orbit cinnamon gum every day before noon. >> he doesn't just chew them, he chews and swallows them. >> what spokesman wouldn't like to spout off like this p.m. >> what are you doing? >> this is soappy water and i'm washing that filthy lyin' mouth. >> reporter: jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> i guess he's lucky they say, that's an old wives tale that it lives for 7 years in your stomach when you swallow gum, thanks for watching. hope you had a good day, thanks for joining us. we have breaking news on president trump's travel ban which could go to the supreme court. comes after a day and weekend of tweets, sound bytes and headlines from trump. he's back in washington today after speaking in tampa, igni igniting a controversy over something he said. he is drawing fire for a tweet over the weekend slamming the judge who put his travel ban on

hold onfully night. the appeals court handling that case, received final written arguments from the justice department on restoring it, and they scheduled it for tomorrow. pamela brown joins us now. what are the government's main arguments to lift the judge's temporary halt of the travel ban? >> the district judge who issued this injunction was wrong and overstepped his bounds. the department of justice lawyers argued in the brief filed just tonight that the court's sweeping nationwide injunction is vastly overbroad, extending far beyond the state's legal claims, it argued the president has wide discretion under both the constitution and the law to manage immigration, particularly when it comes to national security and refugees, and it says in part, that the state simply don't have standing to even bring this lawsuit, the states in this case, being washington and minnesota. and it says in this brief filed tonight the state lacks authority to sue to protect its

citizens from the operation of the federal law. this is important, because you have to show injury. you have to prove that to the courts and in this case, the department of justice is saying that there is no standing. so in the end it could down to that. tonight it talks about the fact that the refugees and those citizens of those seven countries and the travel ban who have never stepped foot in the united states, do not have constitutional rights according to department of justice lawyers. what's interesting, at the end of the 15 page brief, there is what's called a carveout, basically an option that doj is giving the ninth circuit judges to limit the injunction if they must to previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the united states in the future. these people would have previously not been allowed to travel to the u.s. under the travel ban for at least 90 days, the lawyers are saying, if you must, at least limit this to

them, not the others. >> what do the states argue now? >> really at the heart of the state's argument for both minnesota and washington state, according to the attorneys general, the fact that it hurts their economy, it hurts businesses, it breaks up families, it hurts public universities. for example, a medical student from one of those seven countries who's here in the united states on a visa. and it's clear that the district judge in washington state, judge robard, believes there's some merit to those claims, they could be successful in those claims, that in part factored into his decision -- >> the hearing tomorrow, that's obviously the next step in this process? >> that's right. this is going to be oral arguments, both sides will have 30 minutes, it's going to be over the phone. we got word it will be live streamed, 3:00 p.m. pacific time is the time of the hearing. after that, we expect the ninth

circuit court to act quickly to issue its decision you can bet that the losing side will want to appeal, which means it could go to the supreme court fairly quickly. >> joining us now to speak about the state's argument. bob ferguson is joining us again. i want to get your initial reaction to the argument. >> no surprise, they're repeating arguments they made before judge robart, that he was not persuaded by. there's nothing in the filing i've seen. i only had a chance to look at it quickly, there's nothing in there that's particularly surprising. >> the argument that your state doesn't have standing to be bringing this to court. what do you say? >> that's central to the argument for judge robart, we

make it clear we're bringing this case on behalf of numerous residents of our state that are adversely impacted by this executive order. and now 97 businesses from microsoft to google filed supporting after dave its on their businesses, resulting from this action. we believe we have a very strong case of our standing, it's one that was persuasive obviously to judge robart. >> when they say this judge overreached, he went onthe what he should, what do you say? >> well, of course they're going to say that, right? judge robart has an excellent reputation, as you know, he was appointed by george w. bush, i understand that's their argument, but it's a pretty straightforward case, right? the federal government wants to assert that one cannot look behind or examine eye present

