have and what can we do to solve the problem so we have good, safe, legal immigration, we're the most generous in the world. >> sandra: considering the headlines right now this is a big win for the trump administration, congressman, how will it play out politically? how will this affect the way the administration decides to move forward with this? >> they will continue to move forward in the way they have on
8:09 am
the travel ban. they'll continue that process but i think it will give impetus from capitol hill to deal with immigration and other issues. he has been outspoken. he wants to solve it. he will do it the right way. the president is not willing to do a half-hearted attempt of something he doesn't believe it. we're hopefully doing it in the house and get the senate on it. we need to solve this issue and quit the political games of making sure our borders are secure and we're having a verifiable system for businesses to hire people and have our economy take care of but keeping those out that don't need to be here and keep crossing illegally. >> sandra: this is the first big supreme court decision to come in on this administration's policies. so considering it is being viewed as a win, the 5-4 opinion written by chief justice john roberts found that
8:10 am
this restriction, this travel ban fell squarely within the president's authority. obviously this will be talked about in the context of what the press authory is when it comes to immigration. how do you feel about that? >> i think it follows the law in many cases. we have to understand the president is the chief executive officer and especially his number one opinion is to take care of the national security interests. that was where this issue was framed. he framed it as a national security interest and need to make sure people are properly vetted coming from places in the world that do not like us. there are people around the world who hate us simply because we are free. they ones who want to come here legally we need to find places for them. the president said those of you who want to do us harm we'll make sure we have the proper vetting in place to make it happen. the supreme court upheld that saying the commander-in-chief has the national security responsibility in his wheel house.
8:11 am
>> sandra: sotomayer found -- dissenter in this and said it would conclude the proclamation was motivated by anti-muslim animus and joined by ruth bader ginsberg. they didn't mince words in their dissent of this ruling. the problem is as i was-in-law school you dealt with words on paper not emotions and feelings that came out from somewhere they're implying. words on paper matter in this town and across the country. the ban was put out in executive order form, said what it needed to say and in the proper context of executive authority. for them to come back and want to take in the opinions of others and what they think may or may not have taken into account is judicial bias in many ways to say this is what we would have preferred but when they come to the law maybe they should go back and remember what they learned or taught in law school. look at the law.
8:12 am
>> sandra: a simple seven word tweet by president trump supreme court upholds trump travel ban. wow says the president. good to have you on this morning and get your reaction to this breaking news. >> great to be with you, take care. >> eric: much more on what is seen as a major victory, a legal victory by the trump administration in a moment as the supreme court upholds the travel ban 5-4. law professor jonathan turley will be here to give us his take on this historic ruling. if you have medicare
8:13 am
parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free
8:14 am
decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long.
8:15 am
4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now tow to learn more.
8:16 am
>> sandra: all right, the supreme court just out with their ruling that they are upholding president trump's travel ban against majority muslim countries. we're starting to get reaction coming in from members of congress across the country. steve scalise, the right decision, marsha blackburn. it's a victory against the left's open borders agenda and liberal activist judges. the white house responded supreme court upholds trump travel ban, wow. this coming in in the last hour. joining us by phone now is jonathan turley, law professor at george washington university. professor, we just heard from john roberts on the lawn of the white house saying we're still waiting to hear exactly from the white house what all this means and what the implications are and ultimately the outcome
8:17 am
is from this. but first to you. what does this mean? >> well, first and foremost i think this decision is a shot across the bow for lower courts that they need to separate themselves a bit more from what can be rather incendiary comments from the president. we have a president who makes comments that many people object to, but the question for the supreme court is what you need to base a decision on when you declare a federal policy or law to be unconstitutional. from the very first travel ban decision i said i thought the supreme court would reverse the lower courts. i thought what was unprecedented was the degree to which the courts like the ninth circuit relied upon the president's tweets and public campaign statements as the determinative factor in their decision. we have never seen that. we have some areas where those
8:18 am
types of political comments could be relevant on things on racial gerrymandering but never seen anything que likethbasical saying in all three generations of these decisions was that the president's tweets trumped the record created by the agency. so i think what the court was saying you can't just ignore these federal agencies created a record on why they are doing this and you can't ignore that we have historically given presidents sweeping deference as to who can enter the country. >> sandra: professor, as i've been saying we've been watching reaction pour in across the country from members of congress and this one coming in from senator, the democrat from hawaii. she had this to say if response to this ruling. listen. >> this is a dark day for anybody in our country that cares about checks and balances.
