opposed to try to dismantle and reinstruct. those efficiencies hopefully can be built on. >> thanks for your expertise on this. >> thank you. >> and thank you all so much for joining us at this hour. >> inside politics with john king starts right now. welcome to inside politics. a very biz action-packed hour ahead. we'll show you some live pictures. the senate judiciary committee on capitol hill about to vote on the controversial nomination of jeff sessions. senator from alabama, to be the next attorney general of the united states. the snu secretary of homeland security john kelly about to brief reporters. it's his job now, despite his differences, to implement the controversial travel ban president trump implemented the other day. we'll go live as soon as that happens. let's set the table. taking charge. taking names. call it what you will.

president trump swiftly fires the acting attorney general for what he calls betrayal. that decision, her refusal to enforce his new immigration ban because she believed it was unconstitutional. trump supporters, just a defiant washington shake-up they demanded. democrats, though, see it very differently. borrowing an old watergate reference to call it the monday night massacre, and a threat they say to the independence of the justice department. >> when he did fire her, he vilified her. seeing a woman in nonpartisan roles in republican and democratic presidents has betrayed the justice department. >> the democratic anger spilled over today to the senate committee vote. we just mentioned to you his choice to lead the justice department. senator jeff sessions. >> if confirmed, what will this nominee do? will he support and defend these broad and destructive executive orders? will he carry out and enforce

the president's actions that may very well violate the constitution? if past is prologue -- >> let's get straight to the homeland security secretary john kelly briefing reporters on the president's immigration order. >> this is antd travel ban. it's a temporary awe pause that lets us -- the visa vetting system. over the next 30 days we will analyze and assess the strengths and weaknesses of our current immigration system, which is the most generous in the world. we will then provide our foreign partners with 60 days to cooperate with a national security requirements. this way we can insure the system is doing what it is designed to do, which is protect the american people. this analysis is long overdue and strongly supported by the department's career intelligence officials.

acting undersecretary for dhs will speak to that in more detail shortly. furthermore, this is not -- i repeat -- not a ban on muslims. the homeland security mission is to safeguard the american people, our homeland, our values, and religious liberty is one of our most fundamental and treasured values. it is important to understand that there are terrorists and other bad actors who are seeking to infiltrate our homeland every single day. the seven countries named in the executive order are those designated by congress in the obama administration as requiring additional security when making decisions about who comes in to our homeland. as my predecessor secretary johnson liked to say, it is easiest to play defense on the 50 yard line than it is on the 1 yard line.

we did not gamble with american lives. we will not. it is my sworn responsibility as secretary of homeland security to protect and defend the american people. i have directed departmental leadership to implement the president's executive orders professionally, humanely, and in accordance with the law. since the court orders remanded to the executive order were issued over the weekend, cvp immediately began taking steps that's customs and border protection, immediately began taking steps to be in compliance. we are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders. we have also been working with our partners at the departments of defense, justice and state. we are committed to insuring that all individuals affected by the e.o.'s, including those affected by the court orders, are being provided all rights afforded under our laws. our job is to protect the

homeland. these executive orders help to do that. i'm happy to have my colleagues answer any questions, clarify any positions, that may be confusing. we have with us today acting commissioner of cvp, acting commissioner of ice and my intelligence -- other department's intelligence chief. with that -- >> good afternoon. u.s. customs and border protection. i'm here to talk about the implementation of the executive order. upon receipt of the executive order cvp took immediate actions to implement the key provisions, calling for suspending entry for 90 days to non-immigrant visa holders and immigrant visa holders from the seven affected countries. we routinely make changes in our systems and our policies for immigration entry at our border, and we acted quickly on friday evening to make the changes with this executive order.

we issued written guidance. we had called stake holders. these are air carriers and airports starting just a few hours after receiving the order so that they would understand how to operate. we also overnight on friday and saturday worked through the process to be able to waive travellers that were in transit or had sensitive cases that should be considered for a waiver in the national interest as executive order calls for. to put this in context, in the first 72 hours of the order one million travellers came through our borders via air. out of those travellers 500,000 of them were foreign nationals. the people affected by this order we denied boarding to 721 travellers that had visas from the affected countries, but we actually processed for waivers

1,060 lawful permanent residents of the united states as well as an additional 75 waivers granted to immigrant visa and non-immigrant visa holders. permanent residents, special immigrant visa holders are allowed to board they are flights and will be processed for a waiver upon arrival. again, we've done that over 1,000 times so far in the few days of the implementation. secondly, immigrant visa holders and non-immigrant visa holders will be denied before they board their aircraft and will be referred to department of state for further process. another question that has come up is whether dual nationals are treated differently. travellers will be assessed at our border based on the passport they present. not any dual national status. if you are a citizen of the united kingdom, you present your united kingdom boss port. the executive order does not apply to you upon arrival.

