television. >> no so that was the counseling. the president did the same thing but it's his daughter and he's president and not subject to the same rules. >> which is strange. >> but if you go on fox and friends in the morning you think it's this goofy show and she says this thing and nobody on the show can say you shouldn't be saying that. she just went ahead and did it. >> she wasn't being serious and she was joking around and there was no question by all accounts that the president of the united states loves kellyanne conway and respects her very highly. she is in no trouble. i promise you that. >> thanks to all of our international viewers. new day continues right now. >> we have seen him twice.

>> the trump administration. >> i do worry about creating a tool. >> asking about his general philosophy. he was talking about president donald trump's attacks on the judiciary. >> kellyann e has been on that subject and i think it's illegal. >> good morning everyone. welcome to your new day. we have a lot of break news overnight. president trump begins and there are reports that the president's national security advise sor spoke to russia's ambassador about sanctions before president trump took office. that would violate the law. >> it also may violate the truth because of what he said once and now. another big story. the president spoke to the leader of china for the first

time and did something that was very important. he reaffirmed america's stance to honor the one china policy and the senate confirmed tom price. he is the president's choice for hhs, health and human services secretary. that news breaking after a federal appeals court to reinstate the travel ban. he called it political. >> 22 days in. there's a lot to cover. we have it all for you. let's begin with joe johns live at the white house. >> good morning, chris, still waiting for the administration's next move after wrapping up that big loss in the ninth circuit last night. the message from the court that the administration still has not laid out the legally justifiable reasons for changing the status

quo and the travel ban. the trump administration suffering a major blow. the ninth circuit court of appeals unanimously with the travel ban. failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify an urgent need for the executive order reinsated. writing in all caps see you in court. the security of our nation is at stake. trump accusing the judges of being biased despite the fact that the ninth circuit judges were appointed by democratic and republican presidents. the court also rejecting the administration's argument that the president can act without judicial review on issues of national security. >> are you arguing then that the president's decision in that regard is unreviewable?

>> t yes but the battle over the travel ban is far from over. >> we will get our day in court and have an tount argue this on the merit that we will prevail. >> we have seen him in court twice and we're 2 for 2. >> all of this coming as trump's pick for the supreme court tells senators that attacks from the judiciary are disheartening and demoralizing. news of these comments prompted trump to lash out at one democratic senator that met with him privately. and his record that didn't exist. >> the white house is not disputing the comments to claim his attack on federal judges. >> he was no, ma'am commenting on any specific matter. he went out of his way to say i'm not commenting on any

instances. and talking general terms. >> he was talking about president donald trump's attacks on the judiciary. >> the president expected to meet with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell this morning and the japanese prime minister today. >> let's bring in cnn political analyst david gregory and legal analyst and former federal prosecutor legal analyst and former prosecutor. this is not unexpected you'll see in the ruling going forward. >> it means the trump administration is in a lot of trouble on this issue. they now either have to go to

the 11 judges in the ninth circuit or go directly to the supreme court and in both of those situations they will be pursuing a stay of a preliminary order and the supreme court in particular doesn't like to deal with preliminary rulings and the overwhelming likelihood at this point is that the case goes back to the trial judge for a trial and that means the stay will be in effect for months. >> so paul that is, it sounds like what president trump is planning. he is planning to press on. we don't know what form that will take. so that means he would have to redo the executive order and fulfills things. >> right now the executive order has been suspended. that is going back to what was happening before. people could be screened.

there could be secondary screening. it's not like we opened the doors of the united states suddenly. >> that's the political perception that the president is projecting right now. >> yes. >> that's what he is saying. >> but that's not the reality. >> he to go back to the drawing board. >> that would be the most sensitive thing for him to do. we were discussing this last night. his tactic has always been a head on fight to judges and the judiciary and he's giving no signs he wants to rewrite that executive order. >> to rewrite the order would be an admission that the initial order was bad. he's going to keep pushing more courts to uphold the current one. and motivation for action and the judge cited exactly that and does not give the proof that

there is a threat that justifies this ban so politically what are the best options. >> i think politically and from a policy point of view sit to redo the executive order and make it constitutional but again as has been discussed i don't think that's going to happen and that point really interests me. the fact that the court said we give deference to you. you're the commander and chief. what is the specific evidence for harm that the executive order was designed to address. we have been in a state of vigilance since 911 and increased terror threat. there's no question about that. what this administration believes is something different. their argument is and this is the fear play, stoking fears in america that the united states is going to be vulnerable in a way that europe is vulnerable. think about germany where they let migrants come in.

