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 country.

it's not just about the law, and you know that, tom. >> it is about the law. >> not just about the law. >> it is about the law. >> but not just about the law. >> okay. i'm going to finish my answer. he has taken steps to mitigate the involvement of the business in the white house. >> how do you know that? >> because the lawyers have stated it as such, and we're going to get that. >> that's a fact? >> in typical disclosures over time. i would agree anything the president can do to reassure those who are concerned that the private interest takes precedent over the public interest in the trump white house would be appropriate. >> what disclosures are you assuming we'll get to see? >> i would encourage disclosures describing generally in a way that doesn't destroy his business or provide opportunities for those who want to destroy the presidency. >> how about his taxes? >> i don't think he necessarily has to release all his taxes.

>> has to or should? >> i don't know if he should either. >> why? >> because the taxes are roadmap to his entire company, and it's not just like someone's normal tax return. it's a massive document, and it would essentially, in many ways, up end the ability of the company to function in theory. i think there's a real concern there. i'm not saying it wouldn't be smart politically or under transparency which we advocate, it wouldn't be the best move, but it's not the end of the world that it hasn't happened. there's nothing like the situation we have with the president coming into the oval office. under the standards being thrown around here, george washington wouldn't be president. he had similar interest interests, about as wealthy as trump is relatively speaking. >> that's not even close to an analogy. nobody is arguing the law. >> it's a political fight, chris. >> nobody is arguing the law. i never said that it is about the law.

>> you're commenting politically about what he's done. >> i think there are obvious questions. you see it reflected in polls all the time. noah, bookbinder -- >> i agree it's a political night. >> nobody is saying it isn't. i'm saying you're ignoring the reality of the politics. >> this is not ethics, we're talking about, it's politics. >> i think there's a melding, and there should be. that's become a problem. noah, what i'm asking you, tom's assertion is the taxes don't really matter, because if you show them to people, you might destroy his business. i can't find a tax attorney whom i respect to echo that sentiment, what do you make of it. >> chris, have you asked a tax attorney about that? >> yes. hold on a second, noah. i've asked half a dozen why can't he show them under audit. they give me the question. why can't i know he's under audit. what could be in there that would be to destructive to him? they say, well, i'd have to see the taxes, but in general i

would be worried about you learning too little from taxes. i don't get why the president won't show them because they're not as elucidating as you people are assuming they are. that's what tax experts say to your answer. noah, what do you say? >> i think that, first of all, he's the president. we need to know what his interests are and what may be motivating him. his taxes are going to shed some light on that. there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have them. richard nixon gave up his tax returns when he was under audit. if that standard isn't one that this president could meet, that's a little troubling. i also want to say the law is actually a factor here because the constitution says he can't be taking payments from foreign governments. >> the emoluments clause you're talking about. i'm talking about specific ethics laws. noah, we have to leave it there for time. this has been a good discussion with both sides. noah bookbinder, tom fitton,

you're both always welcome to make the case on "new day." >> thank you. >> we're following a lot of news. let's get right to it. >> this is cnn breaking news. good morning and welcome to your "new day." we've got a lot of breaking news overnight as president trump begins just his third week in office. there are reports right now that the president's national security advisor michael flynn did, in fact, speak to russia's ambassador and about sanctions on that country before president trump took office. >> also, president trump spoke with the leader of china for the first time, reaffirming america's stance to honor the one china policy. in a late night vote, the senate confirming tom price as health and human services secretary. it is now his job to dismantle obamacare. >> all that news on your screen coming right after a federal appeals court gave us the big story which was refusing to

reinstate president trump's controversial travel ban. mr. trump resolute, vowing to fight the decision and calling it, quote, political. >> so how will the trump administration appeal this ruling? we are in day 22 of the trump presidency. let's begin our coverage with cnn's joe johns. he's live in the white house. joe. >> reporter: good morning, alisyn. the trump administration weighing a number of options this morning including whether to go for a hearing before 11 judges of the ninth circuit or to bring the case here to washington, d.c. to the supreme court. tough choices after that embarrassing loss before the appellate court last night. the trump administration suffering a major blow, the ninth circuit court of appeals unanimously refusing to reinstate the president's controversial travel ban. the three-judge panel finding the administration failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify an urgent need for the executive order to be

reinstated. the president immediately responding on twitter writing in all caps, see you in court. the security of our nation is at taking, without specifying if that means the supreme court, and again questioning the impartiality of the appellate court. >> it's a political decision and we'll see them in court and i look forward to doing it. >> reporter: trump accusing the judges of being biased, despite the fact that the ninth circuit judges were appointed by both 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? >> the -- yes. >> reporter: the battle over the travel ban is far from over. >> we will get our day in court and have an opportunity to argue on the merits and we will prevail. >> we've seen him in court twiegs and we're two for two.

