travel ban on hold at least for now, a major setback at least for now for the trump administration. we'll stay on top of the breaking story. our special coverage will continue right now on "erin burnett out front." "out front" now, breaking news, trump right now at this hour we are learning that there has been a block of the travel ban. a federal judge moments ago issuing a restraining order on donald trump's latest executive order. on immigration. it was slated to go into effect at midnight tonight. let's get straight to jeff zeleny for the latest. this is the retooled quote/unquote improved executive order that would ban immigrants from -- or people coming in, to be clear, from six muslim majority countries as well as a temp rare stay on refugees.

a nationwide ban out of hawaii. >> reporter: that's right, erin. white house is still assessing this. white house press secretary sean spicer who is on the ground here in nashville, tennessee, where the president's scheduled to have a rally here coming up, he just told reporters moments ago that they are still looking at this decision and he would have more to comment on later he said after the rally as they fly back to washington. i would be very surprised if president trump did not say something about that here at the rally. this of course is something the administration spent a lot more time on. they worked on it for weeks back to the drawing board, and they simply wanted to get this right. there was a delay in terms of the implementation of this. so this is taking them by surprise. it is angering them, no doubt. but they are still assessing this at the moment here. as you said, that hawaii decision of course affects the entire country, but it certainly

will be one more piece of the president's argument here for why he needs to do something. so, erin, already in this rally here they've been talking about immigration, illegal immigration. i certainly expect the president to keep talking about that here at this red state rally in tennessee. >> jeff zeleny, thank you very much. to our justice reporter laura jarrett for more. what are you learning right now? this is stunning. they had retooled this. this was possible but not expected. >> that's exactly right. they certainly felt like they had done a lot to remedy the problems that the courts had outlined last time. they exempted green cardholders, exempted those with valid visas, got rid of the provision that was in the last executive order that prioritized certain religious minorities, but the court in hawaii said that's not enough. and in this ruling, which is a nationwide block of section 2 of

the order, which is the 90-day ban of foreign travellers from the six muslim majority countries, as well as the 120-day ban preventing all refugees from coming here, the judge specifically looked at the establishment clause challenge, and that's the one that the states were saying this discriminates on the basis of religion. >> thank you very much, lawyer va. i've got paul callan and mark preston. what laura said, in particular this goes at the establishment clause, there have been a lot of changes. green cardholders, visa holders, no religious prioritization. a lot of changes. it wasn't permanent on the syrian refugees. >> this is surprising. the establishment clause says there has to be a separation of state from religion in the united states. it's the religious clause of the

constitution. the reason this was tritt criticized by the washington state judge was there was a special subsection giving special exemptions to certain christian minorities but not muslim minorities. >> that was removed. >> they took it out completely. the new one doesn't say anything about religion at all. now, why is the hawaii judge doing this? he's doing this for another reason. you remember there was a big argument about what trump had to say during the campaign about the muslim religion. he said he was going to do a muslim ban and giuliani right at the very end when this thing was being talked about in court, said i had a discussion with trump about how to implement a muslim ban, so i think the court is looking at those discussions and saying there's religious discrimination. >> important because the department of justice said even today those things should not be admissible. they were said on the campaign trail sort of as if they had a premonition or concern. they knew this case in hawaii was up today.

now one in washington state. judge robart with the original restraining order was set to rule any moment. think said this shouldn't be admissible. now you have not judge robart times two, another judge saying basically it is. >> we could see a double barrel. this has been a difficult day for the trump administration which has had a lot of difficult days. not only do you have what happened on capitol hill earlier today when you had republicansings, a senior republican saying they found no evidence of wiretapping, then -- trump tower and what we have just seen now, the white house i think was not expecting this to happen. they thought they had gotten past this. most-us did too. >> i think most people did. alan dershowitz, you were here with mark and paul callan the first night as the news broke with the original restraining order. surprised by the decision out of

hawaii? >> i'm not surprised because the attitude of the court is there can't be any lawful order as long as candidate trump said what he said and giuliani said what he said. that makes anything than happens thereafter simply a cover for a muslim ban. so the whole effort to try to clean it up was futile, taking out the religious part of it which gave religious preference to discriminated against groups. that didn't matter because the entire ban, no matter what it says, was badly motivated, then struck down. the problem is the supreme court has taken exactly the opposite attitude when it comes to looking at motive and intent. they said you don't look at motive and intent. you look at the word of the regulation and that's what the supreme court will ultimately hold. >> is that where you believe this is now headed?

they have not replied. given what they have done so far it would seem very reasonable for them at this point to dig in their heels. they've said time is of the essence, which would go against this, but they've also said this one is fixed so they would take it to all the way to the supreme court. >> they'll go to the ninth circuit first and there it's a crapshoot. a panel of 20-some-odd judges, some liberal, some conservative. they'll probably seek expedited appeal through the ninth circuit, not through the supreme court. even with eight justices they have a very good chance of winning in the supreme court, and if they get their ninth justice in there in a timely way, i think it's almost a certainty they would uphold at least the core of this newly revised travel prohibition. i'm not saying it's -- there's a difference between something being bad as a matter of policy and being unconstitutional. >> paul, when you look at this legally, and you're saying this

establishment clause is saying what he said in the campaign is admissible and alan is saying that's what they're saying but the supreme court would by precedent say it's not, intent is not what matters, the letter of the offensive boarder is wha. is this political on the part of these judges? >> interesting because the hawaii court is part of the ninth circuit and you'll see the trump administration attacking the crazy ninth circuit again saying you can't go by what they say, they're too liberal, that court. i agree with alan, the words of the statute matter and i think it is dangerous when you go back into a political campaign and say we're going to interpret the law based upon what was said during the course of a lengthy and contentious political campaign. i can't remember seeing that done before. it's kind of a new concept to do that. >> alan, would you say these judges are being political? as part of this, if you could explain, because we had washington and the ninth circuit, now this is a separate