immigrants come in and they don't have the vetting policy that the united states has and they have had problems with the way they operate because of the past that prevent them from being as effective so i think the absence and this is what the court found. the absence of evidence of specific harm is one of the big deficits in the administration policy. >> last night reporters caught up with president trump and it's only on audio but this is to press on. >> we have a situation with the security of our country is at stake and it's a very, very serious situation. >> so who does council the president now on what his next steps should be.

is this steve ban nonnon or kellyanne conway. >> i expect this to be a centralized decision in the white house versus a cabinet decision. but what i find really interesting here is that the president believes this is such a national security threat and there's a case to make that he's on solid ground here. one of the reasons president obama went around congress in his executive orders and sometimes he overstepped the law in doing so is you had a republican congress, at least a republican house that wasn't going to give him anything he wanted on issues like this particularly relating to immigration. here you have a republican house, a republican senate. they largely agree with trump on the substance of this executive order even if they are around the edges with how it was rolled out and some of what it included so what he could do this week or next week if you will, if he's so concerned is go to congress

and get them to work on this. the courts are much less likely to slap something down that has the legislative branch as well as the executive and just something that comes out of the white house. >> depends what it is. you still have a legal obstacle, you'd still wind up in the same place legally. >> maybe but david makes a good point. >> an executive order does have this realm of surveillanperiori >> it comes with constitutionality. an executive order can't conflict with the law on the books. laws always trump executive order so if they were to pass a law on any area, but if they were to pass a law it would certainly have a better chance but again backfire and admission by president trump and badly in

the first place and is not something that she is inclined to do and congress moves slowly and doesn't want to move slowly and this is another example of how it was not through at the beginning. >> it's not a bad idea though. it gives him the opportunity to say he's being reasonable and conferring with the second branch of government. the legislature to satisfy the judiciary. and play this up at a political point with congress going along with him. i think it's an interesting idea to shape legislation that would solve the problem. >> but isn't this in part the question of legislation goes to another question other than impugning the integrity of judges. i'll see you in court.

already been in court and ensure the national security. >> there's other things even on the vetting question instead of having a battle royale over the executive order. he's the president. what other policies are they pursuing to counter the terror threat that is present. >> is its so david is talking about and if the threat is so imminent and i think the president has a case to make and we have a threat we need to deal with better. and doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't make any sense politically and it helps to show you're large and in charge and willing to get into a fight in the other branches of government and doing something for me would work well and put the country on more solid footing. >> there is a real threat that

we're not aware of that's manifesting itself. >> if they can show their vetting has lapsed somehow. >> could have created procedures which is what the obama administration did. they had policies in effect at that time. >> thank you very much. >> the senate working into the early morning hours, why? to confirm president trump's controversial health and human services secretary nominee, tom price. this as a congressional oversight committee is calling for an ethics review. live on capitol hill with the latest. >> good morning to you, chris, yeah tom price confirmed by the senate after 2:00 a.m. this morning and he now starts on his task of dismantling obamacare but even though the white house is getting a big win on this they are finding themselves in hot water this morning over trump's senior advise sor

kellyanne conway up here on capitol hill. there's a call for an investigation after she said on national tv yesterday she was encouraging people to buy ivanka trump's clothing line along with a ranking democrat on that committee teaming up to call the white house out on this. they have written that it clearly violates the ethical principles for federal employees and are unacceptable. we ask you to report back to the committee for your recommendation for disciplinary action if warranted and a senior administration official tells me that yesterday conway did have a meeting with president trump and she apologized directly to him for the misstep and an administration official says that president trump says he backs her up completely. something she tried to emphasize last night in an interview.

>> i'm happy that i spent an awful lot of time with the president of the united states this afternoon and he supports me 100%. >> the white house here clearly trying to play some clean up on all of this amid all of this bipartisan push back on capitol hill. >> thank you very much for that. so the congressman that represens san bernardino is now talking about the travel ban. how he says it would effect his community, next. from my life.ments so i use excedrin. it starts to relieve migraine pain in just 30 minutes. and it works on my symptoms, too. now moments lost to migraines are moments gained with excedrin. [heartbeat]