>> reporter: all this coming as his pick for the supreme court, neil gorsuch says attacks on the judiciary are disheartening and demoralizing. trump lashed out at one democratic senator who met with gorsuch privately. >> his comments were misrepresented. ask senator blumenthal about his vietnam record that didn't exist after years of saying it did. >> reporter: the white house claims the comments were not directed at trump's attacks on federal judges. >> the judge was clear he wasn't commenting on any specific matter. he went out of his way to say, i'm not commenting on a specific ins tans. >> reporter: senator blumenthal said he disagreed on anderson cooper last night. >> was gorsuch talking about general terms? >> in disputebly he was talking about president trump's attacks on the judiciary. >> reporter: a key player in that senate nomination fight, senator mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, expected here

at the white house to meet with the president this morning, but the big event today is the visit of the japanese prime minister before the president flies off to mar-a-lago. back to you. >> joe, appreciate it. joining us is congressman chris collins of new york, member of the executive committee of the trump transition team. good to see you, congressman. >> good morning, good morning. >> big decision from the court. there's a whole menu of options in front of the president. he seemed to suggest that he'll see them in court, meaning he'll continue the litigation. is there any thought to taking the route of going back and either redrafting this executive order or maybe going to congress and kind of pumping up the sufficiency of this policy and avoiding legal review? >> well, i don't see the role of congress in this. if nothing else, i don't believe the senate with a filibuster would ever go along, that we'd be able to get a bill on his desk. so many things, chris, are coming down to pure politics.

we're seeing it in hearings we're running now in congress. the democrats are just going to be saying no on all his nominees. they'll say no on legislation. i would take the congressional piece off the table. i do support you could always rework it and try to get more exact details of what somebody found problematic, but i think that would only occur after this has gone up to either a broader review by the appellate court or the supreme court itself. who knows? he could end up with a 4-4 ruling out of the supreme court if it moved quickly. so i think there are a lot of options. the president's job is to keep america safe. it is his opinion that matters. the law is quite clear. so if there is some little piece of this that the courts are finding problematic, i suppose that could be reworked. so it's certainly an issue that's going to be fluid. we haven't heard the end of it. i guess stay tuned. >> just one thing and then we'll

move on to some other news of the day we have. the idea of what the president is the final word on came up and was really well dealt with. that's going to be subjective, whether you like the ruling or not. i'm saying they took a lot of time to deal with the notion that only the constitution is absolute in its authority, and while the president is given broad discretion, especially in this area of national security and threat assessment, it's not unchecked authority. >> well, when you look at the language, parts of what he can do is, in fact, unchecked. when you realize that the law says -- i don't have the words right in front of me -- he is absolutely allowed to ban certain individuals, certain groups of individuals -- >> right, subject to the constitutionality of those actions. you would agree on that,

correct? >> true. >> let's move on to some other news of day because we don't know what the president is going to do on this. michael flynn, how big a hole do you think it is -- not so much the logan act. i know that's out there but we've never seen a successful prosecution of it. but this change in stance where he said no repeatedly about whether or not he discussed russian sanctions with russian officials before he came into office officially, or the president did as well, now he says he cannot recollect whether or not he did. how do you feel about that? >> as the national security adviser, i'm not sure what all the issues are. general flynn, it's his job to advise the president on national security matters. he's well versed in them. what may have happened in a private phone conversation, while i don't know what it is, i wouldn't personally have concerns one way or the other. it wasn't in a policy making

role when that phone call took place. >> it wasn't just one phone call. we've heard from multiple sources now and we know the fbi is looking at it as well, that there were multiple communications. and if, in fact, there was discussion about the sanctions that lent some type of credibility to the suggestion that they would change and maybe somehow coincided with what we saw from the russian president not taking reciprocal action when the united states removed some of their suspected spies, does that bother you? >> no, it doesn't bother me. i'm thrilled that the team president trump has put together. i know general flynn personally, and he's a man of integrity who is always going to put our country first. so i'm just an individual that happens to know the players and trusts them implicitly and know they are always putting america's best interests first and only first. >> do you think removing