i also want to talk a little bit about refugees. the executive order calls for refugees that were ready to travel where it would cause undue hardship, that they should be considered for waivers. we've done that in concert with our department of state colleagues. 872 refugees will be arriving this week and we'll be processing them for waivers through the end of the week, and that's fully coordinated. as secretary kelly noted, we are responding immediately to any court orders. we did so quickly on friday night with the eastern district of new york order, and those parties that were affected by that order were processed for a waiver and admitted into the united states. lastly, i just want to tell you that to increase communications and provide additional information to travellers, we are updating on our website. it will be there as you log in at cvp.gov, a statement about the implementation, faq's, getting information to travellers, the public, and other stake holders as well as a link for specific questions affecting individual travellers

and a phone number to call. all that will be on our website. thank you. >> good morning. i'm thomas. i'm the acting director for ice. i can tell you it was a great honor to be contacted in the last couple of days and asked to step up in this capacity as acting director. my plans to retire were put on hold, and i did so because i chose to serve my country once again. for those who don't know me, i've been an immigration enforcement business for 33 years. i start on the frontlines in u.s. border patrol, and i was with the office of investigations, homeland security investigations for over 20 years climbing the ranks there. on the back end,ing detaining -- i certainly know the immigration life cycle and how to enforce immigration laws. i chose to come back and act in this capacity because of my concern for the communities and the safety of our communities. you know, folks, there's

jurisdictions across the country where aliens are arrested, criminal aliens convicted of serious crimes and jurisdictions without any cooperation with ice. we're back in the communities, back in our communities. that causes my officers to once again go out in the community, knock on the door to arrest someone they should have arrested and taken to jail. i'm here to execute a mission within a framework provided me. that framework has changed on the executive orders of president trump. the men and women of ice will execute them perfectly, and we're here to serve as an organization. thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm dave, the acting undersecretary for intelligence. i just want to echo secretary kelly's remarks, the national security of the united states is of utmost priority. this is the fundamental responsibility of our government to protect the national homeland from neff abad actors to come ie

united states. this is for us to take a temporary pause and look at how we collect intelligence and run that against databases to identify those actors. i'm taking a look how law enforcement, the intelligence ke community, the department of defense, our federal, state, local law enforcement organizations share information and how we run those not just against refugee populations but anyone coming inbound to the united states to identify the sfis skaitd indicated networks that are trying to -- potentially trying to come inbound. we're trying to break down those barriers to share information, continue our automated screening processes, and vetting process, to make sure that we once again to identify those nepharious actors and network that may be trying to enter the united states. this is a pause to take a look at how we collect data and exploit it against national security threats. thank you.

>> come on up. probably best to be in front of the microphone. who is first? >> thanks. two quick questions. first to the acting ice director. is ice planning on growing detention states for people -- and extending the time in which they are held? then, also, on cvp, you mentioned you spoke to people about the order within 72 hours. would it have been easier if you had any guidance before this order came out? could confusion have been avoided? >> on the first question, yes. we got to secure our borders. those of us entering the united states, we need to detain those people. we're in the process of identifying detention capacity. increasing the length of stay, we look to do just the opposite. we like to keep them in custody as little as possible and make sure they get their due process. once they get that order from the judge, execute that order.

>> before you step up, let me kind of frame it a little bit. we did know the e.o. was coming. we had people involved in the general drafting of it. you know, clearly it was -- this whole approach was part of what then candidate trump talked about for a year or two, so we knew all that was coming. as i say, we had high levels of government and lawyers from across the inner agency to include homeland security that were involved in the drafting of it, so we knew it was coming. it wasn't a surprise it was coming. then we implemented it. go ahead, kevin. >> right. our job at the operational level is to take guidance, whether it's statute, whether it's executive order, or direction from the secretary or in some cases emerging threat and respond as quickly and effectively as possible. we go through that process. the system changes, we need. the communication in the field. the communication with stake holders. in this case we had court orders come in right when we were

implementing the operational plans, so we had to adjust our efforts a little bit, but we worked quickly to implement and i think the process is really smoothed out. just to clarify, the initial he calls weren't within 72 hours. they were within two hours of the executive order being received. >> reporter with congressional quarterly -- two questions, whoever wants to take this. there are several lawmakers and advocacy groups that are saying that some border patrol agents ignored court orders and handcuffed passengers and tried to deport some of them. can you reassure people that, in fact, they were following the orders? the second thing is the president has called the executive order an extreme vetting. can you describe what that over and beyond what has already happened? >> i will say beyond question, no member of the homeland security team ignored a court order. nor would they ignore a court

order. i've heard these reports. i've asked people to include members of congress who call me about them and ask them if they could run down some information for me, and, of course, we don't have any information, but we would not ignore a court order. we're looking at various options, the inner aagency, and led, of course, by homeland security. there are many countries, seven, that we're dealing with right now that we have in my view have -- don't have the kind of law enforcement, records keeping, that kind of thing that can convince us that one of their citizens is, indeed, who that citizen says they are and what their background might be, so there's other -- there's various additional things we're considering on the other end when someone comes in and asks for consideration to get a visa.

