grges hope you had a good day. thanks for joining us. tonight, breaking news on president trump's travel ban, which could go to the supreme court. comes after a day and a weekend of tweets, sound bites and headlines from president trump. he's back in washington after

speaking today at centcom in tampa and igniting controversy over some of what he said. touched off a storm with bill o'reilly about russia and he's drawn fire over the weekend for a tweet, slamming the judge who put his travel ban on hold friday night. tonight the appeals court received final written arguments from the justice department on restoring it, and they scheduled a hearing 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? >> well, first of all, the government said the district judge who issued this injunction was wrong and overstepped his bounds, the department of justice argued in the brief filed tonight that the court's sweeping nationwide injunction is vastly overbroad, extending far beyond the state's legal claims, and it argued that the president has 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

states don't have standing to even bring this lawsuit. the states in this case, washington and minnesota. it said that 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 two of the courts and in this case, the department of justice is saying that there is no standing. so in the eppnd, it could come down to that. it talks about the refugees and the citizens from of the seven countries in the travel ban who have never set 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's a carve-out, 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. of course, these people would have previously not been allowed to travel to the u.s. for at least 90 days, but the lawyers are saying, if you must, at least limit it to them, not the others. >> what do the states argue now? >> at the heart of the state's argument for both minnesota and washington state, according to the attorneys general, is 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 is here in the united states on a visa. and it's clear that the district judge in washington state, judge robart, actually believes there's merit to those claims, that they could be successful in those claims, and that, in part, factored into his decision to issue that nationwide injunction on friday, anderson. >> so the hearing tomorrow, that's obviously the next step in this process? >> that's right. so this is going to be oral arguments, both sides will have

30 minutes. and it will be live-streamed. shortly after that, we expect the ninth circuit court to issue its decision whether to reinstate the ban during the appeals process. but you can bet, anderson, that the losing side will want to appeal, which means it could go to the supreme court fairly quickly. >> pamela brown, thank you. joining us now the dissenter of the court case, and bob ferguson is joining us again. mr. attorney general, appreciate it. first of all, i want to get your reaction to the filing of the justice department and the arguments they're making. >> sure. they're surprise. they're repeating the arguments they made before judge robart, that judge robart was not persuaded by. so there's nothing in the filing that i've seen, and i've only had a chance to look at it quickly. just came out. there's nothing there that's particularly surprising.

>> so the argument that your state doesn't have standing to even be bringing this to court. what do you say? >> yeah, and that was central to their argument before judge robart. i think your previous guest hit the nail on the head. we make it very clear that we're bringing this case on behalf of numerous residents of our state who are adversely impacted by this executive order, and also now, 97 businesses from microsoft to google, and many others filed supporting affidavits, talking about the adverse impact, the significant adverse impacts, anderson, on their businesses, resulting from this executive action, going to their employees and recruitment and retention, for example. so we believe we have a very strong case of our standing and it's one that was persuasive obviously to judge robart. >> when the department of justice said this judge over-reached, essentially went beyond 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, and as

we've discussed before, he was appointed by george w. bush. i understand that's their argument, but it's a pretty straightforward case. the federal government wants to assert that one cannot look behind or examine a present action when it comes to issuing an executive order, anderson, that's never been the law and cannot be the law. we are a nation of laws. a president must always act in a constitutional fashion, and frankly, it's appropriate in our system of checks and balances, for the judiciary to look at an executive order, examine it, and determine whether or not it's constitutional. >> that was done against president obama too in some of his executive orders? >> that's exactly right. his order relating to immigration reform was struck down by the courts. started with a district court judge in texas. i think the lawsuit was initiated by the then texas attorney general and a similar thing happened. a federal trial court judge, district court judge struck it down nationwide. the court of appeals upheld that