sanctions from russia would be in america's best interests? >> again, that's not my call. i think it has to be those discussions taken in context with everything from the ukraine to nuclear missiles and other actions around the world. that would be a negotiation or discussion between the president and his staff and vladimir putin and those advising him. i would again trust what this president and his advisers suggest, to move the whole world forward on a safer footing. >> kellyanne conway in the cross hair, even of jason chaffetz and elijah cummings, saying they want an ethical probe done of her actions for being on a morning show saying to bye ivanka trump's goods. how do you feel about that? did she break the rule? >> i saw that interview. call it a little frustration, but she was smiling, she was laughing, she was speaking about

herself, she's going to go buy some of the jewelry or other items. somebody is making a mountain out of a mole hill here. i'd say get a life. this is not anything other than her commenting to the news of the day in a lighthearted fashion, and i certainly took it that way. i'm just amazed that others seem to be trying to roll out the legal issues. >> let's look at why. >> i would never go down that road. >> let's say you're right. let's say kellyanne was doing this in jest, didn't have any intent to break this ethical rule, okay. get a life is a little dismissive in the face of a pattern of apparent conflicts of interest with this administration that i think is probably raising suspicion. >> i don't see the pattern. >> it's hard not to see the pattern because you have constant commingling of family business and the public business

here, right? you've got the sons who have a foot in both camps. you have a daughter with a foot in both camps. you have the president making proclamations from his official twitter account about business relationships with his daughter. we have files that we weren't allowed to examine that say created all the necessary separation. we don't know of any documents that's been filed. we've never seen his taxes. all of that fuels suspicion and leads to this type of scrutiny. >> well, it fuels suspicion by those that don't like donald trump. let's remember he filled out a personal financial disclosure form that shows more details than a tax return will ever show. somehow that never comes up. >> because it's not really true. it's not really true. >> what isn't? >> the fec offering is everything he wants to tell you, right? the tax return is what he's compelled to tell you. >> he's required. >> it's volitional.

you have to put the information in. the information is not scrutinized and vetted. it's his own reckoning of a private business. remember, all of his holdings are private, not public. that's part of the issue. >> he's affirming and signing his name. >> true. >> signing his name to a legal document. so no, that is extraordinarily important. the questions do come back and forth. that is the requirement of the law. tax returns are not required. tax returns, these folks who say i want to see who he owes money to and this and that, that's not even on his tax returns. i've yet to find anything that anyone would say is on a tax return that isn't on his personal financial disclosure form which is more intrusive than a tax return. i've always said he shouldn't report his taxes. i don't think any elected official should. >> interesting take. chris collins, appreciate you being on "new day" and making the case. have a good weekend.

>> always good to be with you. >> alisyn? >> discussions with a russian ambassador before president trump took office. senator angus king here on that and more. ♪ heigh ho! ♪ heigh ho! ♪ heigh ho! ♪ heigh ho! ♪ heigh ho! heigh ho! it's off to work we go ♪ ♪ heigh ho! heigh ho! ♪ ♪ heigh ho! heigh ho! ♪ ♪ heigh ho! heigh ho! it's off to work we go ♪ ♪ heigh ho! heigh ho! hey, what's up man? here's to all 180 million of you early risers, go-getters, and should-be sleepers. from 80 thousand of us at delta...

because the ones who truly change the world are the ones who can't wait to get out in it. ♪ bp engineers use robotic ultrasound technology, so they can detect and repair corrosion before it ever becomes a problem. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

president trump tweeting moments ago he's quoting a legal blog called law fair. his tweet says remarkably in the entire opinion the panel didn't bother to cite this, a statute. he's talking about the ninth circuit court's decision on the travel ban. senator angus king is an independent but caucuses with the democrats. great to have you here. i know you voted at 1:00 a.m. >> it was more like after 2:00. i was in time to get the 3:15 from washington to new york. >> that is commitment to "new day," a 3:15 a.m. train. thank you for being here. >> let's talk about the news that the ninth circuit court did not reinstate the president's travel ban. what's your reaction? >> we have to be careful not to read too much into it and not to

understand it's pretty important. the essential ruling is that the actions of the president in this situation are reviewable. i think what really stuck in the craw of the court is that the president's counsel said it's not reviewable, the courts can't have any role. >> meaning the president does not have ultimate authority when it comes to national security, that the court wanted to know the evidence for changing this. >> that's right, and that nobody is above the law and the constitution. it cited some cases i haven't seen since law school, ex-parte milligan, right after the civil war, the president and the government have to follow the constitution even in the time of war. now, there's a long road on this. this is a temporary restrain order. if there are no further appeals, it will go back to the district court in washington where there will be a hearing and evidence and briefs next week or they'll be a further appeal to an on bank of the u.s. circuit.