8:19 am
what this justice decision, a close decision said is that the president can pretty much do whatever he wants and discriminate against groups of people and say this is for national security. the court ignored all of the comments that the president had made that he had every intention of banning muslims from our country. >> sandra: you heard the senator there, professor turley, saying it is a dark day for this country for anyone who cares about checks and balances and questioned the authority it gives the president and said she disagrees with them not looking at comments the president made via twitter or elsewhere. and did not use those to play a part in this ruling. >> i'm afraid i have to disagree with the senator. the dangerous aspect of this litigation was the expansion of the judicial role. the courts are sometimes referred to as a least dangerous branch because they
8:20 am
are apolitical and neutral and limited in their review. what was being suggested by the ninth circuit is that they could pick and choose comments made on a campaign trail or in tweets and use that basically to dismiss a broad record established by the agency. that is a danger to the separation of powers. this decision has less to do with the merits of the travel ban as it does the judicial role and what judges need to do to guarantee that they are not being influenced or biased by these types of comments. so i'm afraid the senator got it wrong here. for people that believe in separation of powers this opinion is likely to be reassuring. >> sandra: to be clear on the point critics argue it discriminates based on religion, the court did reject those claims. that this is motivated by religious hostility. what did you make when you were able to read through the
8:21 am
justice roberts' opinion there on where he stands? his wording is quite clear. >> well i actually thought it was a very good opinion by roberts. there was an interesting passage where the majority takes an implied swipe at the president where they refer to all presidents elevating the debate. they refer to george bush going to a mosque soon after 9/11 and an indication they don't agree with the president's public comments about muslims. but that's what gives so much credibility to the opinion is that they are saying look, we don't like these comments but that doesn't mean that they become more important than the record itself created by these agencies or the decades of precedent in which we have given deference to prior presidents. >> sandra: jonathan turley, thank you very much for calling in on the breaking news. thank you.
8:22 am
>> eric: the ruling seen as a huge victory for president trump. the fallout from today's decision upholding the administration's travel ban. that in a minute. what does it mean politically? chris stirewalt is here. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvir searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices...
8:23 am
so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com
8:24 am
8:25 am
8:26 am
i'm no legal expert. but i would say this, this is a good reflection of how institutions change under trump but also how institutions change trump. if we think about the first iteration of what he was going to do it was a religious test for entry into the united states which was roundly decried as unconstitutional, immoral, wrong, wrong, wrong, as wrong as it could be. so they tried another. and then they tried ultimately a third one. the third one as professor turley was talking about was rooted in arguments that came from agencies about what they wanted to do and what their national security priorities were. they included north korea on
8:27 am
the list. they changed what they did. they tried something that was outside of norms and outside of what the constitution would allow and they kept going until they found something they could get away with and the court affirmed them in that today. in that way that's how institutions. he changes institutions but institutions also change trump. >> eric: you have a good point. he is called the disrupter in chief. the businessman from new york. here we have an example of the trump administration and the trump presidency working within the tenets of our democracy to carry out the law of the land versus just tweeting and being on the campaign trail and spouting things off. >> that's right. what the court is talking about here is the power of the executive as it relates to regulating people who come into the country and who doesn't come into the country. the reason the lower courts kept going back to what the president said that was
8:28 am
discriminatory and unconstitutional at the beginning. what the supreme court is saying is you don't get to impute motive into what a federal agency does or does not do. you don't get to do motive just because the president was baiting supporters and being himself during the campaign. it doesn't mean that now this agency is not allowed to do what it wants to do with inside the scope of the law. >> eric: certainly will fire up opponents, aclu among them tweeting this saying the court failed today and so the public is needed more than ever. we must make it crystal clear to elected representatives if you aren't taking action to rescind the muslim ban you are not upholding this country's most basic principles of freedom and equality. the battle lines really have been drawn. >> but the question here for the aclu and everybody else. this goes to the discussion
8:29 am
we're having about civility and people shouting at each other and all of this garbage. we get to have elections every two years to decide who will represent us in congress and that's where that energy is supposed to go. it is not supposed to go into trolling people on twitter or shouting at people at restaurants. it is supposed to go in deciding who makes up the government. that's what the government is there for and the purpose of the congress, go vote. if you don't like it, go vote. if you do like it, go vote. that's the point of this and why they always say, remember in november. >> eric: what do you think the president has learned from this besides celebrating it? working within the frame of our government? >> i would not dare hazard a guess on that eric sean. for every harley davidson in wisconsin. no way i would try to guess that. >> eric: next step.