and the supreme court split 4-4 on that, which upheld the lower court decision. so, yes, we've seen that before and there was standing in that case for the plaintiffs and we anticipate that the ninth circuit will take the same position the court took in that case. >> the ninth icircuit court of appeals hearing is tomorrow. you think they'll back the judge in washington's ruling. but if they rule against your sthate, i assume you're going to appeal that decision and you're willing to take this all the way to the supreme court? >> oh, i'm in this for the long haul. i believe strongly and my legal team believes strongly that the executive order is unlawful and unconstitutional. so i view it as my duty and responsibility on behalf of the people i represent to make sure i use every legal tool at my disposal. frankly, anderson, that's why we moved so quickly to file this lawsuit the monday after the executive order was announced. my legal team working around the clock because every hour, every day counts. i was at c tech airport just a

couple hours ago, to have a chance to greet folks coming off the planes who had been denied access in the past. these are folks whose spouses are citizens and want to be reunited with their spouses. their cousins work at boeing, graduates of our universities. it's a beautiful example of why the law matters. the law has a huge impact on the people of this country and that's why upholding the constitution matters so much. >> so when president trump tweets that this so-called judge is endangering america and that if there's an attack, he should get the blame. what do you say to that? >> where to start, anderson. my mother and father raised me to be gracious in vintectory as kid. that's what we try to pass on. based on those tweets, it appears it's a lesson lost on president trump. >> if you can stay with us, i

want to bring in the panel. also alan dershowitz and ken cuccinelli. on friday night, i'd 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 afoot 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 were just seeking a visa. you didn't even ask for it, but he granted that. and 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, the people

you've described who are coming to work, or to reunite with relatives while eliminating 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 to that question, proffer. y -- professor. >> the briefing has been excellent. those attorneys are well known to me and are doing an excellent job of advocating on behalf of the federal government. number two, 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 constitution to uphold that constitution. i don't think you can split the baby when it comes to the constitution. moreover, i think it's revealing that the federal government is already willing to concede some ground based on our argument.

they started by saying, we have nothing here. they refused an emergency stay. i appreciate them trying to offer something up, but from my standpoint, the executive order is unconstitutional and that's the bottom line. >> but you didn't even ask the court to extend it to people who have never been in the country. doesn't it sound unreasonable that 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 threshold. >> professor, as you well know, judges have broad discretion to rule on how they see appropriate, whether it's based on arguments made by the parties or not. so it's entirely appropriate for judge robart to take the position he did. but if the question is, am i prepared to negotiate something with the federal government at this point? no, until they're willing to strike down sections three and five of that executive order, the conversation we'll be having is before the ninth circuit.

>> i listened to your comments earlier, attorney general ferguson, i noticed that 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? >> no, we have. we are -- the universities, for example are part of the state. we represent them. the universities, colleges, the students who are adversely impacted by this executive order, just to give one example. that was discussed before judge robart and he clearly ruled in our favor that we were in position to bring this particular cause of action. >> we gotta take a quick break. we'll have more to talk about in this two-hour edition of 360. just ahead, what president trump said when asked about vladimir putin. that left leading republicans with plenty to say. we'll be right back. special edition.erado this is one gorgeous truck. oh, did i say there's only one special edition?

because, actually there's 5. aaaahh!! ooohh!! uh! holy mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. which one's your favorite? come home with me! it's truck month! find your tag for an average total value over $11,000 on chevy silverado all star editions when you finance through gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. so this year, they're getting a whole lot more. people just can't get enough of me and my discounts. box 365, the calendar. everyone knows my paperless, safe driver, and multi-car discounts, but they're about to see a whole new side of me. heck, i can get you over $600 in savings. chop, chop. do i look like i've been hurt before? because i've been hurt before. um, actually your session is up. hang on. i call this next one "junior year abroad." the search for relief often leads... here...

here... or here. today, there's another option. drug-free aleve direct therapy. a tens device with high intensity power that uses technology once only available in doctors' offices. its wireless remote lets you control the intensity, and helps you get back to things like this... this... or this. and back to being yourself. aleve direct therapy. find yours in the pain relief aisle.