it might be certainly an accounting of what websites they visit. it might be telephone contact information so that we can see who they're talking to, but, again, all of this is under development. those are the kind of things we're looking at. social media. we have to be convinced that people that come here, there's a reasonable expectation that we don't know who they are and what they're coming here for and what their backgrounds are. right now there are a number of countries on the planet that don't have that kind of records keeping, police work, that kind of thing, and the seven in question right now for the most part fall into that category, so we are developing what additional vetting extreme vetting might look like and we will certainly work with countries in this. kevin, do you want to -- >> i just add to the secretary's comments. specifically we had a legal time as part of our operational action team in place friday

night. as soon as the court order was received, and they advised us on the immplications. we put a complete hold on anyone being removed in connection with the executive order. we then prosdsed those folks for waive waivers. >> two questions. first one just to clarify what you said that you knew the executive order was coming. is that what you said? you knew it was going to be signed on friday? there have been some reports of the first time you found out about it was when you were on a plane, and you were upset about it. you knew it was coming? >> as i said, we knew it was coming from, like, two years ago when mr. trump first started to run for president. certainly didn't learn about it on an airplane. again, knew it was coming. knew it was signed friday morning. i took a trip down to miami for a couple of different reasons. one of which was to visit the people on the frontlines of this whole effort, and the folks at the miami airport, tsa border patrol, those kind of people had

some time. you know, as you probably all know, i came from -- before i retired 39 months in southern command, went there and talked to admiral curt tid and talked to him about the partnership that is very strong between homeland security and -- i'm very proud to say that developed very closely between myself and i was in command and my very, very good friend jay johnson, and we want to continue that. i didn't learn about it on an airplane. >> how much guidance were you able to give them specific will i when it comes to green card or people who had visas and people that work with you on military. it seems like a lot of the problems that were encountered could have been easily foreseeable. >> the -- i think from our perspective, people like me are expected and not just because my military background, but we are the departments are the implementers of the policy. developed by the white house, approved by the president.

in collaboration and then sent down to the departments for execution, and in this case homeland security. to me it was more or less a collaborative process. it was fairly clear. again, when that came down, i think was in my sixth day on the job, but i relied on people like the ones that are standing up here and the hundreds back at the headquarters to say, okay, we got it, boss. we know -- this looks good to us, and we're off to the races. really, i mean, i kept being asked about chaos at the ports of entry, and as i said, the many, many members of congress and individual phone calls, our officers who were at the counter so to speak, the only chaos they saw was what was taking place in other parts of the airport. they knew what they were doing, as immigrants -- or not immigrants, but foreign nationals presented themselves. they knew what to do with it, and as i say, the only, i

guess -- we had to step back and recaulk just a little bit based on the court order that we immediately implemented. no, i knew this was under development, and i think we were in pretty good shape in how it was implemented by the work force. >> the huffington post. the white house has said repeatedly that 109 people were inconvenienced by this. the number that you gave for getting waivers, like, ten times that. can you explain the discrepancy between 109 and the number of people you just gave who were not let on planes, eventually given waivers? >> i think the 109 certainly was -- i'm recollecting a phone call. the 109 was very early on. it was the first day of the thing. that evening. of course, over time that number would increase, but go ahead,

kevin, if you have anything else. >> to follow-up, though, can you explain why the white house didn't have a current number? they were saying 109 yesterday. >> as kevin will probably outline to you, the records keeping we do is always -- is not always -- it's based on yesterday, so kevin, acting commissioner, can give you some very good numbers yesterday, but in order to get the numbers today, we have to wait until tomorrow. it's just the way they collect the information. actually, you know, obviously it's an ongoing period, though, of comings and goings. that's why they do it that way. i don't know if you have -- >> the secretary is absolutely correct. i understand the white house was referring to the initial hours and the folks that were in transit to the u.s. when the executive order came about. that was a much smaller number that were affected who had landed in the u.s. and were being addressed and some of them were subject to that court order. i think that's the difference in the numbers. we're going to keep updating the numbers on our website so you have the accurate current information as of a validated