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount,

saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

president trump has often cited the terror attack at san bernardino as one reason why he needs the ban. what does he think of the ban? we have the democratic congressman and proud member of the congressional hispanic caucus. so you are the example of the threat in san bernardino. slipped through and the system failed and that's why we need the ban. do you accept that? >> i don't. what the president is trying to do sin appropriate and inaccurate. continue to try to use san bernardino to justify the muslim

ban. it's just wrong. >> how is it wrong? she did get through. she and her husband and maybe others conspired and killed. the system didn't take them. they were all muslim. let's try to stop that. his ban does this. >> nothing that the president proposed would have stopped december 2nd. nothing that he would have proposed would have stopped 9/11 as well so this would have had zero effect. and it's unfortunate that he continues to try to exploit my community by trying to say that. >> that is where this immigration came from that.

how do they feel? your constituents. the fear is real. the president is playing to that fear that people see muslims killing people all over this world and they figure hey, what do your constituents say. >> he's clearly trying to play to their fear and i appreciate you saying that because it's what we feel in our community but what we're focused on is continuing that healing process. they're still trying to get the medical care they need. if he was serious about helping he would help in that scenario. he was awarded a grant for these purposes and if the president was serious about it he would stop trying to use fear as that tactic and he would genuinely reach out to these individuals that need care and still need to heal. >> all right. other issues of the day.

mike flynn, national security advis advisor. the democrats are pressing the idea that what he did in his communications with russia may violate the logan act. do you think there's any chance of a prosecution on a law that's never been prosecuted? >> clearly congress isn't going to take action here. members of the house talked about this and this is something that if true is detrimental to the president's relationship with congress and this is just yet another example of the president getting too far out and if true has some serious explaining to do with respect to his conversations. the violation of the logan act but i'm not going to hold my breath for house republicans to move forward and to try to do

anything to the national security advise sor. >> the key is if true and flynn and pence gave you a window of approach there at least flynn backed off his initial statement of saying no twice when asked if sanctions ever came up with his dealings with russia before he took office and now his official statement is he doesn't recollect and that is a smelly statement at the least. is this worth pursuing the letter and cummings saying look into her violation of the law for our at least ethical guidance for telling people to buy ivanka trumps goods on fox news and not being challenged about it. do you believe that she was seriously soliciting commercial activity? do you think it's worth it.

>> absolutely let's take her at her words. what i'm concerned too is just days before that she continues like members of the administration to use san bernardino as an example of their muslim ban so clearly they have a difficulty telling the truth here and the conflicts are very, very real but this is a president that never released his taxes. feels he is immune from the conflict of interest laws that apply so this is something that absolutely has to be looked at. and i appreciate the bipartisan nature that congress has sent this on. >> the question goes to selectivity. why aren't you pushing the fbi more about where they are on the connections between the trump administration and russia with respect to flynn and otherwise. and try to find a way to get more disclosure. and not just potential

conflicts. >> we'll continue to try to talk about it at every point. the fbi made very clear that they won't release details on an on going investigation. >> that's not always the case though, right? >> we do. from before the election clearly so this is something and he's going to have to give us an update on where we are but clearly there is plenty here and the president is not making things any easier. you have illuded to this. he is having an incredibly difficult week. we know that but the conflict of interests are real and this is just yet another example where his administration has a loose affiliation with laws. >> thank you for being on new

day. amanpour is with us next.

the white house has repeatedly denied that. >> they did not discuss anything having to do with the united states decision to expel diplomats or impose against russia. >> did they have a discussion those days or other day? >> they did not have a discussion. >> joining us now to discuss

this and more we have cnn chief international correspondent. >> if michael flynn did have this discussion with the russian ambassador to the u.s. before mr. trump took office it violates the logan act and what does that mean. >> that's a matter of internal u.s. legislation and clearly a matter for the united states and what can be said is that from this end certainly the spokesman for president putin has just like the americans denied that that substance was discussed in contact. he does admit that michael flynn, national security advisor did talk to the russian ambassador in washington but denied the substance of it and of course we do have to actually remember there's two sets of sanctions we're talking about. the one specifically that mike pence seems to be referring to were the ones put on russia in response to the accusations of russian hacking and other such material and activities during

the election. the other much more important hugely significant sanctions are those that will being put against russia for the last several years by the u.s., by the un, by the western nations in response to russia's annexation of crimea and invision of eastern crimea. >> but the one person not denying that this conversation could have happened is michael flynn's own and let me read you this statement. michael flynn indicated while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up. what does this tell us about what the plan is moving forward perhaps. >> specifically crafted to give a little wiggle room perhaps we could say. it say matter of investigation.