welcome back. the breaking news tonight, oral arguments coming up tomorrow before the ninth circuit court of appeals in san francisco. back with the panel. right before the break, attorney general ferguson, the attorney general cuccinelli asked a question. and if you could just explain why that question is important to you about washington, whether washington made the argument that there were harm done by -- >> sure. whenever an attorney general comes into 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, 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 was 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 that standing is the first threshold. it's often a tough one for states. i've won and i've lost on those arguments, but when this gets all the way through the process and you can mark my words, 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? >> the attorney general raises an important point. he's right when he says the issue of standing, whether the state can bring this claim is fundamental and was discussed at length before judge robart. he's very much aware of it as well. that said, 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 that involved worker

safety in washington state. we had a big conversation about standing in that case and we prevailed there as well. so i'm confident that 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 and brought that claim on behalf of the people of the state as well. but agree it's an issue and one that of the ninth circuit will be grappling with as well. >> i want to ask you about the last section. the argument they're making, there could be an exception for previously admitted aliens, i think is what professor dershowitz was alluding to. is that your argument? >> i'm not sure. we just got the document in the last half hour and i've not in a chance to read itthoroughly with my team. but i find the conversation interesting. >> cuccinelli?

>> can i follow up on that? >> yeah. >> 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 right or any right to judicial review. they don't even have the right to have their situation heard in court. if you take all that away, which is what the federal government is asking to do, and then focus on what remains, that's the piece of the brief you're talking about, anderson, and it would wipe out 98, 99% of the individuals involved, and they would be under the president's order. >> i want to let you know, but i would like to hear what you think about president trump questioning a federal judge, calling him a so-called judge, et cetera? >> i think it's outrageous. he called the former president of the united states a so-called preside president.

this man was confirmed 99-0. he is challenging separation powers in this country and that's unacceptable for a president. but i'd like to challenge the attorney general who i admire enormously and i think did a great job here. make the case for how you think this is unconstitutional as it applies to a family in yemen that has 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? >> yeah, as we discussed on friday night, professor, our claim is brought on behalf of washingtonians here. so i understand the overall impact and reach of judge robart's decision, but if one looks at our complaints and our motions carefully, what we're talking about, why we're bringing this claim, is on on behalf of washingtonians who are adversely impacted. judge robart's decision had a

broad impact on people around the world. but our claim is grounded on the adverse impacts on washingtonians. >> paige, you're shaking your head. >> i think there's more to it. the family the yemen has an argument. there are two things he's raised that limits government action more than it protects people. so while the family in yemen may have a hard time making a due process argument, we can still make an establishment clause automatic, an equal protection argument, because those parts of the constitution apply to everyone. and they limit -- >> 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 incidentally affects someone outside of the united states. it still doesn't allow you to do something unconstitutional. >> nothing was passed here.

a law was relied on, passed by congress, that said the president used 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, and this is not just immigration, it's also national security. the courts, not counting judge robart, give massive deference to the president, i know that because i have been on the losing side, suing the nsa over their violations of the fourth amendment here in this country. it's a massive level of deference. this judge did not accord that 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 with the supreme court sitting in front of him, referring to president obama and doing it again the month before the ruling in obamacare. >> it's not the tweets. regardless of how much

discretion the president has and he does have a lot of discretion, from congress, from the constitution, but he cannot violate some other provision of the constitution. he doesn't have that much discretion. >> we have to take a break. attorney general ferguson, i know you have to go. pres appreciate your time. i know you have a hearing tomorrow. everyone else, we'll tornaconti this conversation after a quick break. we'll be right back. 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. i pull inspiration from around the globe.ner, jared's commitment to quality and craftsmanship has helped bring my designs to life. each hand-set ring is my interpretation of timeless classics. the vera wang love collection. now available at jared.

afoot and light-hearted i take to the open road. healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine. all seems beautiful to me.