number from roughly about 20 hours before. every time we post. >> pierre thomas, abc news. did homeland security acknowledge specific operational plan in place prior to the executive order being signed? secondarily, says when did you learn specifically that president trump was signing the order? >> well, i guess i go back to i knew he was going to sign an order about a year and a half or two years before he became the president-elect. from day one in temz rms of inauguration, finishing touches were being put on the executive order. high level executives and attorneys were part of that. people on my staff were generally involved. i guess probably tuesday, wednesday we learned that it would probably be during the week, that it would be signed

out. as you could imagine, copies go back and forth and they're tweaked right uple -- adjusted to the last minute. i think probably thursday we found out it was going to be signed the next day. certainly if you really, you know -- if you really wanted to know what was in the executive order, just read the newspaper the day before, and you would find out. it was done in that way. of course, kevin and his team, the whole team, knows it's coming. knows what certainly the president-elect and knows what direction the e.o. -- the draft e.o. was outlining, so people like kevin -- i don't know nearly as much about this as he does in terms of how you actually execute right down at the counter level. it was signed, and we executed it. kevin, i think you would agree, the only adjustment that had to be made is when the court order came out and, of course, we reacted that as fast as we could.

>> explain a little bit about the impression of confusion. we heard prosecu we heard from some of the airlines that they were getting contradictory guidance, especially the legal program residents that were allowed to even board aircraft and where they would meet the secondary screening that people started talking about. perhaps you could explain a little bit about that level of confusion and why that developed. >> so under the executive order, section 3, there's a provision for granting of waivers when it's in the national interest. lawful permanent residents are technically covered in the executive order as immigrant visa holders. we worked quickly with council to devise a waiver process. the secretary has given guidance that a returning resident, their status as an lpr in the u.s., is dispositive that it's in the national interest to welcome them home. once we got that guidance, we were able to delegate the authority to grant a waiver out

to the field and were able to clarify with the carriers that these folks were allowed to board. >> that didn't happen immediately, right? by sunday? >> it unfoallded over a matter hours friday into saturday afternoon. that's correct. >> i guess, kevin, i'm a little bit confused, and i don't want to boat a dead horse, but you talked about a year and a half, two years ago you -- we published, the a.p. published it. several days in advance. details of the draft. that doesn't proclued you not knowing -- did you know the detail of what was in the order outside of sort of open source media, who exactly in the department of homeland security was involved, you can't provide names. is that the landing team from the transition, from the trump administration prior to its arrival or was it career staff involved from the department of homeland security prior to this announcement? >> i did know it was under development.

at least two, as i recollect, drafts as it got closer to friday. again, don't exactly know other than some of the legal shot representatives that were involved. i would imagine some -- on the landing team i would imagine some of them, but the point is it came to the department. it was, you know, on a close hold basis meaning we didn't distribute to everyone in the department. only those people that needed it. myself included, my chief. it was a back and forth process. i did talk to representatives in the white house. probably certainly early in the week. how it was being developed. i had seen some of the initial drafts. pretty busy week. i didn't get involved in correcting grammar or

reformatting the thing. >> you saw from the white house, where were they from from the associated press? >> they weren't from the media. they were -- it was far back from the inner agency. >> do you have any sort of advanced working making these drafts, and a draft is made. it was presented to you. >> presented to me. this is a staff primarily a staff process, right? policy and the white house are working with inner agency people. not a large number, i wouldn't expect, of interagency people. i saw the draft. because it's still in staffing, the people that worked around me

were saying, we got it, boss. this is kind of what we expected it to be. i did not look at it from a perspective of as i say correcting the grammar or saying, you know, we need to change these words or do this thing. people that know the immigration process infinitely better than i do right now were people -- and that includes people around the inner agency were the ones that did the staff work and ultimately the president signed it. as you know, in our government that is now passed down to the relevant agency. in this case, homeland security, and we execute it. as kevin has indicated and i would certainly endorse the people on the frontlines, border protection in this particular case, cvp did an outstanding job, and i think, again, more credit is due because they flexed very quickly when the court order came out and throughout all of this the people that were inconvenienced

for some period of time as they were entering our country were treated in a way they're always treated, with dignity and respect. >> a few more questions related -- content related to the executive order itself. >> we are going to drop out of this briefing. ist the secretary of homeland security, john kelly, for other important breaking news. president trump will make a dramatic supreme court pick. he will announce in prime time at 8:00 p.m. at the white house. pamela brown has some breaking news. a little drama, pam, in the hours before we get this pick. >> analysts for president trump, supreme court nominee, judges thomas hardaman and neil gorsich were saying they'll be brought to washington ahead of tonight's primetime announcement. we're told from our sources that the increasing indications are that neil gorsich will be president trump's pick, but every source we've spoken to warned that it is possible that president trump could change his