apparently it is under investigation in the united states. what actually going to happen as a result of this conversation or any other conversation and it's very, very vital to america's allies here in the west to know that the united states stands squarely behind defending the principles of international law whether it's on the illegal tapping into the u.s. democratic system or especially whether it's about violating international borders with invasions into crimea and ukraine. we have been told over again from the german chancellors office and all sort of centers in europe and you heard what the un ambassador said these sanctions will not be removed until the crimea situation is resolved but the other ones that are being put on and because of

allegations of hacking they are not very meaningful sanctions and they will not have a massive impact on those actions but if they were to be lifted or discussion of them being lifted. that would effect and would concern the rest of the world. as well as presumably. >> the white house has reported that last night president trump and the president of china have a lengthy phone conversation in which president trump agreed to honor the one china policy. that's the question after president elect trump had that unusual conversation with the president of taiwan before he went into the white house. so where are we now? >> so allison, what you're identifying this morning are two of the major bilateral

relationships that exist. why this relationship is so important and why he never see boo about the russian leader. that's worrying to the rest of the world which goes to your question about that and the other major relationship is between the united states and china. the two biggest economies and the two biggest militaries in the world upon which much of the world's economic health depends. so when president trump appeared to defy and dismiss the underpinning of american chinese relations for decade which is is the one china policy. that sends shockwaves all over beijing and president trump chose to pick a fight with china and on the one issue that china will go to war over which is the one china policy. so this is massively significant this call and particularly the reaffirmation of america's commitment to the one china policy and the white house says

in it's read out this is done at the request and we are told by our chinese officials and others interviewing that no call was going to happen. she will not take a call unless he knew that the u.s. president was going to affirm this one china policy because and we have seen it written and we have heard it ourselves that the president of china did not want to be humiliated and they are very concerned about the parameters of this phone call before they even accepted a phone call. >> one more thing because there's an urgent news bulletin i want to bounce off of you. and has given an interview to yahoo! news and made some news and he says that he supports president trump's proposed travel ban and it would

definitely stop terrorists. your thoughts? >> we have learned enough to understand where mr. bashar al assad comes from. this has been from the beginning of this war. he claimed those people fighting against his regime were terrorists. he opened his prisons and allowed all the prisoners and others that may have been taken in for various criminal reasons out and to wage war against the opponents. the ordinary civilians men and women that came out and children at the height of the arab spring to demand just a little bit of normalcy for themselves. then the rise of isis and all of it and the most important thing to remember and this is vital is that neither president assad nor russia, nor iran which have dominated the scene in syria have been fighting isis as their principle target. they have not been doing it. which is why isis continues in

syria. so all of this nonsense that president bashar is saying to yahoo! news is not based in fact. and is neither here nor there. they're not the terrorists. they're not being fought against at this moment. what is the trump administrations policy toward isis and how will it be enact first degree you're going to go into alliance with russia and frankly they factor iran on that side as well. >> thank you. we always appreciate all of the international context from you. we'll talk to you soon. >> thank you, allison. >> interesting in assessing what assad said. he said the travel ban is a good thing but he said the safe zones, the idea of those in syria are unpractical. all right. so the president says his ban is needed because of our national

security. does the former director of national intelligence that just left office three weeks ago agree? he gave an interview. what does he say? next. 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. [ sighs ]

only at&t offers you all your live channels and dvr on your devices, data-free. it's entertainment. your way. 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.

so we just heard the first interview of james clapper, the former director of national intelligence since he stepped down just a few weeks ago and gave it to cnn and talking about the state of national security specifically in the context of what president trump is arguing that the u.s. now faces. live in washington with this exclusive, the timing is

perfect. >> chris, you know, i have spoken to director clapper a number of times. he's a straight talker and not shy about sharing this very direct analysis. he knows something that makes this travel ban necessary. director clapper seen on the intelligence up to three weeks ago and have a listen. >> almost 16 years. >> in his first interview since stepping down the nation's top spy told us he is aware of no intelligence necessitating the president's travel ban and, in fact finds the bandaging. >> does the terror threat necessitate the ban from these 7 countries? >> well, i don't believe we were

aware of any extraordinary threats that we're dealing with and we're using i think some very rigorous vetting process. >> does a ban like this in your view does it damage u.s. image but also counter terror partnership? >> yes. i do worry about those countries in question with whom we do deal and whom are reliable partners. i also worry about this creating a recruiting tool for the extremists. that they will point to this proof that there is, in fact, on all muslims. >> i am and we have improved that process as we have gone. >> retired director of national intelligence james clapper commented for the first time on