>> president trump said we'll see you in court. what does that mean? >> it could be one of three places. they could request an all judge ruling from the ninth circuit or they could try to take an appeal to the supreme court. that would be tough because they need five votes to even get there, or they could go ahead and litigate the case in the district court in the state of washington. so they have some options, and i don't think people should say, well, trump lost and this case is over, there's still a lot of deference, and the court mentioned this. there's a lot of deference to the president in the areas of national security, but it's not unlimited. that's what this case was all about. >> what did you make of supreme court nominee judge gorsuch saying behind closed doors to a democratic senator that he found president trump's words about judges and the court disheartening and demoralizing. >> i couldn't agree more. you can disagree with a court's decision. that's why they invented law reviews. there are articles about court's

decisions criticizing, but when you criticize the institution itself, so-called judge. he's not a so-called judge. he's a federal judge, nominated by a president of the united states, approved by the united states senate. remember the tweet with the intelligence community in quotes? that is delegitimizing one of the coequal branches of our government. it's really offensive and particularly offensive to somebody like judge gorsuch who spent his whole life in the courtroom. we've got to respect the institutions. if you delegitimize all your opponents, that ultimately is very disstruckive. >> we've had so much breaking news this morning that we have to cover a lot of things. let's get to another breaking news story. that is, "the new york times" and "the washington post" have sources that say that the nsa director, michael flynn, spoke to the russian ambassador to the

u.s. before donald trump was installed as president in the white house. he spoke to him about u.s. sanctions. the suggestion is that somehow maybe general flynn suggested that they would be sympathetic towards lifting sanctions. if that happened, because other people have denied it, including vice president pence. if that conversation happened before mr. trump was in the white house, what does that mean? >> an old law called the logan act where private citizens are not supposed to conduct policy. it's of concern. it's also of concern what michael flynn said. apparently he said these discussions never took place. now he's saying, well maybe they did. >> his spokesperson is saying that he can't remember nor can he confirm they did not take place. >> that's different. he was pretty categorical i think several weeks ago. the timing -- as i recall, these conversations took place within a day or so of president obama

imposing the sanctions for the election hacking. putin then tweeted that night or the next day he's not going to react and then president-elect trump tweeted putin is smart not to rezblakt do you see all those as being interconnected? >> i don't know. but that's the time frame. it is a concern. you shouldn't be conducting foreign policy and discussing these kinds of things until you're in office. this is important diplomacy. >> what do you do about it? >> i think we have to continue to look into it. i'm on the intelligence committee, and we're going to be conducting the congressional investigation into the russian hacking and what went on and why those sanctions were put on in the first place and whether there were contacts between the russian government and members of one or the other of the political parties, one or the other of the campaigns. i think that's very important information. as far as where this issue goes with michael flynn, i don't see

it as necessarily something that's a crime or anything, but it does go to questions of credibility and judgment, frankly. >> senator angus king, thank you for making the herculean effort to be here in studio this morning. great to see you. >> glad to be here. the appeals court judges unanimously refusing to reinstate president trump's travel ban. what will the trump administration do now? our all-star legal and political panel discusses that next. our t. 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.

french authorities say they have foiled a possible terror attack arresting four people including a 16-year-old girl. investigators say they found an improvised explosive device and multiple french outlets say the group was planning a suicide bombing in an unspecified tourist area of paris. >> all right, look, we're seeing it play out in realtime. stories like that plot make fear there and it reverb rates back here. it's one of the reasons the president is making its case about the travel ban. >> to make it clear, it was

foiled. investigators were doing their job, they were ahead of it, stopped it before anything happened. that should be comforting. >> they were there and only have to be right once. that's the fear. reasonable or unreasonable, that's up to you. the question now is how does this administration deal with the ninth circuit ruling that keeps this ban banned. let's discuss with david chalian, washington examiner reporter salena zito. former white house ethics czar for president obama, norman eisen and professor emeritus at harvard law school alan dershowitz. professor dershowitz, this decision not a shock, certainly to you. going forward we have seen thement indicate he is resolute on wanting to do this in court. do you advise it? what do you see going forward?