mind ahead of this norse announcement tonight. this is all an extraordinary measure, we're told through officials, to keep the selection private ahead of tonight's announcement, and also to build the suspense that donald trump has been building really since the campaign when he announced his list of 20 potential nominees. this is all sort of in line with what you might expect from him in that case, and it's also dramatic in line with what we've seen from previous picks as you'll recall, john, with vice president mike pence. there was debate after it leaked that he would be picked whether trump would change his mind. you'll recall with general mattis, when she announced at cnn and broke the news that he would be picked as the defense

secretary. his team openly denied that that was going to happen and then hours later trump announced on stage that general mattis was his pick. really anything can happen between now and tonight. again, our sources are telling us that increasing indications are that judge neil gorsuppech years old. judge hardaman. he served on the bench with donald trump's sister. those are the two finalists being brought to washington ahead of the big announcement. back to you, john. >> pam, stand by. i want to get to your colleague who helped on this reporting. donald trump, he is our president, but he also knows how to produce a big event. he loves the big stage. bringing two finalists to town. when we have to be pretty certain, despite his past history that, he knows who the number one is. that's one bit of flare to this. is there a big difference

between these two men? both federal appellate judges. both relatively young. would be on the befrm quite a long time. is there a difference between them that might make one more palettable to the united states senate than the other? >> it's interesting. neil gorsuch, he would be more the establishment pick, right? he is from colorado. a kennedy clerk. he has opinions on religious liberty. the conservatives really like him. he is young, 49 years old. presidents like to put young people up there for a lasting legacy, and he sailsed through his confirmation hearings. then there's thomas hardaman. he has a very interesting personal story that might appeal to trump. he was first in his family to graduate from college. he drove a cab for a while. he is friends with trump's sister. two conservatives, but they're pretty different in the calculation that trump will have to make. >> pam brown, stay with us. pam, as we await this to play

out tonight, there's always competing forces on something like this. he said he would pick from this list, but even today even though conservatives are basically happy, now you see a little pushing, some like gorsuch, and some like hardi-man. who is the most important person to the president on this search? >> you're right. this is the biggest parlor game in washington. you hear people say i think he is going to pick gorsuch or hardi-man. we're told, john, that president trump, or the white house, i should say, has told judge gorsuch that he is likely the pick as his nominee. that just shows you the extraordinary lengths the white house is going telling him that, but not being 100% certain with it, and bringing them both to washington to make sure that this isn't leaked out. like i said earlier, john, things could change between now and tonight. our sources say that early indications and increasing indications are that judge

gorsuch will be the pick, and i think arianne laid out why it's leaning towards him, john. >> back to you after the reporting develops. a dramatic day here in washington. a supreme court pick about to be announced and it seems almost an afterthought given the drama. at the top of the program we went straight to the department of homeland security. i didn't get a chance to introduce my guest here today. with me to share the reporting margaret talbot from bloomberg, c n cnn's nia malika henderson. let's start right there. as i said, the president has television experience. the president likes drama. he likes a big event. he schedules this at 8:00 in primetime like george w. bush did when he unveiled chief justice roberts years back. to bring two candidates. one of these finalists, an esteemed federal appellate judge, i assume, is going to feel a little disappointed at the end of this. >> i would think they would. i think the key question hanging over all of this is the united states senate. i was actually in the roosevelt room this morning with the

president as a member of the white house pool, and i asked him a question, which he didn't answer, and i think it's one of the most important ones. has he talked to senator mcconnell about the nuclear option on this pick? that means not having 60 votes here, losing eight democrats. that is the question here. democrats are going to fight both of these two candidates, but it's a reason that william pryor is not on the list here. he, of course, is from alabama. he is viewed as much more conservative on abortion, on other things. both of these are likely confirmable here, but at the end of the day the white house advisors i talked to say it's that connection the president had with both of them in their personal interviews, and we don't know the answer to that. all signs point to mr. gorsuch, but, you know, we'll have to stay tuned. they say he does not want to preempt himself. >> to jeff's point, for those of you watching around the country, might not understand nuclear option, currently the supreme court picks you need 60 votes.