action. anderson, that simply has never been the law and cannot be the law. we are a nation of laws, the president must act in a constitution aal fashion. it's in our checks and balances for the judiciary to look at an executive order. >> thats with done against president obama too and some of his executive orders? >> that's exactly right. his order relating to immigration reform was struck down by the courts. it started with a district court judge in texas. i believe the lawsuit was initiated by the texas attorney general, and a similar thing happened. a federal trial court judge struck it down nationwide. the court of appeals there, upheld that, and the supreme court split 4-4 if i recall correctly. which upheld the lower court decision. we've seen this before. and there was standing in that case for the plaintiffs. we anticipate the ninth circuit will take the same position the

circuit court took in that case. >> if they do -- you said you think they'll back the judge's ruling. if they rule against your state, you're willing to take this all the way to the supreme court? >> i'm in this for the long hall. i believe strongly in my legal team believes strongly that the executive order is unlawful and unconstitutional. i view it as my duty and responsibility on behalf of the people i represent, to use every legal tool at my disposal. that's why we moved so quickly to file this lawsuit the monday after the executive order was announces. literally every hour, every day counts, i was at seatac airport for the first time, getting a chance to folks who had been denied access in the past. they want to be reunited with

their spouses, their cousins work at boeing. it was a good scene. it's not an abstract notion of law. the law has a huge impact of the people of this country and that's why upholding the constitution matters so much. >> when president trump tweets out, that the so-called judge is endangering the united states, if there's an attack, he should get the blame, what do you think? what did you think when you saw those tweets? >> you know, where to start, anderson. i guess what i can say is my mother and father raised me to be gracious in victory and defeat as a kid. that's what we try to pass on to our young children. based on those tweets, it appears to me it's a lesson that's been lost on president trump. >> if you can stay with us, i want to bring in our panel, page pa pate, alan dershowitz and ken

kuch kuchenelli. i would like to give you a chance to ask the attorney general a question, if you'd like. >> sure. one of the arguments made in what i think was a very good brief by the justice department was that there is a compromise possibly a foot here. namely, you didn't even ask the judge in the federal district court to extend his injunction to people who have never been in the country, have never set foot in the country, who are just seeking a visa. you didn't ask for it, he grarnted that. the justice department is now suggesting that well maybe you can split the difference here. maybe you can continue the injunction as to people who have been in the country, who have had contact with the country, the people you described coming to work or reunite with relatives while elimb 2345i9ing the injunction as it applies to people who are outside the country, have never been in the country and probably have no

constitutional right to come into the country. would you be prepared to sit down with the government and try to negotiate a compromise along those lines? >> thanks for that question, pro23pr profess professor, yes, the briefing from the justice department, and the oral argument have been excellent. those attorneys are well known to me and my office. to answer your question directly on whether i'm prepared to sit down with the federal government and work out a compromise, no. we have a constitution. >> why not? >> i expect the president and the federal government to uphold the constitution. >> you didn't even ask -- >> i think it's revealing that the federal government is willing to concede some ground based on our argument. they started by saying we have nothing here, we webt to trial court, the ninth circuit court of appeals refused an emergency stay. from my standpoint the executive order is unconstitutional, and that's the bottom line. >> you didn't even ask the court

to extend it to people who have never been in the country. doesn't that sound unreasonable you would not accept now something that you don't even ask the court to do. that makes you sound more unreasonable than the president of the united states. and that's a pretty low this remember hold. >> judges have broad discretion to rule based on how they see appropriate. it's entirely appropriate for judge robart to take the position he did. am i prepared to negotiate something with the federal government at this poirn the? no, until they're willing to strike down sections 3 and 5 of the executive order, the conversation we're going to be having is before the ninth circuit. >> is there anything you would like to ask the attorney general from washington. >> i listened to your comments earlier, you said you're suing on behalf of people in your state, businesses in your state, have you alleged any actual harm

to the corporate entity that is the state of washington by this order, or are you simply stepping in on behalf of people and businesses in your state? >> the universities are part of the state we represent them, and so, for example, universities colleges, the many students who are adversely impacted by this executive order to give one example. that was discussed at the oral argument before judge robart, he ruled in our favor that we're in a position to bring this particular cause of action. >> we have to take a quick break, we'll have a lot more to talk about in this two hour edition of 360. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance

of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz. now's your chance at completely clear skin. so we sent that sample i doff to ancestry. i was from ethnically. my ancestry dna results are that i am 26% nigerian. i am just trying to learn as much as i can

about my culture. i put the gele on my head and i looked into the mirror and i was trying not to cry. because it's a hat, but it's like the most important hat i've ever owned. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. g new cars. you're smart. you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is, and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar. where's the car? it'll be here in three...uh, four minutes. are you kidding me? no, looks like he took a wrong turn. don't worry, this guy's got like a four-star rating, we're good. his name is randy. that's like one of the most trustworthy names! ordering a getaway car with an app? are you randy? that's me! awesome! surprising. what's not surprising? how much money erin saved by switching to geico. everybody comfortable with the air temp? i could go a little cooler. ok.

fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. what powers the digital world? communication. like centurylink's broadband network that gives 35,000 fans a cutting edge game experience. or the network that keeps a leading hotel chain's guests connected at work, and at play. or the it platform that powers millions of ecards every day for one of the largest greeting card companies. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink. welcome back, the breaking news tonight, oral arguments coming up tomorrow before the

ninth circuit court of appeals in san francisco on president trump's travel ban. right before the break attorney general cuccinelli asked a question, attorney general, could you not only -- if you could explain why that question is important to you, about washington, whether washington made the argument that they -- that there was harm done by the president. >> whenever an attorney general comes in to federal court to challenge action of the federal government, the first issue to be demonstrated is that the state itself is somehow injured. and even the attorney general's answer with respect to state employees was suing on behalf of state employees, the history in this area is individuals are the only ones with standing, and that's also why a district court in massachusetts on the same day, last friday, that what we've been talking about was going on, ruled that the president's order was facially

constitutional, appropriate and inappropriate for the court to step in and take any action. much less going radically beyond what the litigants even requested as happened with the judge on friday out in washington. so -- >> okay. >> that standing is the first threshold, it's often a tough one for states. i've won and lost on those arguments, when this gets all the way through the process, standing is going to lose, states are going to lose on standing in this case. >> let me bring in attorney general ferguson, what do you think about that? >> well, the attorney general raises a very important point, he's exactly right when he says the issue of standing, whether the state can bring this claim is fundamental and discussed at length before judge robart, he's aware of it as well. when i sued the obama administration, in my first term as attorney general, standing was an issue there. it went to whether or not i could bring a claim at a nuclear waste site in washington state. we had a big conversation about

standing in that case, we prevailed there as well. i'm confident judge robart has it right here, just like the judge in the eastern district of washington had it right, when i sued the obama administration, it's a critical issue and one the ninth circuit will no doubt be grappling with as weapon. >> i was reading through the department from the department of justice, i wanted to ask you about the last section. at most there could be an exception for previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or wish to travel to the united states in the future, which is what i think professor dershowitz was alluded to. at most, these people should be exempt? >> i'm not exactly sure. literally we just got this document in the last hour or so, i've not had a chance to read it carefully with my solicitor general and legal team, i don't want to make any premature statements. i do find this conversation interesting around that. >> attorney general cuccinelli? >> why question. >> can i follow up on that? >> what was argued was, that for those individuals, aliens to

this country who have never set foot in this country and are not currently in this country, they cannot possibly have any rights or any right to judicial review. they don't even have the right to have their decision heard in court. if you take that away, and phobe us on what remains, that's the piece of the brief you're talking about, anderson, and it would wipe out 989, 99% of the individuals involved, and they would be under the president's order. >> i want to let you in, i would like to hear what you think about president trump calling the federal judge a so-called judge? >> i think it's outrageous, here's a man who cen willy called the former president of the united states a so-called president. here's a man who was confirmed 99-0, a republican appointee, he's really challenging separation of powers in this country, and that's just