8:30 am
democrats and others will oppose it. tion on capitol hill? >> no. the republicans will be glad this matter has been settled in a way that is -- stays within the norms. they will be happy this matter is done and laid aside and they can quit fighting with the adminiration about it and lay this there and have it stay. there will be noise that democrats make in congress but more about the election than about changing any law. >> eric: it is the mid-terms. chris, good to see you. sandra. >> sandra: much more still coming in on today's big ruling. the supreme court upholds the president's travel ban 5-4. just moments from now alan dershowitz will join us live to break down today's decision plus we'll hear from a top democrat. his reaction to today's big news next.
8:31 am
8:32 am
8:33 am
>> sandra: the supreme court upholds the president's travel ban and the president has just
8:34 am
issued a fresh statement in reaction to this. today's supreme court ruling is a tremendous victory for the american people and the constitution. the supreme court has upheld the clear authority of the president to defend the national security of the united states in this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country. this ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country. as long as i am president i will defend the sovereignty, safety and security of the american people and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the united states and its citizens. our country will always be safe, secure, and protected on my watch. joining us now is democratic
8:35 am
texas congren henry cuellar. following this breaking news out of the supreme court, your thoughts. >> first of all, the president's first draft would have not be constitutional. the second draft which is the one before it, the court has ruled it is constitutional on this vetting and again we have to respect the supreme court. every country has a right to protect its borders. and i know there are some measures do bring a little controversy but at the end of the day if the court says it's constitutional we move on and change the law if we want to change the law. right now we respect the supreme court on this particular issue. >> sandra: constitutional and as chief justice john roberts falls squarely within the president's authority. the president and the white house in the statement i read out loud now seems to indicate that he feels some sort of
8:36 am
vindication from the supreme court upholding this travel ban. does this vindicate the president? >> again, notice what happened. the president came up with something broader and he came back and narrowed down. i do agree the way he narrowed this down. this seems to be more narrow and this is what the court ruled on. >> sandra: i was pulling up a tweet by marsha blackburn. members of congress continue to react to this breaking news and she writes this, do we have that up there? here we go. she writes the scotus is a decision against the open borders agenda and liberal activist judges. we need to vet individuals coming into our country so we can keep america safe.
8:37 am
what message do you think -- she is saying it sends a message to the left. what message does this send? >> democrats and republicans, we all want to secure the border. we sometimes disagree on how we do it when it comes to the wall or in this particular ban. but at the end of the day we all want to secure the border. nobody wants to have open borders. and i wish that when it comes to border security, we would be more bipartisan. i live on the border and i certainly know what we need to do to secure the border. and i wish we could only do it more in a bipartisan way and again to say that somebody is open borders or somebody is of the extreme we have to get away from extremes. that's the issue that we see and this is quite honestly why we don't have the civility because people are going to the extremes. we want to security the border. we have some differences but let's get together and work out those differences. >> sandra: certainly in this 5-4 opinion they didn't view the president's travel ban as extreme. justice roberts write the order
8:38 am
is preventing entry of national not adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. against all critics it says nothing about religion. the first big supreme court decision on the president's -- one of the president's policies. is this a big win for the trump administration, congressman? >> i think this is a win for the administration in this way. one is there is no religion. if there would have been religion, the first draft, there was another draft that was very different. as long as you don't use religion and you do the extreme vetting which i support, we get those countries that do more to vet those people, they come in, we vet those people, and as long as there is no religion involved, i support extreme vetting. >> sandra: how does this decision fit into the broader
8:39 am
debate on immigration at this moment with congress so aggressively trying to figure out a way to solve the problem at our own border? >> well, again, it goes back to what i said. we all want to secure the border. how we get there does bring some differences but again, if we start off with the common things we need to do at the border. more personnel, more technology, making sure we vet the people that come in, and then let's take the issues that do bring some controversy, that is what do we do about asylum. do we change the rules on the asylum? what do we do about the wall? in my opinion a 14th century solution to a 21st century issue. if we find out what we have in common and look at the other ones i think we can do a lot more to secure the border. >> sandra: have you had a chance to talk to your colleagues in congress after this travel ban was upheld by the supreme court and get their reaction?
8:40 am
>> no, i haven't. i've been rking on some items dealing with central america and what we need to do to secure the border -- the southern border that mexico has with guatemala. those are the issues i'm focusing now. i haven't talked to them about this particular ban. but again, i will respect the supreme court. i think people need to respect the supreme court. sometimes it's hard for people to do that. if you remember when the supreme court came up with the decision on healthcare and the people on the right were not happy and i'm sure people on the left are not happy with this particular decision. but again, constitutionally we have to support the legitimacy of our government and have to support the supreme court no matter how much we disagree with them. >> sandra: the president and his team moments ago calling the travel ban ruling a moment of profound vindication. thank you, congressman, good to see you. >> sandra: thank you so much.