distinguished legal panel that we've been talking about. let's continue the conversation on the travel ban, the court case and 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. you're conflating into different issues here. 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? ngets the state of washington. do you have a dog in this fight? if you do, you can challenge the government's actions to try to have this 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? there are two separate issues. >> explain what the establishment clause is. >> the first amendment of the constitution. it says the united states is denominationally 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. it may benefit christians, it may benefit muslims, if you're the minority religion. 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 sunnis who are oprezed by shias, they

include kurds, they includes christians, but i think that will be sustained on the merits. i'm going to make a prediction here. i think the injunction will continue, i think no court is going to try to create chaos now, by saying, all right, now we're going to say 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 no standing 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 constitutional so that we can both protect our safety and our security and also not violate the american norms of discrimination. >> i want to bring in maggie from "the new york times." just in terms of what the president has said about this judge, it does echo what we

heard the president say about the judge in the trump university case. obviously, it's not the first time he's gone after a sitting judge. >> it's not. and i think the point that was made earlier in the show, presidents do criticize judges. this is not unique to trump. the way in which he does it is unique to trump. he referred to him as a so-called judge today. we did hear him attack judge curiel over the trump university suit during the campaign last year. what i think took it to a different level with trump is when he said, if there's a terrorist attack, blame this judge. he said that in a tweet. i think that took it to a different degree, where it's moving the responsibility away from the executive branch and that was 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.

when you go into court as a lawyer for the federal government, you're criticizing the judge, right, if you're appealing something. so that is totally normal. what is different here, he seemed to, and it depends on how you read "so-called" -- he seems to attack the legitimacy of this judge, that the judge had the right to rule the way he did. that's why i say if the judge had attacked president trump's legitimacy and say, he lost by three million votes and the russians interfered in the election and comey's letter, if he had made all the arguments the people on the left made, people would have been outraged. >> 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 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 on issues and questions of security, national security, including immigration questions. and remember, the underlying place where they got the seven countries was from country and the obama administration's previously existing list. trump didn't come up with this list. if he was after muslims, you'd have seen indonesia on there, saudi arabia on there, but he pulled the seven most dangerous countries, according to congress and president obama, and his conclusions. so that is why courts defer so much to the executive branch in this area. it is 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 broad-based statement, and i think that is unfortunately, the president has a habit of going to broad-based rhetoric, where people can reach as far as they want. it's non-specific. i understand what the attorney general was saying, but what the president did was much broader than that. >> president trump took another victory lap, escalating his war on the media as well. we'll talk about that ahead. and now, i help people find discounts,

like paperless, multi-car, and safe driver, that help them save on their car insurance. any questions? -yeah. -how do you go to the bathroom? great. any insurance-related questions? -mm-hmm. -do you have a girlfriend? uh, i'm actually focusing on my career right now, saving people nearly $600 when they switch, so... where's your belly button? [ sighs ] i've got to start booking better gigs.

i'm not a customer, but i'm calling about that credit scorecard. give it. sure! it's free for everyone. oh! well that's nice! and checking your score won't hurt your credit. oh! i'm so proud of you. well thank you. free at at discover.com/creditscorecard,

even if you're not a customer.

president trump gave his first speech at u.s. central command in florida. he promised to invest heavily to give troops and their commanders the tools they need to defeat isis. he started by recapping his election victory. jim acosta has more. >> reporter: 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? [ applause ] and i saw those numbers, and you

like me, and i like you. that's the way it went. >> reporter: in a visit to u.s. central command in florida, president trump offered a dark world view of the global war on terrorism. >> radical islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland, as they did on 9/11. >> reporter: the president insisted to his military 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 point where it's not even being reported. and in many cases, the 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 ban. tweeting any negative polls are fake news, just like the cnn, abc, nbc, polls in the election. sorry, people want border