unacceptable for a president. i'd like to challenge the attorney general who i admire enormously, and did a great job here. make a case for how you think this is unconstitutional, as it applies to a family in yemen that's never been in the united states, that is simply seeking a visa, that has no constitutional right to be in the united states, how is this regulation unconstitutional as it applies to that family? >> attorney general ferguson? >> as we discussed on friday night, professor, our claim is brought on behalf of washington ans, and businesses and washingtonians here. i understand the impact of judge robart's decision. what we're talking about, what we're asserting, why we're bringing this claim is on behalf of washingtonians that are adversely affected. the decision has a broad impact around the world, our claim is grounded on the adverse impacts

of washingtonians. >> i saw you shaking your head. >> i think there's more to it than that, the family in yemen has an argument, there are two constitutional arguments the attorney general has raised. it protects action rather than people.family in yemen may have a hard time making a due process argument, we can make an establishment clause argument, an equal protection argument, because those parts of the constitution apply to everyone. and they limit government -- >> no, they don't. >> they do not apply to foreign nationals who have never been in this country and have no rights under american law. >> you cannot pass an unconstitutional law. you cannot sign an unconstitutional executive order, if it simply incidentally affects someone who's outside of the united states. that doesn't allow you to do something unconstitutional. >> nothing was passed here, a law was relied on passed by the president, the president uses words like any. any classification, and it

speaks in terms of classifications to protect america in the sole discretion of the president. in these national security arenas, that's what this is, this is not just immigration, but national security. the courts give massive deference to the president, i know that because i've been on the losing side, suesing the nsa over their violations of the fourth amendment here in this country. this judge did not accord the executive branch the deference. tweets aside, from the president, you may not like the president lashing his tongue out at judges, but i'm hearing a lot more people upset about that when the president of the united states did it in the state of the union with the supreme court sitting before him. >> it's not the tweets, regardless of how much discretion the president has, and he does have a lot of discretion, both congress has given him that discretion, the constitution has. he cannot violate some other

provision of the constitution, he does not have that much discretion. >> we have to take a quick break. attorney general ferguson, i know you have to go, i appreciate your time. >> thank you very much. s , a good source of fiber to help support regularity. mmm...these are great! my work here is done. phillips', the tasty side of fiber. [bullfighting music] [burke] billy-goat ruffians. seen it. covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ mattress firmness? fortunately there's a bed where you both get what you want every night. enter sleep number and the ultimate sleep number event, going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow!

only at a sleep number store. and right now save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

mobility is very important to me. that's why i use e*trade mobile. it's on all my mobile devices, so it suits my mobile lifestyle. and it keeps my investments fully mobile... even when i'm on the move. sign up at etrade.com and get up to six hundred dollars.

distinguished legal panel we've been talking about. let's continue our talk on the oral arguments tomorrow. does a family in yemen have any constitutional right to come to the united states? >> no, not necessarily at all. somebody who has not -- has a legal entitlement to be here, cannot use the constitution to protect themselves. there's the issue of standing which is a fancy way of saying, do you have an actual, not a hypothetical dog in this fight. >> you mean the state of washington? >> if if you do, you can challenge the government's actions to the travel ban. if you don't have a dog in this fight, then the issue is about the establishment clause, can the government do this in general? can they violate the constitutional provision that says you cannot prefer a

religion? >> explain what the establishment clause is? >> the first member of the constitution. the united states is denominationly neutral, we don't advocate a religion and we don't prefer one. section five of the executive order talks about being able to give a preference to entry into the country if you are from a minority religion. the debate between those two things is, listen, i'm saying, any minority religion -- that's what trump is saying, i'm not saying which one. that's kind of a semantic space argument. and we're arguing essentially saying, no, we don't give preference. it's a facial -- >> these countries on the list are muslim majority? >> right. >> that issue, the government will win on that issue, because minorities include sunni's who are oppressed by shiite's. they include christians, but i think that will be sustained on the merits.

i think the injunction will continue, i think no court is going to try to create chaos now, by saying, all right, now you can stop them from coming in tomorrow, we'll say you can allow them to come in. when it comes to the merits, i do believe there's going to be a split decision, the court will hold unconstitutional those parts of the executive order that relate to people who are in the country now, people at universities, it will hold that there's either noen sadding or no constitutional right as to people who have never been in the country. i think both sides will be able to claim victory. i would hope they would go back and rewrite the order and make it constitution ool so we can protect our safety and society and not violate the constitutional norms. >> moving away from the legal arguments i'm not going to make you make. it does echo what we heard the president say about the judge in the trump university case. it's not the first time he's gone after a sitting judge.