given the current environment just in the last 24 hours the democrats have escalated. the democrats have gotten more aggress i boycotting a key confirmation hearing today to block the votes for the treasury secretary and health and human services secretary. how much does that because of this travel ban, because of the early actions of the president, you have a more toxic, even more partisan, hard to say that sometimes to believe it, but even more partisan environment. how does that affect the climate that awaits the justice we get tonight? >> i think a lot of people thought this big fight over the filibuster might well wait for the second supreme court nomination, because no matter who trump picks for this seat, you are talking about a conservative replacing a conservative. you're not really swinging the court dramatically. there may be incremental changes. the next seat that comes open, if it's ruth bater ginsberg, then you would have a liberal being replaced by a

conservative, and we would expect everyone to go to the mat. the real question is are democrats so angry, so enraged, and are there constituents worked up bir the firing of -- >> these two picks, i'm going to say, this is almost contrarian to what we've seen from president trump so far. if it's from these two lists, two very tal ened esteemed federal judges. democrats will argue they're out of the mainstream. they have an accomplished record on the bench. for a president to have won every other battle and has decided to pick the fight. if he does this, maybe it's an occasion he is thinking about the second pick. or maybe he is listening to someone that says you don't want to do this out of the gate. >> you still have to look at the democrats. you have some, for instance, saying she might filibuster, and the sense that you talked to progressives, you talked to democrats. there's sort of been a sense that democrats didn't really show up during the nominees

fight. there was sort of a lot of screaming and no sort of final blocking of any of these nominees, and they certainly see this as a stolen seat, right? merrick gar land and mitch mcconnell standing strongly. people thought it was a political mistake. it ended up being political goeltd for republicans to block that seat. for ten months. it worked. it worked. of course, republicans see this as scalia's seat. you know, we'll have to see. i mean, i do think in this climate there is this sense that, you know, democrats have to show some fight in this one. >> democrats have been sitting on a very powerful potential weapon right now, which is public opinion, and they need to decide kind of how to measure. like you don't want to go over the top and turn the public against you. right now the way president trump rolled out this immigration order of last few days, democrats all they had to do was to a large extent get out of the way, show up for a couple of protests here and there.

you have ceos lining up. republicans in congress expressing confusion. if they decide to overly eject themselves in the case of two nominees that are, let's say, mainstream in the context of what the options were here, then they would have the consequences of that. >> everything is different with this president. maybe his supreme court pick won't be the biggest fight in town as it has been in every other administration and some of the other things. sit tight. we're going to take a quick break. democrats now boycotting votes on two of the president's picks for the cabinet, for the secretary of the treasury and health and human services. they could block the president there and force dramatic tactics in the president. jeff sessions, the president's choice to be attorney general. democrats don't e don't like him even more so because of the dust-up of the immigration ban. stay with us. a lot of breaking news inside politics continues in just a minute.

and my life is basketball.west, but that doesn't stop my afib from leaving me at a higher risk of stroke. that'd be devastating. i took warfarin for over 15 years. until i learned more about once-daily xarelto®... a latest-generation blood thinner. then i made the switch. xarelto® significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. it has similar effectiveness to warfarin.

warfarin interferes with vitamin k and at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective. targeting one critical factor of your body's natural clotting function. for people with afib currently well-managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke. like all blood thinners, don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of a blood clot or stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you have had spinal anesthesia while on xarelto®, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. to help protect yourself from a stroke, ask your doctor about xarelto®.

insurance changes? xarelto® has you covered. it's about moving forward not back. it's looking up not down. it's feeling up thinking up

living up. it's being in motion... in body in spirit in the now. boost. it's not just nutrition. it's intelligent nutrition. with 26 vitamins and minerals and 10 grams of protein. all in 3 delicious flavors. it's choosing to go in one direction... up. boost. be up for it. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

welcome back. a lot of breaking news on a busy day in washington. day 12 of the trump administration. we are a few hours away from the president announcing his first pick for supreme court. we are being told two finalists being brought to washington. the department of homeland security, the new secretary john kelly, a retired general trying to calm fears and quiet any doubts about the president's controversial executive order restricting immigration and travel into the united states from seven majority muslim countries. the main message from general kelly, lisp heten here, he says priority one is keeping americans safe and the controversy, in his view, overblown. >> this is not -- i repeat -- not a ban on muslims, and we cannot gamble with american lives. i will not gamble with american

lives. these orders are a matter of national security. it is my sworn responsibility as a secretary of homeland security to protect and defend the american people. >> the general -- i should call you secretary now, trying to be a calmi ining voice here, but s key questions about whether he was blindsided by the white house and exactly when he knew certain things, he tended to gloss over the details on those. >> that's right, john. he was essentially saying that we all knew that this executive order was coming, that certainly for the last couple of years that donald trump was running for president we knew this executive order was going to be coming, and so for him, he is saying, this was not a surprise. he said also he saw earlier drafts and that kept him abreast of what was coming. he also said key members of his