the decision to brief then president elect trump alleging that russia has compromising information on him which cnn was first to report. >> we thought that it was important that he know about it. that was the main point. not to comment on the veracity. >> in the wake of the revelation mr. trump publicly criticized the intelligence community. even comparing it to nazi germany that prompted a phone call. >> very concerned as many in the intelligence community quite upset about the likening the intelligence community to nazis. i felt obliged to call the president elect and appeal to his higher inc. stingts. and understood what our motives

were and support to the commander and chief and keep him as informed as possible. >> were you successful and i think it was successful, it was a constructive engagement. >> director clapper emphasized that russia remains a clear and present danger warning it will continue to attack u.s. elections perhaps more aggressively. >> is there any reason to believe that russia is not right now today continuing to attempt to or to infiltrate the u.s. political organizations, individuals, et cetera. >> oh, i'm quite sure they are. i think it's in their dna. during the soviet era or now. >> is it a reasonable judgment

that they would try to interfere in upcoming u.s. elections whether they're midterm or presidential. >> i wouldn't put it past them. if they thought it would be to their advantage to influence a national or congressional election. >> would it remain in the realm of information or vote counting. >> i wouldn't put it past them. >> he left with genuine concerns about it's future. >> particularly the last 6.5 years were not exactly stress free. it's a since of relief. >> but you also describe foreboding. >> i worry. i'm not there anymore. and i have a lot personally

invested in a 50 year passion of mine, professional passion of mine so i have a lot invested in it. >> boy, this is spot on. just in terms of fact analysis. we heard from the president. they said the president told the country that if we gave notice of this ban there might have been a rush of bad guys flooding into the country and he said he knows something about the threat and now we hear with you and clapper he does not see the intel of legitimate basis that come from the areas being targeted. >> no, he said if you knew what i learned in the last couple of weeks you would understand. sean spicer from the podium at the white house had hinted at intelligence. when pressed he didn't give any

details but director clapper has certainly seen the intelligence and echos wha heard from others in the national security and counter terrorist space we have to slam the door today. that's a very different analysis than what you're hearing from the president. >> and again just from a fact analysis perspective we do have to remember that the president did say i know something about these russian hacks. turned out to be i think julian assange, such a different take from clapper and that segways us into flynn. michael flynn, national security advi a advisor. how compromised do you think he is about whether or not he discussed russian sanctions before he took office. he said no repeatedly. now he doesn't recollect whether he discussed sanctions. >> this is a real potential problem here.

logan act is thrown out there and dates back to the 18th century and sort of similar to treason i imagine. maybe there's been one successful prosecution on that but short of something in that category you have the idea of lying to vice president pence if you believe what he said about this or even possibly to investigators asking questions about that, that's real beyond the line of the public so that's a real question and then short of that it becomes a confidence issue with the president is does the president make a judgment this is a distraction. remember during the campaign when his campaign advisor got caught up in russia ties he ended that relationship. but it's a question. >> the real question forget about the law. i don't think it goes that way, what is true and can you trust what you're being told as fact from the administration. boy did you help us out with

clapper this morning. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> . white house adviser kellyanne conway plugged ivanka trump's clothing. now an investigation for violating ethics regulations. this is a debate you don't want to miss next. once-daily breo prevents asthma symptoms. breo is for adults with asthma not well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. breo won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. breo is specifically designed to open up airways to improve breathing for a full 24 hours. breo contains a type of medicine that increases the risk of death from asthma problems and may increase the risk of hospitalization in children and adolescents. breo is not for people whose asthma is well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. once your asthma is well controlled, your doctor will decide if you can stop breo and prescribe a different asthma control medicine,

like an inhaled corticosteroid. do not take breo more than prescribed. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ask your doctor if 24-hour breo could be a missing piece for you. learn more about better breathing at mybreo.com. i discovered a woman my family tree, named marianne gaspard. i became curious where in africa she was from. so i took the ancestry dna test to find out more about my african roots. ancestry really helped me fill in a lot of details. why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure.

do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident,

our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. 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. all right. white house counselor kellyanne conway under fire for promoting ivanka trump's clothing line in an interview on fox news.

here is what actually happened. >> go buy ivanka's stuff. i hate shopping and i'm going to go get some myself today. it's a wonderful line. i own some of it. a free commercial here, go buy it today everybody. you can find it online. >> she says she was joking. now a bipartisan congressional committee says they don't think it was funny. they want her investigated for violating ethics regulations. is there any there there? president of judicial watch tom fitton and executive director of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, noah bookbinder. i want to talk to you guys about the overall ethical and conflicts of interest picture here. i'll start with you. noah bookbinder, you put in a complaint on this. make the case for why what kellyanne did is actionable as an ethics violation and not just a joke? >> sure. the ethics rules are very clear.