>> it's not. and the point that was made earlier in the show, though, that this is -- presidents do criticize judges, this is not unique to trump, the way in which he does it is awe 'nique to trump. he referred to him as a so-called judge today. we heard him attack the judge in the trump university suit last year. he said, essentially, if there is a terrorist attack, blame this judge, and he said that in a tweet. i think that took it to a different degree where it's essentially moving the responsibility from the executive branch, and that is unusual. >> imagine if i judge had tweeted out, calling the president a so-called president. >> 90% of presidents attack criticize the judiciary, they criticize the content of decisions, the arguments coming from judges. that's completely normal in our system. you go into a court as a lawyer for the federal government,

you're criticizing the judge if you're appealing something. what is different here is, he seemed to, and it depends on how you read so-called. he seemed to attack the legitimacy of this judge. that he had the right to rule the way he did. if the judge had attacked president strutrump's legitimac. he lost by 3 million votes. and comey's letter, if he had made all those arguments the people on the left made, people would have been outraged. i think there's -- >> there's an element of truth here. >> i think maggie is absolutely right that setting up an argument if there's a terrorist attack in this country and blaming it on the judiciary is very dangerous. >> there's an element of truth here, no question president trump is perhaps among the most flamboyant users of his twitter account in history. nonetheless, what he hit this judge on is if there's an attack, then look to this judge for blame, that's got an element of truth to it, which is exactly

why courts defer almost completely to the executive branch and issues and questions of security, and national security, including immigration questions, and remember, the underlying place where they got the 7 countries was from congress and the obama administration's previously existing list. trump didn't come up with this list, if he was after muslims, you would have seen asia on there, saudi arabia on there, he pulled the seven most dangerous countries according to his list, and president obama. that's why courts defer so much to the executive branch in this area, it's because the responsibility in our three-branch system of government is exclusively, supposed to be exclusively with the executive branch. >> president trump did not say in his tweet, if there is a terrorist attack that relates to these seven countries over this 90 to 120 days or whatever, it was a pretty broad based

statement. the president has a habit of going to broad based rhetoric, where people can reach as far as they want. it's nonspecific, i understand what the attorney general is saying. >> we have to take a break. everyone will be attorney except attorney general cuccinelli, i really appreciate you being on the program. in his first speech to the military commander, president trump escalated his war on the media as well. we'll talk about that ahead. i never miss an early morning market. but with my back pain i couldn't sleep or get up in time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve.

and now. i'm back! aleve pm for a better am. and this is they like lobster party.y, red lobster's lobsterfest is back with 9 irresistible lobster dishes. yeah, it's a lot. try tender lobster lover's dream and see how sweet a lobster dream can be. or pick two delicious lobster tails with new lobster mix and match. the only thing more tempting than one succulent lobster tail, is two. is your mouth watering yet? good. because there's something for everyone, and everyone's invited. so come in today. shocked by your wireless bill every month? additional fees. tacked on taxes. come on! with t-mobile one, taxes and fees are now included!

get 4 lines of unlimited lte data for 40 bucks each. that's right - all unlimited. all in! and now, for a limited time save more than you pay in taxes on all smartphones. so switch to t-mobile and save hundreds vs. the other guys. it's better than a tax holiday! and it's only at t-mobile.

president trump gave his first speech at macdill air force base in florida. he promised to invest heavily to give them the tools they need to beat isis. he started as he often does, by recapping his election victory. >> heading into his third week in the white house, the president is still taking victory laps, this time in front of military commanders. >> we had a wonderful election, didn't we? [ cheers and applause ] >> and i saw those numbers. and you like me and i like you. that's the way it worked. >> reporter: in a visit to u.s.