8:41 am
>> eric: to recap today's breaking news in what could be seen as a major victory for the white house. supreme court ruling 5-4 in favor of upholding president trump's travel ban. coming up next alan dershowitz, the famed harvard law professor will join us here for his take on this historic ruling this morning. and all you wanted to do was surround them in comfort and protection. that's why only pampers swaddlers is the number one choice of hospitals to wrap your baby in blanket-like softness and premium protection. so that all they feel is love. pampers the number one choice of hospitals, nurses and parents pepsoriasis does that. it was tough getting out there on stage. i wanted to be clear. i wanted it to last. so i kept on fighting. i found something that worked.
8:42 am
and keeps on working. now? they see me. see me. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you- cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. never give up. see me. see me. clear skin can last. don't hold back... ...ask your dermatologist if cosentyx can help you find clear skin that lasts.
8:43 am
8:44 am
>> eric: as president trump reacting to the decision from the supreme court this morning that upholds his travel ban and reaction continues to pour in, the white house issuing a statement saying it upholds the authority of the president in these type of cases. attorney general jeff sessions issuing his own statement saying today is a great victory for the safety and security of all americans. the constitution and acts of congress confer on the president broad discretion to protect the interests of the united states. today's decision is critical to ensuring the continued authority of president trump and all future presidents to protect the american people. we will continue to take and
8:45 am
defend all steps necessary to protect this great nation. from more reaction we're joined by alan dershowitz with us now. you are known as a great harbinger of civil liberties in this nation. what is most legally significant by this ruling? >> we should never confuse support for a policy for the constitutionality of a policy. i'm strongly opposed to this policy as a matter of morality. i think it doesn't protect us. take for example a country like iran, a terrorist country and it doesn't have vetting, but it has so many good people in it who would make great american visitors and citizens. i think generalizing country by country is not the best approach but it's constitutional. i predicted it would be upheld on fox, cnn and many other places. there is a big difference being something being good policy and something being constitutional
8:46 am
or unconstitutional. so i'll continue to oppose the policy. i hope we can do better and vet people individually. but the supreme court did uphold it 5-4. whether they would have upheld it had gorsuch not been on the court but rather the supreme court justice who was nominated by president obama but kept off the supreme court, garland, i don't know how the case would have come out if he had been the swing vote rather than gorsuch. who is on the supreme court is an important question. >> eric: do you agree with the dissent of sotomayor saying this shows a reasonable person would say this was motivated by anti-muslim animus and do you agree with the critics who think it is anti-muslim? >> i don't think so. not all the countries are muslim and not all muslim countries are within the ban. look, the vast majority of
8:47 am
terrorist activities around the world, massive terrorist activities around the world have come from countries like saudi arabia and we're now seeing syria and iran, i think the opposition is a little overwrought. as i said, i don't support the policy but i don't believe that it violates basic civil liberties or constitutional law or human rights. again, there is a line between opposition and saying the kinds of things that some of the opponents have been saying. i don't think i do agree with the extent to which justice sotomayor condemned the policy of the administration. i think it's wrong but i don't think it's an anti-muslim ban. i think that's a mistake. >> the lower court took into consideration the president's tweets and what he said on the campaign trail and the high court narrowly focused just on the law.
8:48 am
why is that legally significant? >> when you have a president of the united states issuing an order you can't say it's unconstitutional as to this president but would be constitutional if president obama or a president hillary clinton have issued it. you can't have one constitutional for one president and a different constitutional rule for another president. justice kennedy looked at motivation in the gay couple case and the came. he ruled the statements made by the colorado commission showed an animus toward religion. if that standard had been applied here you might have had a different result. i think it's the difference between a presidential action authorized by the constitutional and a ruling by a colorado authority. >> eric: as always, professor at harvard law. thank you. >> sandra: breaking news coverage continues. the supreme court ruling 5-4 in
8:49 am
favor of president trump's travel ban. reaction still pouring in on that and we're awaiting the president. we'll be right back. at&t provides edge-to-edge intelligence, covering virtually every part of your retail business. so that if your customer needs shoes, & he's got wide feet. & with edge-to-edge intelligence you'ot near real time inventory updates. & he'll find the same shoes in your store that he found online he'll be one happy, very forgetful wide footed customer. at&t provides edge to edge intelligence. it can do so much for your business, the list goes on and on. that's the power of &. & if your customer also forgets socks! & you could send him a coupon for that item. ♪ ♪
8:50 am
build your next big thing to run in more places, wiout recoding. the ibm cloud. the cloud for smarter business.