>> he may win in the united states supreme court. it went further than any opinion in the state of washington on establishment clause. no one can predict the outcome. it would be reasonable for him to expect he might win at least a partial victory as it relates to people who have never been in the united states. but it will take time. the one thing the president has told us is that this is a matter of national security and immediacy. so the option that he should pursue is he should rescind this order or at least rewrite the order and issue a new order that applies only to people who have never been in the united states, that rewrite some of the most questionable provisions and that gives us a win-win, that protects us from terrorism at the same time preserving our constitutional rights. if he simply appeals and takes time and this takes months and months and months, and if there's a terrorist attack, he

can't blame the courts. he will only have himself to blame if he doesn't reissue this order in a constitutional manner. >> norm eisen, do you agree that's what the next step should be, rewriting the constitutional order. >> good morning, alisyn, good morning chris. thanks for having me. i do agree that the president needs to back away, which he seems to be constitutionally incapable of doing in every sense of the word, from his poor decision making. i have to disagree with my old friend, my teacher and my first boss when i was in law school, alan dershowitz, the glass isn't half empty, it's half full. what the court did here was assert due process rights at a core that apply to lawful permanent residents, non-immigrant visa holders. of course you can't have this kind of a shameful order against them. the president needs to make it right by changing his eo. >> all right.

i'm not going to have any battle of the crimson here on our time. lengths get away from the law and look at the politics. salena zito, look what's happening in france. i don't want them to be present in the country. that's ease what he's echoing to the rest of the country. people have that fear. how does he harness it in policy going forward from here? >> i think he needs to make the case almost every day that my job as president is to keep you safe. that's what i'm focusing on. if i need to rewrite this, that's what i'll do. i'm considering it. when i interviewed people across the country, there were two things that really stood out that i think went under the radar of polls, is that not only obamacare a big concern for voters, but national security,

even with people in nebraska and iowa where you don't see the sort of grand attack that you saw on 9/11 or that you saw in florida, that is a concern for them. while nobody liked the terminology muslim ban, they did like extreme vetting, they believe the process needs to be more stringent and we need to have a better understanding of who is coming in here. that would behoove him to constantly remind people that that's what he wants to do. >> david chalian, all the free advice that our stale lar panel has rolled out is none of the things that thus far president trump has said he's going to do. what are his next steps? >> well, it's unclear. we're waiting to hear from the administration. i would suggest what professor dershowitz was suggesting to the trump administration is basically something they could have done initially. if it was written with full

interagency review, members of congress briefed, if there was a full communications plan rolling this out, perhaps some of this could have been avoided from the get-go. that's not the way they approached the executive order. if, indeed we do know and we've reported that president trump was not at all pleased with the way this was put together and rolled out, perhaps that will give him the opening without feeling that he has lost something here to say, let's give this one more shot because of how important it is, and that may be his best path to declaring victory. as we know, this president believes one thing more than anything else, he is a winner. so the idea of putting his tail between his legs and walking away from this in some way or waiting a long time for the supreme court to rule seems less likely to me just in terms of what trump has displayed so far. again, we wait to hear from the administration what they will do. >> you have norm eisen shaking his head in the negative and

professor dershowitz shaking his head in the positive. let's give them another bielt at the apple. professor, what do you see as the best course forward, not just in terms of rewriting, but in addressing the threat in a way that it will make it popular and also legal? >> remember that when the state of washington brought this lawsuit -- that's a great thing they did because they increased our checks and balances from three branches including the states now have a check on the national government. it was a great thing. i have to congratulate them. they didn't even ask the court to strike it down as it relates to the family in yemen who has never been in the country and is applying simply for a tourist visa. so it should be rewritten to make sure it doesn't apply to green cardholders, doesn't apply to people in universities now or have close connections to the united states. it only applies to people who have no connections to the united states, who have no