if you're government official, you can't use your position to plaug private business interest. that's exactly what she did. it's hard to imagine a clearer instance of that. that's why you had the buy partisan leadership of the house oversight committee calling for action here. more over, it comes against the backdrop of a pattern of this administration and this president using the white house to plug the president's family's business interests, supporters' business interests. he's continuing to hold ownership in his companies. you have to wonder if he's going to benefit from a lot of things he does. >> tom, counterargument to you. we will discuss the larger context of what bookbinder is arguing. kellyanne had a smile on her face. she said she didn't mean it as a business solicitation. it's brought up as fact, well, she did apologize. she didn't apologize for what she said. she apologized for drawing

attention to herself. the president did not see this as an issue. he does not like the word counsel being used. they don't think she did anything wrong. your say. >> i don't think she did anything wrong in the moral sense of the word. she did something wrong in terms of violating the regulation that applies to using your public office to promote a product. >> even if you're joking about it. what if the intent isn't to jokjok promote, but to joke about promoting? >> it may be a violation. the appropriate response is the consequence has been reported, someone in the white house reminded her of the rules, maybe the president did. i hope it's a signal to the white house to remind folks, especially those talking to the public that, when defending the president's family from attacks, that they don't take it as an opportunity in their support of the president to promote specific products in the company. i think they can walk the line. kelly stepped over it. listen, if this is the biggest

ethics problem out of the trump white house, that's not a big deal for me. >> i think the larger point is, it isn't. back to you, noah bookbinder, to your larger point, you don't like what's happening with kellyanne in the specific, but you like it even less in the general because you see this as a pattern of behavior and kind of an outward ignoring of the standards of ethics when it comes to conflicts of interest. and to be clear, we don't really have any proof at this point that the president has done anything in any real way to separate himself from his business interests. is that true or false? >> that is true. we saw his sons who are now apparently running his businesses, were up on stage at the announcement of the supreme court nominee, but that doesn't even really matter because, regardless of who is running the businesses day to day, donald trump still owns the businesses, he still benefits from them. he knows what interests there

are, he knows what tax policies, representing tore policies and foreign policies will help his business. we don't have any indication that's not motivating him on a day-to-day basis. the kind of mixing of government interests and kellyanne conway's comments seem to indicate doesn't give us any confidence. >> tom fitton, you can't get into the man's head. that's not a productive place to be in making this case legally, even politically, but you can look at the facts. well, he created a trust. that's what people usually do. >> hold on a second. the facts are, the conflict of interest laws don't apply to the president. he's not required to do anything that is being suggested here. he's taking steps announced by his lawyer and that should be more transparency about what happens what those steps are to disengage from the business, but he's not required to destroy his business to become president of the united states. there's no way he could engage in a billion dollar fire sale

that wouldn't raise additional ethics questions. this is going to be a burden for him during his white house stay, but let's be clear, the law doesn't require him to do this, and the american people knew what they were getting when they put him in office. he was hired in part because of his success in business. >> some assumptions to unpack there. >> it's not required by law. let's not pretend there are rules they have to follow. >> but you are pretending, because while you are right that there is no law, you are pretending there is no other standard. we both know that's absurd on its face. there are ethical considerations. >> chris, you seem to know what you think you know. what's absurd on its face is a demand that the president destroy a billion dollar business. >> who is asking him to do that? >> -- in order to be president of the united states and that will solve all the issues. >> the president needs to make decisions based on what's best for the american people.

he has done less than nothing -- >> that's right. there's a check in place for that. it's called the ballot box. >> that's not the only check. >> if he really violates the rules of common sense in that regard. short of that, we're not anywhere near that despite the screaming about it. >> all right. so let's take a look at this, tom. it's not a combative principle. of course it's not about the law. you know that's not the only standard. obviously the president knows that which is why he did exactly what you're suggesting, he took steps to remove the projection of obvious conflict which he has. but those moves, when you look at them, fall on their face. the trust, he's the sole beneficiary. it's revokable. all those files filled with documents he says he signs, we don't have proof that any of them were filed in the states where they need to be to show change of control. then you have what bookbinder is discussing, which is this outward and consistent combination of what is good for donald trump and what is good for the