central command in florida, president trump offered a dark world view on the global war of terrorism. >> radical islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland as they did on 9/11. >> the president insisted to his militariry audience that the news media is intentionally downplaying the terror threat. but offered no proof to back up his claim. >> all over europe, it's happening. it's gotten to a pont where it's not even being reported. and in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. they have their reasons, and you understand that. >> reporter: mr. trump is also lashing out at recent polls that show the public is wary of his controversial travel plan. any negative polls are fake news just like the cnn, nbc and msnbc polls during the election. the president is making sure people know he's in charge.

i call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data and everyone knows it. some fake news media in order to marginalize, lies. the president isn't holding back on other issues, maintaining widespread voter fraud cost him the popular vote. >> we can be babies, you take a look at the registration, you have illegals, dead people. >> after his tough talk on obama care, he concedes overturning the health care law won't happen overnight as he once promised. >> i would like to say by the end of the year, at least the rudiments, but we should have something by the end of the year and the following year. >> the white house has released this list of terror attacks, the president said the media is downplaying or not reporting on, right? >> that's right, i have it right here, 78 attacks since september of 2014. and the white house is careful to say that most of these attacks were not reported on adequately enough. just going through the list, there's no scoring system or

grade system here to stay, these attacks were covered adequately, these attacks were not. most puzzling of all, inside this list, you see mentions of the paris attacks, where 129 people died, the san bernardino terrorist attack, the niece truck attack and so on, and as you know, anderson, these are all terrorist attacks that we covered days on end, not only here at cnn, but other international news outlets around the world, this appears to be a talking point that is in search of a set of facts that just doesn't exist. we didn't get an answer for why the president made this claim today. he said, i think you know why to those military commanders today, but no explanation was given as to why the news media would not report terrorist attacks. it's just not true. >> not only did we cover many of the attacks on that list, we covered them heavily i know, because i was on the ground

reporting a number of them. cnn was on the ground in ottawa, kansas, a gunman killed someone at the tomb of the unknown soldier. i was in orlando, i flew there right after the news broke. december 2015, that was on the list, san bernardino. i was there, 14 people killed and 21 wounded in coordinated attacks, this was a month after i reported on the carnage in paris, where terrorists killed and wounded 130 people. other programs as well as cnn international covered most if not all of them, most of them exhaustively. president trump falsely accusing the media of basically covering up terrorist attacks. not just under reporting, but

intentionally not reporting on things. >> he did what he often does, which is a rhetorical slight of hand, it sounds like what he's saying is the media is covering up, he didn't say that, now his supporters are saying, that's not what he said. he said there's a hidden motive without saying what it is in why the media isn't giving sufficient coverage, i agree with you. the medias has been extensively covering terrorist attacks going back to the uss cole. 2001 was the 9/11 attacks. i have friends at the new york post, they got sick breathing in the dust. this is something i think you're seeing president trump take to a new level today, which is essentially news he doesn't like or doesn't agree with, all polls are fake, shows something i don't agree with. he is making the media into a a

scapegoat. his whole premise during the campaign is believe me, i alone can fix it. >> put out a list where pulse nightclub is on it, the botaclon massacre is on it. >> not to make light of this because it's a serious conversation. come on, cable news has an aversion to covering terror attacks? come on, it's what we do. just as trump was insinuating there was something behind the media's alleged lack of terrorism attacks. the question that's raised in my mind is, what is the reasoning behind the white house trying to get all of us to focus so much on terrorism right now? why is that? why does the white house want us to focus on that fp there have not been a string of terror attacks in the united states recently. it's not likely that any of us are going to die by terrorist

attack, we all know there's a men school chance of that happening in the united states. it makes me a little suspicious when government officials are pointing to things like terrorism without an explanation. >> i mean, one of the arguments, i -- supporters of what the president said, and if you look at info wars and stuff, their one of the arguments they make, which i assume the president is picking up on, is the notion we're downplaying radical islam, in some of these terror attacks, the counter argument to that is initially, it's not our job to make a leap, until authorities have said for sure, this is a terrorist action or it's not. so i get people's criticism that we don't report fast enough, that this is an islamic radical, certainly, if there's proof of that, we report that. >> yeah, that's true. i think the media overhypes terrorist attacks. >> that's another counter which i get all the time. >> it's horrific to say, but