standing no due process rights, no establishment clause arguments which is a very weak argument in any event. i think good lawyers, the new attorney general can craft a new order that would satisfy constitutional standards. it would be challenged, but have a "better chance of surviving and it becomes a win-win for the american people. >> norm eisen, your thoughts? >> donald trump is never going to do that. he is determined, like a game of constitutional chicken. he's got his pedal to the metal, we'll see this go to the supreme court. i'll take the 3:15 angus king train to come and appear in person on "new day" if trump reverses. he should reverse because what he's done here with this executive order is unconstitutional, it's discriminatory, he's brought shame upon the united states

with the poor lawyering. i thought it was very notable that the panel hammered the white house counsel, reading between the lines. they were saying, done mcgahn, you didn't do your job. >> hold your thoughts. we have many more questions for you. stick around. the trump white house is also facing ethics issues involving two top advisers. did his national security adviser lie about talking to russia ability sanctions? our panel takes that on next.

"the new york times" and "washington post" reporting that president trump's national security adviser michael flynn

discussed u.s. sanctions with the russian ambassador to the u.s. before trz took office. the administration has repeatedly denied that. >> they did not discuss anything having to do with the united states' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against russia. >> did they ever have a conversation about sanctions on those days or any other day? >> they did not have a discussion contemporaneous with u.s. action. >> joining us again, our fabulous panel. david chalian, salina zito, norm eisen and alan derrish wits. professor, if michael flynn had that conversation before president trump took office, that, we understand, would violate the logan act of 1798 which we are told you are an expert in. how do you see this? >> one prosecution under the act for a farmer back in 1803. if the logan act were ever

enforced, jimmy carter and jesse jackson would be sharing a jail cell today because they both engaged in so much activity in violation of the logan act. jimmy carter advised yasser arafat not to accept bill clinton's peace offer in 2000-2001. ronald reagan's people negotiated with the ayatollah's people. this is a dead letter. let's criticize him for what he said and what he did and maybe not telling the truth about it, but forgot about the logan act. >> george logan, the doctor who it was named after, became senator right after it was put into effect. obviously not much bite on him. isn't the law a distraction here, norm eisen? isn't this about this bigger question now about how the national security adviser could fail to recollect whether or not he ever discussed sanctions with his russian counterparts before the president took office?

he said no repeatedly. he now says he can't recollect in an official statement. this is ability the truth, not just the law. >> chris, of course that's right. the truth, telling the truth is a problem for everybody in this administration starting with the tone deafness at the top from the president of his truth challenged view of the world. here is where this ethical and moral lapse, the love of lies hits the legal -- the legal rubber hits the road, chris. we know. we know there's an investigation of mr. flynn and others around then candidate trump's connection to russia. if flynn was interviewed by the fbi or other investigators and

he made false statements, he has a lot more serious legal liability than under the logan act. there are no shortage of those. that's the place where administration officials get tripped up administration after administration. >> so salina zito, there are these ethical questions about whether or not michael flynn did have this conversation. there are ethical questions about how russia alleged meddled in the u.s. election, about whether the trump organization does still accept foreign money. >> emollients. dershowitz is an expert on that. >> okay. and then there is the ethics investigation that congressman jason chaffetz and elijah cummings announced for kellyanne conw conway. after all those spider webs, kellyanne conway is the person who will be investigated because

she plugged ivanka trump's clothing line yesterday? >> of all the serious things going on in this country, what kellyanne conway did by the letter of the law was wrong. having said that, if you watch the clip, it's clear she's joking. it's also clear in the way she's answering. she did not at least from my estimation go on there, like i am totally plugging her line. it appears to be a threeaway line, she was joking back and forth. there are so many outrageous moments that important things like the president having, from all accounts, a fairly successful conversation with the president of china last night, over an hour, where he reinstated the one china rule which was an outrage three months ago, he's going to be

spending several hours -- a couple days with the prime minister of japan, these are the things that sort of affect people's lives because they're based on trade, based on job creation. those kinds of things don't rise to the top of the conversation, and those kinds of things are the things that affect people's lives, especially the people that sort of invested in him, sometimes hesitantly, with their vote. >> we have been having that conversation. we have been having those conversations about that this morning. i guess i'm trying to point out -- david chalian, what do you think that this is what jason chaffetz has zeroed in on? >> as salina said, as a matter of law, it was a clear violation. >> i don't know that's true. just to be balanced with derrish wits and eisen on the panel. if what salina posed, that she was joking, she wasn't serious,

she didn't violate the law because she didn't have the intent. >> wrong, wrong. >> i'll come to you next. >> the point that both of these stories give us insight into, both flynn and kellyanne conway learning this morning that donald trump was not at all pleased the way sean spicer used the word counseled, that vice president pence did not seem to get a fully accurate recollection and readout from mike flynn, this is a team and an operation that is not running on all cylinders, has not fully gelled yet a few weeks into this administration. i think that is really what the stories give us insight into. >> let eisen take a shot at me to end the segment. how can i violate a law if i have no intent to violate the law in this context? >> she -- ethics 101. you do not get on national television and plug a business. >> she didn't. she was joking. >> she was at best half joking.