security and extreme vetting. the president making the case he's in charge, with reports that his top aides are dictating new administration policies. tweeting, 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, despite overwhelming evidence he is wrong. >> we can be babies. but you take a look at the registration, you have illegals, you have dead people. >> after his tough talk on obama care, mr. trump now concedes overturning the health care law won't happened overnight, as he once promised. >> i would like to say by the end of the year, at least the rudiments, but we should something within the year and the following year. >> the white house now has released a list of terror attacks the president said the media is downplaying or not reporting on. >> that's right. 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, but just going through the list, there's no scoring system or grade system here to say, okay, these attacks were covered adequately, these attacks were not. and most puzzling of all, anderson, inside this list, you see mentions of the paris attacks, where 129 people died, the san bernardino terrorist attack, the nice truck attack, and as you know, these are terror attacks that we covered days on end, not only here at cnn but other international news outlets around the world. so it appears to be a talking point that is in search of a set of facts that doesn't exist. the other thing we did not get an answer for is why the president made this claim today that the news media are not reporting on these attacks. 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, given all our of our coverage, it's just not true. >> thank you very much.

not only did we cover many of the attacks on the list the white house has released, we covered them heavily. i know, because i was on the ground october 2014, that's on the list, where a gunman killed a reservist at the national war memorial at the tomb of the unknown soldier. i was in orlando last year, that was also on the list, where 49 people were gunned down in the pulse nightclub. december 2015, i was there, 14 people killed and 21 wounded in coordinated attacks. just a month after i reported from paris where terrorists killed many and i was there pretty much all week. the program did not cover each and every incident on the list, however, other programs covered most if not all of them, many of them exhaustively. we have a lot to discuss with the panel.

maggie, president trump falsely accusing the media of basically covering up terrorist attacks, not just underreporting, but intentionally not reporting on them. >> he did what he often does, which is a rhetorical sleight of hand where it sounds like the media is covering up. 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 is not giving sufficient coverage. i agree with you, the media has been extensively covering terrorist attacks, going back to the bombing ever the uss cole. 2001 was the 9/11 attacks. i had friends at the "new york post" who got sick breathing in the dust because they were down there every day. i covered it for years after re-building. so this is something that i think you're seeing president trump take to a new level today, which is essentially the news that he doesn't like or agree with, all polls are fake, that

show something i don't agree with, he is making the media into a bogey man. and he's been doing that, his aides have been open about doing it. basically his whole premise during the campaign was, believe me. and it's, i alone can fix it. >> to put out a list where pulse nightclub is on it, where the bataclan massacre is on it -- >> not to make light of it, because it's a pretty serious conversation. cable news has an i versiaversi covering terrorist attacks. it's the most important thing that we do at 24-hour news networks. just as trump was insinuating that there was something behind the media's alleged lack of attention to terrorist attacks, the question raises in my mind, 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? there have not been, thank god, a string of terrorist attacks in

the united states recently. the numbers go up and down. it's not likely that any of us are going to die by terrorist attack. we know it's a minuscule chance of that happening in the united states. so it makes me a little suspicious when government officials are pointing to things like terrorism without an explanation. >> one of the arguments supporters of what the president said, and info wars, one of the arguments they make, which i assume the president is picking up on, is the notion that we're downplaying radical islam in some of these terror attacks. the counterargument 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. >> right. >> but, so i get people's criticism that we don't report fast enough that it's an islamic radical, but certainly if there's proof of that, we report that. >> i think that's true. i don't know where this is coming from. if anything, i being the media

maybe overhips terrorist attacks. >> that's another counterargument they get aat i the type. >> it's horrific to say, but it's tv. and tv is about images and controversy. controversy sells. images sell. if it bleeds, it leads, as they've said for a long time, long before cable news came along. so i think that donald trump is wrong about that. >> the argument, it's interesting, because if you look, we actually have more coverage than ever before of any kind of attack, because there's no cell phone cameras, when a british soldier was beheaded on the street. >> it ratchets up the terror. >> right. >> but i think that part of the story, ryan had asked what is trump's end game? i don't know what it is. but one sort of theory would be, so he's getting -- this is a war against the media. it's not really about whether or not we cover terrorism enough. so 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 sort of middle america folks out there, working-class white americans out there who are saying, why should syrians come to america? and god forbid if there is an attack down the road, they will point to that judge. but i think it's a larger narrative. >> the media does cover terrorist attacks. i remember the pulse nightclub shooting, the political panels were pre-empted every night of the week. so i think the better argument the trump administration could make is whether in the commentary there's enough of an honest discussion about the times when immigration is connected to terrorist attacks. for instance, the tle stabbings that happened last year at the minnesota mall, the ohio state car attack, and the ohio attack on an israeli deli.