team, customs and border protection, that immigration and customs enforcement, they all knew the language that was coming. that, however, still translated into some confusion on the ground on friday night, saturday. they did acknowledge that they had to go back and do some legal reinterpretation of how this affected the green cardholders. these are legal permanent residents who have a right to come back into this country. they're legal permanent residents of the united states, and initially there was a legal reading that was overruled by the white house. here mr. kelly said that in the end everything was taken care of. certainly by the end of the weekend everything was running a lot more smoothly. he said they also were very good about complying with the court orders. as you know, there are about a half dozen jurisdictions where courts intervened because of the way these were being handled. again, the impression that he is giving is that everything was done appropriately and certainly by now it's everything is okay

now. >> certainly we all get the impression that he understands this is on his watch now even though it came out of the white house. let's go quickly now to capitol hill. more breaking news. democrats are trying to stall, number one, the appointment of president trump's choice for attorney general. they probably don't have the votes to have that, but a new tactic to try to block a vote on the president's controversial choices to lead the treasury departments and the department of health and human services. cnn political correspondent manu raju with that. democrats, new wrinkle here, as they try to block these appointments. >> yeah, that's right. actually not attending a committee vote happening just a couple of hours ago. the senate finance committee scheduled to vote on the nomination to lead the treasury department and tom price's nomination to lead health and human services. there needs to be at least one democrat on that committee to actually have a vote according to the committee rules, and so what do they decide to do? not show up because they believe that mr. price and mr. manuchin did not answer questions in a

straight forward manner. they say they "lied" according to the democrats, and they wanted more information before agreeing to that vote. republicans are furious. i talked to senator orrin hatch, the chairman much the finance committee, and he teed off on democrats. take a listen. >> well, they are idiots. anybody that would do something like that, it's just complete breach of decorum, a complete breach of committee rules, a complete breach of just getting along around here. >> now the question, john, is what happens next, and that is an open question. if democrats do not cooperate, i am told the last resolution here is to actually install these nominees through a recess appointment. recessing and donald trump using his constitutional authority to install these as a recess appointment. that's because the senate rules do not allow for a vote to happen if the committee vote does not happen. this could actually limit how long they could serve in their

administration without getting senate confirmed. we'll see if that's a last step they could take. clearly democrats, another tactic to try to delay donald trump from getting some of the more controversial nominees confirmed, john. >> the democrats might have seemed more emboldened in recent days. they've seen the protest in this about the president's travel bans. they're getting calls telling them to toughen up, stand up and fight more. is that what this is a product of or do they just sense some political weakness up there, and they see some opening to make a stand. >> i think it's a little bit of both. they're definitely being pulled by their base to take a very firm line on whoever donald trump has nominated for some of the key cabinet positions. the question is will they take that same tactic? also for the supreme court nominee, i'm told from a number of democratic senators, they do not want to go that far because they believe that a conservative supplely replacing a conservative it won't tipple idealogical balance of the court, and the filibuster for supreme court nominees and want to wait to make that fight in the next donald trump pick,

presumably placing a more liberal justice, but will their base let them take that more moderate tack. it's unclear. some liberals want to take a tough line, and are you seeing that happen in some cabinet nominees as well, john. >> manu, busy day on capitol hill. we'll check back in if anything else happens. where he had the president's supreme court pick tonight. democratic boycott tactic here. the vote on senator sessions is about to happen. betsy devoss, the education secretary, put out a committee on a party line vote. no democrats voting for her. welcome today 12 of the trump administration. there's more to talk about as well. to this climate, we knew the democrats don't like this president. they don't support this president. they were going to oppose much of this president, but am i wrong since the weekend actually since the march the woman's march here and following through the president's travel ban order, you see the progressive organizations getting fired up, and essentially telling their members -- >> i think there's no question

there's been an escalation since the weekend. i would add the airport protests to that as well. you really saw members of congress going out to the airports sort of pleading to get access to the detainees who were apparently being deported, notwithstanding, what general kelly said earlier. there seemed to be some disconnect between the facts he was asserting and other facts that lawyers are claiming about people being told to sign away their green cards and sent to ethiopia or things like that. it will be interesting to see over the next few days how some of those facts are hashed out. >> i think you call that taking one for the team. interesting to see -- that was taking one for the team. this climate also includes the president's decision yesterday to fire the acting attorney general, who was an obama hold-over who said in her view they e she would not implement this kbektive order because she thought it was unlawful, and she was using that, the statements he made in the campaign, that general kelly was talking about that the intent if her view, even though it doesn't say it on paper, was to ban muslims. the president says you have betrayed me and you're fired.