>> what are you, a jokeologist? >> even jason chaffetz who refuses to look at emoluments. he even said it was a clear violation. it was a clear violation. >> dershowitz, help me out. >> no, no, no. here is why it matters. i would agree if this were an isolated incident, let it go, but it's not. it's part of this enormous trump effort to capitalize on the presidency, to make millions, and that is wrong. she's just following her boss. >> well, that was originally my boss, why is she the fall guy. panel, we're out of time. thank you very much. great conversation. we appreciate you guys being here. he scored the inwithing touchdown in the super bowl and he just got a super surprise. we'll show you next. fun in art class. come close, come close. i like that. [ all sounds come to a crashing halt ] ah.

when your pain reliever stops working, your whole day stops. awww. try this. for minor arthritis pain, only aleve is fda approved to work for up to 12 straight hours with just one pill. thank you. come on everybody. aleve. live whole. not part. just checking my free credit score at credit karma. what the? you're welcome. i just helped you dodge a bullet. but i was just checking my... shhhhh... don't you know that checking your credit score lowers it. just be cool. actually, checking your credit score with credit karma doesn't affect it at all. are you sure? positive. huh, so i guess i could just check my credit score then. oh! check out credit karma today. credit karma. give yourself some credit. sorry about that.

you might not ever just stand there, looking at it. ♪ i mean you may never even sit in the back seat. mhm that'd be a shame. ♪ (laughs) ♪ ♪ ♪ 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.

all right. comedian bill maher telling our van jones he would gladly make a $1 million donation and take up a new religion -- you know how maher feels about religion if someone else could take trump's place. shear a clip from tonight's "messy truth." >> i got to give you a lot of credit. you got a lot of people through the bush years, frankly. >> the bush years. i gave obama a million dollars. you know that, right? his pact. i would happily give that million dollars right now to mitt romney if he would take over the country. i gave it to prevent mitt romney

from becoming president. now i'm begging mitt romney to become president. i will become a mormon. i will become a mormon and give you a million dollars, mitt romney, if you would please take over the country. >> i like it. >> join us tonight for the messy truth. bill maher is van jones' special guest, 9:00 p.m. eastern only on cnn. >> that looks like it will be very entertaining and provacative. a big week as we know for james white, the new england patriots running back who scored three touchdowns in the super bowl including the game-winner. of course, he was on "new day." his quarterback, tom brady, won the mvp award, leaving white empty-handed until last night on conan. >> tom brady said afterwards that you deserved the mvp. they gave him the mvp. he said you deserve the mvp. that must have felt really nice. >> that felt nice. i wouldn't get 14 catches if he wasn't throwing me the ball.

it's very nice. >> well, brady did say that you deserved -- actually his quote was, i think, that he would have given you the mvp truck, and this is kind of nice because ford agreed with brady, so here it is. it's all yours. the ford f-150, the official truck of the super bowl right over here. [ cheers and applause ] >> this is your truck. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> camerato am quote mow -- >> you saw the truck. what were you moved by. >> his thighs are so huge. >> that's why one hit wasn't enough and he made it into the super bo end zone in the super bowl. >> thank you for watching. cnn newsroom with poppy harlow

and steve berman after this break. and world-class innovations. like in plattsburgh, where the most advanced transportation is already en route. and in corning, where the future is materializing. let us help grow your company's tomorrow - today at esd.ny.gov

good morning everyone. i'm john berman. >> i'm poppy harlow. glad you're with us this friday. this morning, a lot of news. a sweeping repudiation of the president's travel ban and a stunning and detailed takedown of the white house's assertion of unreviewable power. three federal judges refusing to reinstate the travel ban on seven muslim majority countries. president trump lashing out at the decision against his executive order. >> the first reaction not surprising was on twitter, in all caps, see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake. he also called it a, quote, disgraceful decision. in between tweets he said act