those were connected to immigration. the afghan refugee who put bombs in new york. thank goodness they were found. donald trump said today, we want good immigrants to be here today, we want people who love this country here. but if you put the focus on the media and the commentators in particular not having a discussion on the honest connection -- >> i think go to san bernardino where the wife came from pakistan, there were endless stories and it's fair to point out, this just jumped into my mind. we did a lot of stories on how did she come to the united states, things like that. >> and pakistan is not even on the list of countries. so i have a theory, to answer ryan's question and you touched a little bit upon it. i think he wants to blame the needia 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. the reason why i think that is so alarming and so dangerous is that i call january essentially what has come out of the white

house is instill fear of brown people month. denigrating the mexican president, what they're doing with this muslim ban is essentially again, to your point, you touched upon this, to make middle america, to make white america fear people with brown skin, whether it's mexicans, whether it's muslims, that's what he's trying to do. >> no, it's a 90-day halt because someone got through our borders and took away -- >> who? >> tashfeen malik and -- >> so why isn't pakistan on the list? >> a somali refugee got into this country -- >> but as a child with his family. >> he did, but we should take a pause. >> coming up next, we're going to continue this discussion the next hour, president trump's decision to have steve bannon take a seat on the national security council. i'll take it over with admiral

mike mullen. he joins us in a moment. something new has arrived. ♪ uniquely designed for the driven. ♪ introducing the first-ever infiniti qx30 crossover. infiniti. empower the drive. and since most people use less than 5 gigs, aren't one size fits all. the last thing you want is to end up paying for data you don't use. now verizon introduces the one plan that's right for you. switch, and for just $55 get 5 gigs on america's best network. that's the right amount of data at a great price. plus, get our best moto droids for $15 a month or less. finally, all the data you need, on the network you want. verizon.

bp gives its offshore teams 24/7 support from onshore experts, so we have extra sets of eyes on our wells every day. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. the search for relief often leads here.s,ied. today there's drug-free aleve direct therapy. a high intensity tens device that uses technology once only in doctors' offices. for deep penetrating relief at the source. aleve direct therapy. i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7.

it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse.

with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. you're gonna love birds eye steamwait for it.bles. in about five minutes you get delicious, premium veggies, steamed to perfection. now! ♪ ahhhhhhhhhhh... mmmm heavenly, right? birds eye steamfresh. so veggie good. . . 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 have no idea. it's possible i won't. >> 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 equivalence? an argument between the united states and russia? 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 up side 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. you said president has the right to shape the security council as he sees fit, but 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 isn't a 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. you were joint chief chairman during part of the bush 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 didn't exist. and that's the way it was initially in terms of the chairman of the joint chiefs being an advisor to the president and not a specified member of the council. 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. sthooung much. we appreciate it. >> 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. whether it's bringing cutting-edge wifi to 35,000 fans...

or keeping a hotel's guests connected. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink. people spend less time lying awake with aches and pains with advil pm than with tylenol pm. advil pm combines the number one pain reliever with the number one sleep aid. gentle, non-habit forming advil pm. for a healing night's sleep. [ slurpnew girl, huh? yeah, i'm -- i couldn't help but notice you checking out my name your price tool. yeah, this bad boy gives you coverage options based on your budget. -oh -- -oh, not so fast, tadpole. you have to learn to swim first. claire, here's your name your price tool. -oh, thanks, flo. -mm-hmm. jamie, don't forget to clean the fridge when you're done. she seems nice. she seems nice. [ door closes ] she's actually pretty nice. oh. yeah.