it's tv. and it -- you -- tv is about images and controversy, controversies sell, if it bleeds it leads as they have said for a long time, long before cable news came along. i think that donald trump is wrong about that. >> the argument actually is interesting, because if you look, we actually have more coverage than ever before. there's cell phone cameras, when a soldier was beheaded on the streets, there was cell phone video made. >> it ratchets up the terror. it does their job for them. >> i think that part of the story here is, ryan asked what is trump's end game, i don't know what it is. one sort of theory would be, he's getting -- this is a war against the media, it's not about whether or not we cover terrorism enough. god forbid what if, we just had a whole discussion here as to whether or not people who are not even citizens of america have standing to come into

america. i can imagine a lot of middle -- sort of middle america folks out there, working class white americans out there who are saying, why -- you know, why should syrians come to america. and god forbid if there is an attack down the road. that judge -- they will poib the to that judge. >> the media does cover terrorist attacks, i remember the week of the pulse nightclub shooting, the entirety of the week, from from my recollection, they do cover terrorist attacks, the better argument the trump administration could make is weather there is enough of an honest discussion about the times when immigration is connected to terrorist attacks. for instance, the three stabbings that happened last year at the minnesota mall, the ohio state car attack, the ohio attack on an israeli deli. those were all connected to immigration. the afghan refugee that put bombs in new york and new

jersey. donald trump said today, we want good immigrants today. if you put the focus on the media and the commentators in particular, not having a discussion. >> the wife came from pakistan, there were endless stories, it's fair to point out there were other stories. we did a lot of stories on how did you come to the united states? how did they not see your social media postings. >> and pakistan is not on the list of cuns, right? i have a theory to answer ryan's question, and you touched a little bit upon it. i think he wants to blame the media or blame the judge to have everybody talking about terrorism, so that there is a reason that the judiciary will give him standing to pass what he wants to pass. and the reason why i think that is so alarming and so dangerous is that i call janssen willy what has come out of the white house, is instill feel of brown people month, what they did, with the mexican wall, making mexico pay for it, denigrating

the mexican president. what they're doing with this muslim ban is essentially to make middle america, to make white america fear people with brown skin, whether it's mexicans or muslims. >> no, no, it's a 90 day halt, because someone got through our borders and killed american citizens. >> who? >> malik in san bernardino -- >> why isn't pakistan on the list. >> 25 people were wounded at the end of a knife, because a somalian refugee got into this country. >> didn't he get into this country as a child with his family? >> he did, but we should take a pause for 90 days. >> and a lot of american citizens -- >> >> they're not on the list. president trump's decision to have steve bannon take a seat on the national security council. i'll talk about that with mike mullen. especially for people with heart failure. but today there's entresto...

a breakthrough medicine that can help make more tomorrows possible. tomorrow, i want to see teddy bait his first hook. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven to help more people stay alive and out of the hospital than a leading heart failure medicine. women who are pregnant must not take entresto. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood. tomorrow, i'm gonna step out with my favorite girl. ask your doctor about entresto. and help make the gift of tomorrow possible. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ has been a struggle. i considered all my options with my doctor, who recommended once-daily toujeo®. now i'm on the path to better blood sugar control. toujeo® is a long-acting insulin from the makers of lantus®. it releases slowly, providing consistent insulin levels for a full 24 hours, proven full 24-hour blood sugar control, and significant a1c reduction. and along with toujeo®, i'm eating better and moving more. toujeo® is a long-acting, man-made insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar,

or if you're allergic to insulin. allergic reaction may occur and may be life threatening. don't reuse needles or share insulin pens, even if the needle has been changed. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be serious and life threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily while using toujeo®. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose or type of insulin without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor if you take other medicines and about all your medical conditions. insulins, including toujeo®, in combination with tzds (thiazolidinediones) may cause serious side effects like heart failure that can lead to death, even if you've never had heart failure before. don't dilute or mix toujeo® with other insulins or solutions as it may not work as intended and you may lose blood sugar control, which could be serious. toujeo® helps me stay on track with my blood sugar. ask your doctor about toujeo®. wonly new alka-seltzer plus st want powerful relief. free of artificial dyes and preservatives liquid gels delivers the powerful cold symptom relief you need without the unnecessary additives you don't.