democrats say that's proving that he will not allow, he will put all power in the white house and not allow an independent justice department. >> perhaps, but it is an obama appointee, who was confirmed widely, if not unanimously. i'm not sure this is a perfect test case for that. the justice department is independent. he is not the president's lawyer. if jeff sessions is concerned. the reality here is i think the bigger question -- you talk to republicans in this town and others -- why didn't they wait until senator sessions of the attorney general? he is likely to be confirmed. then none of this would have happened. i think this crisis -- the steve bannons of the world are into this. they sort of like all this going on, but i'm not sure it's done much for building relationships across this town because there are cabinet secretaries who are not pleased by how this rolled out. >> it created a lot of -- cabinet secretaries are taking their jobs. secretary mattis at the pentagon. secretary kelly at homeland security. again, he was a loyal -- certainly a loyal player there. i'm told rex tillerson, who is waiting to be confirmed as

secretary of state has told people this is not what i signed up for because they see this happening. you mentioned mr. bannon. obviously a senior advisor to the president. has, i think, right to say, a lot of people think he is more powerful inside the white house than the man who has the title chief of staff, rooieince prieb. >> that's right. bannon's motto is apparently honey badger doesn't give a crap, and that's what we've seen. this sort of chaos if his appointment to the nsc and seeming to display some other people, and these kind of thiefdoms in the white house whether it's priebus having one and spicer and kellyanne conway, and kushner, if you read the "vanity fair" article, perhaps feeling cut out of some of the decision making with bannon being the right-hand man of this president. >> i just want to sneak this in. the "new york times" editorial page not a fan of mr. bannon. he was immensely gratified by

the applause for about mr. bannon's and casually weaponized executive orders, and those same ideas are damaging the presidency. here's my question. he was elected with 46% of the vote. clearly if you were a trump supporter, this president is keeping his promises. whether he can fulfill them or if these executive orders holds up, he goes to build the border wall, institutes his travel ban, repeals obama care. my question is if you keep that base happy but you alienate the rest, can you govern? he didn't win a majority of the vote, but they clearly think that's what they need to do. >> not over the course of four years, but he has -- >> are we sure? >> well, history suggests. certainly over the course of the first 12 days, which, remember, is where we are. that's exactly what they're pushing to do. there's a couple of ways to read the lessons of president obama's run in office first term. one way to read it is that he really had one very short window to put all of his chips on the table, and after that --

>> for 18 months or so. >> it didn't matter. >> if the opposition is fractured, if he keeps the 46%, it may not be a majority, but it's the biggest piece. if he keeps it. can he get the votes on capitol hill? >> there's a question about the tone and being that ticks surrounding everything. a lot of these moves could have been made without some of the provocative language. some of the sharp edges could have been buffered off. some of the things could have been deferred. there was no reason that immigration order had to be issued, you know, a week into the presidency. it could have been deferred, as jeff was saying, to sometime later on, and instead they decide to rush everything fashd, and sometimes it's important to make a clean entry. think about health care.gov. you know, he may have had a good plan. if you don't come out strong at the beginning, that's all anybody remembers. >> an excellent point. when you say that, it reminds me of what they saidat the homeland security briefing. this will be on the website. explanation will be on our website soon. i think to the point if they had done this more meticulously, you had that briefing at the homeland security. not five days later. you have that day.

we shall see. it's been interesting, the first 12 days, and more to come. remember, supreme court pick tonight 8:00 p.m. special coverage here on cnn. thanks for joining us "inside politics" today. up next, my colleague wolf blitzer is here and we're waiting for the white house press secretary, sean spicer, to hold his daily briefing. much more action-packed day. stay with us. she's got natural , no bitter aftertaste and she's calorie-free. so that's it? we made you a cake. with sugar? oh, no. (laughing) so that's it? we made you a cake. "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business.

as after a dvt blood clot,ital i sure had a lot to think about. what about the people i care about? ...including this little girl. and what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i asked my doctor. and he recommended eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. yes, eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. both made me turn around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily ...and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines.

tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis the right treatment for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you. approaching medicare eligibility? you may think you can put off checking out your medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling. keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps

along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide. it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you, keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything.

the rest is up to you. call now, request your free decision guide and start gathering the information you need to help you keep rolling with confidence. go long™. ♪ we are following several breaking news stories out of washington wusht. we're only moments away from the white house press briefing. the press secretary sean spicer will liable be asked lots of questions about the president's decision also breaking this hour, democrats are now boycotting committee votes on some of president trump's cabinet nominees. health and human services secretary nominee tom pricend