8:51 am
8:52 am
>> sandra: the supreme court upholding the president's travel ban in a 5-4 ruling saying they have the power to control immigration for national security. democrats say the ban is unamerican. what this victory will mean for america's safety. >> the controversy over all the recent incivility from both sides continues. democrat maxine waters calling back her call for people to harass trump officials as the president's supporters shout down a reporter. where all this goes and how we can tone it down a bit.
8:53 am
we'll debate. >> all that plus #one lucky guy. "outnumbered" at the top of the hour. he have is a good one but we'll keep it a secret who it is. >> not happy with it. we're a nation that is moral vandalism separating families to religious-based travel ban. it makes no sense when you look at the countries in terms of security. if it was about our safety, it would be a different list, we need to reclaim our values. i'm not saying it is not partisan values or democrat or republican, we're a good nation, we're good people and we should be setting a standard on this planet of what humanity should be about. >> sandra: that was new jersey senator cory booker expressing disappointment at the supreme court decision upholding president trump's travel ban. we're hearing that an event president trump had already on the books with members of congress, a lunch in the noon
8:54 am
hour is now open. that means, of ur, that cameras will be allowed inside that room and we will obviously look for some sort of fresh reaction from the president. meantime we are getting brand-new reaction from the agencies tasked with implementing the ban. the department of homeland security. it writes it is the duty of the government to insure those seeking to enter our country won't harm the american people. while we have the most generous immigration system in the world, it has repeatedly been exploited by terrorists and other malicious actors who seek to do us harm. president trump's actions take important steps to protect american people to allow the proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorists or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals. and reaction is pouring in.
8:55 am
>> eric: historic morning this morning. the critics are going after this decision. i just heard cory booker. even thought the president says it's a victory and vindication for him. the aclu criticizing it. critics say it is discriminatory and for them a dark day for our country. if you listen to the president who we expect to hear from within the hour or so, it is a victory to try to protect this nation in his view from the terrorists who would want to do us harm. >> sandra: this just in from the department of justice, the attorney general jeff sessions weighing in and reacting. today is a great victory for the safety and security for all americans. the constitution and acts of congress confer on the president's broad discretion to protect the interests of the united states. the reaction from the left and right on the political realm pouring in as well. we have been live outside the supreme court which, by the way, we were waiting for these
8:56 am
rulings to come in this morning as this was the last day of the supreme court term. that is actually getting pushed back by a day or two if you heard shannon bream's reporting earlier because we're actually still waiting on a couple more rulings to come down. >> eric: today is the big ruling which we'll talk about on the fox news channel all day and into the evening. we're expecting to hear from the president shortly following the ruling, 5-4 by the supreme court backing the travel ban. we'll bring that to you as soon as it happens. stay with us here in "america's newsroom" on the fox news channel for this tuesday. fact that i served. i was a c130 mechanic in the corps, so i'm not happy unless my hands are dirty. between running a business and four kids, we're busy. auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance policies. knowing that usaa will always have my back... that's just one less thing you have to worry about. i couldn't imagine going anywhere else. they're like a friend of the family.
8:57 am
we are the cochran family, and we'll be usaa members for life. save by bundling usaa home and auto insurance. get a quote today.
8:58 am
8:59 am
i never thought i'd say this... ...but i found bladder leak underwear... ...that's actually pretty. always discreet boutique hidden inside... ...is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel. [snap!] so i feel protected... ...and pretty. always discreet boutique. >> sandra: what a morning, eric. >> busy. the big decision reinforces the presidential authority. we'll likely see it extended to the issue of immigration with the travel ban decision. >> sandra: we covered the legal analysis, political analysis. a lot more to come throughout the day on fox news channel. thank you for tuning in for breaking news. busy morning.
9:00 am
more on fox news channel now. "outnumbered" begins now. >> have a good day. >> melissa: fox news alert. a lot of new reaction to the supreme court decision to uphold president trump's ban on travel from several mostly muslim countries. the court rejecting a challenge of the ban discriminates from muslim or exceeds the president's authority. he is having lunch with the republican lawmakers right now. of course we do expect some remarks from him this hour. this is "outnumbered." i'm melissa francis. here today host of "kennedy" on fox business. kennedy herself. republican strategist and senior fellow for the independent woman's voice, lisa boothe. former deputy spokesperson for the state department, fox news analyst and the host of "benson and harf." marie harf. and joining us on the couch today, conservative commentator and editor and chief of campusreform.org lawrence jones. he is "outnumbered." you picked a big day to join us. >> lawrence: thank you for

68 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on