loudspeaker: clean up, aisle 4. alka-seltzer plus liquid gels. welcome back. you probably heard the comments president trump made over the weekend about russian president putin where he said in an interview with bill o'reilly that he respects putin. here's what else president trump said. >> will i get along with him? i don't know. >> putin's a killer. >> we've got a lot of killers. a lot of killers. you think our country's so innocent. >> i'm wondering, admiral mullen, when you heard that, does it sound like he's making a moral giequivalence?

or how do you interpret that? >> it seems to be some kind of equivalence. i think it's important that the united states always maintain the high moral ground. and i actually believe what bill o'reilly said, that putin is a killer. there's no upside in terms of the united states, in terms of putin's interests. he'll do as much as he can to destabilize us, to reassert the great power status that he thinks russia is, deserves, and he'll do everything he possibly can to get in our way. our interests just from that standpoint don't overlap. i think we need to have a relationship with him, whether it's political or diplomatic, and we need to have a relationship from a position of strength. so in terms of, again, that moral equivalence, i thought the statement was pretty appalling. >> i want to ask you about president trump naming steve

bannon. and you said partisan politics has no place at the table and neither does mr. bannon. i'm wondering what prompted you to go public with your concerns. >> at the time, i don't have to remind you of this, anderson, when just about everything, every institution, every issue is so highly politicized, the purpose of my writing this was really to focus on one of the institutions, at least in my experience, that hasn't been politicized, and that's the national security council. i've watched this. i served on it with president bush and president obama. it wasn't politicized then. karl rove was never anywhere near, david axelrod never had a voice in it. so it's less about mr. bannon himself and more about not politicizing a critical institution in terms of the

national security of the united states. >> the white house pushed back that the steve bannon merits being on it at least in part because he served as a naval officer. >> i don't think that background has anything to do with it. knowledge in terms of the national defense as soon isn't qualifier, necessarily at all. he was a naval officer for i think about ten years. this is just at an entirely different level. he's clearly a political guy, a political supporter. he's very close to the president, and, as i said in the op ed. each president gets to choose how they put their national security council together, that politics gets involved in national security issues, it does happen, but it happens outside the situation room, which is where the national security council meets. and so i would hope and really, the purpose, the whole purpose of the op ed today was i hope

that president trump will reconsider the structure which now includes mr. bannon and certainly use him outside the situation room in terms of his views at the right time. >> and the trump administration is saying it's just like president bush's administration. is that an apt comparison? >> i'm sorry, anderson. >> they're saying the makeup of the nfc, the makeup is then same as it was during the george w. bush administration. >> that's true in terms of the chairman of the joint chiefs as well as the director of national intelligence, actually, when the bush administration came in, the director of national intelligence conditiodidn't exi. and in the chairman of the joint chiefs being an adviser to the

president. president obama changed that. and i just think that from a standpoint of focus, priority, inclusion if you will, in all the key meetings, that that change was a very healthy change. >> that the joint chairman and chiefs should be on it as well as the director of intelligence. >> right. >> i appreciate the opportunity to read your op ed. >> we have much in our next hour. the ninth circuit court of appeals will be holding hearings on trump's travel ban. we'll talk about that and more ahead. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com

yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day 50+ a complete multi-vitamin with 100% daily value of more than 15 key nutrients. one a day 50+. i am benedict arnold, the infamous traitor. and i know a thing or two about trading. so i trade with e*trade, where true traders trade on a trademarked trade platform that has all the...

get off the computer traitor! i won't. (cannon sound) i won't. hambone! sally! 22! hut hut! tiki barber running a barber shop? yes!!! surprising. yes!!! what's not surprising? how much money david saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. who's next?