temporary restraining order and a separate executive order. does it all build to the same precedent? so far the precedent in this overall issue is going in one direction and that is against the executive order. >> i wouldn't say it's political in the sense of partisan. i would say the judges have points of view and a hawaii judge, think of this, hawaii, the most multicultural, ethnic state in our union, is likely to have a strong bias, conscious or unconscious, in favor of immigration and against any kind of discrimination based on religion. so i wouldn't call it partisan politics. i don't think it matters whether it's a democrat or republican. they're not trying to help or hurt a particular party. but i think ideology matters, and the ideology of many judges will be in favor of a more permissive immigration and against anything they see as religious discrimination. >> what this will come down to, mark, which is crucial, is how the white house responds to this, in particular not even the white house, how donald trump responds to it.

he could come out guns blazing against whatever names andage ek tichs he'd like to put on this judge or the upcoming ninth circuit, possibly hurting his cause, or not. that is the decision pause he's now finding out about this literally in the past two or three minutes. >> he found out as we did. what will be interesting is how quickly they react to it and not just publicly but what they do to try to make an appeal because remember, they delayed going back in. they initially went in and said they wrote the law quickly because it was in our national security interest. it was knocked down. they were ready to come back out with it. they then delayed it and then of course we are where we are right now. if they come back speedy and say we need it done quickly, that could be in question because why wasn't it done quicker? to your point about what public opinion is right now, the politicization of the judiciary, democrats and republicans that will be attacking a co-equal branch of government, is

dangerous. there's been a lot of that. >> what they're doing is saying what he said in a political context is what they're basing the decision on if this establishment clause is the point. >> and they're going back. how far back can you go? a year earlier when he first started running for office or, you know, six months in or three months in? it's an unusual thing to do. but i think the other thing, and i agree with mark, they're up against the wall because before they had the option of withdrawing the executive order, rewriting it in a slower, more careful manner, and reissuing. now they've reissued. they'll look like complete idiots if they say we're taking this one back and rewrite a third one. >> they have to fight this one to the top. i want to bring in jim sciutto. what is the reaction to this restraining order? >> the politics and the law and then the national security implications from this. the fact is you speak to many senior commanders in the u.s. military who served in that region, they don't see this --

not only don't they see this as helpful, they see it as counterproductive, particularly in relation to key counterterrorism relationships with those in the region. i was in britain last week. the british see this ban has counterproductive, close u.s. ally. i spoke to a saudi senior adviser today who was here on the saudi crown prince's visit to washington who described the travel ban as counterproductive. you have that viewpoint, which is you're hearing not just from close u.s. allies but people inside the u.s. military whose job it is to build these relationships and protect the u.s. from terrorism, which is the pune tich goal of the president's travel ban. that's a key voice he'll continue to hear. >> i just want to jump in with the breaking development here. jeff zeleny is reporting that an aide says donald trump has been informed of the temporary restraining order and at this moment we should expect the president to talk about this ruling tonight. he is going to be speaking live in about 15 minutes this hour at

a rally in nashville. we'll bring that to you to hear what he has to say. will he attack the judges or not? this is a crucial moment and a test for him to see how he will respond. as our breaking coverage of this continues, as we get more information we'll bring it to you. i want to mention the breaking news that mark brought up, the president was asked today why he tweeted about president obama wiretapping him before producing any evidence, and tonight he is responding. here's what the president just said. >> wiretap covers a lot of different things. i think you'll find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks. >> he hadn't talked about this in 11 days since his tweet. fist bringing it up he fired off four specific tweets accusing president obama of a crime. the first one was at 6:35 on a saturday morning. "terrible. just found out that obama had

my, quote, wires tapped in trump tower just before the victory. nothing found. this is mccarthyism." the next one about 15 minutes later, "is it legal for a sitting president to be, quote, wiretapping a race for president prior to election? turned down by a court order. a new low." "a i bet a good lawyer could make a great case about the fact president obama was tapping my phones in october just prior to election." and "how low has president obama gone to tap my phones during the sacred election process. this is nixon watergate. bad [ or sick ] guy." he's clearly talking about president obama tapping his phones. now not even in the president's own party is stand big his side. manu raju is out front. not only is wiretapping of a very specific definition, which of course is tapping a phone, but now you have senior republicans who are seeming hi abandoning the president on this claim.

>> reporter: he's getting virtually no support on capitol hill from either side and actually james comey left a briefing a couple hours ago with top senators on the judiciary committee and one of them, dianne feinstein, a democrat from california, was asked directly, have you seen any evidence of wiretapping yet? she said no. and she is not alone. today members of president trump's own party are openly challenging his claim that trump tower had been wiretapped under the orders of president barack obama. >> we don't have any evidence that that took place. in fact, i don't believe in the last week of time the people we've talked to, i don't think there was an actual tam of trump tower. >> reporter: and senator lindsey graham said official answers over trump's allegation of wiretapping may soon be coming. >> there may be no "there" there, but it's pretty to answer the question was there a warrant issued or applied for. >> the answer is no. >> i believe it to be.

but the longer they take to get back to me, the more concerned i am. and it builds suspicion. what's taking them so long? >> reporter: this comes as fbi director james comey privately briefed senators about his ongoing investigation, a move to defuse tensions with the republican judiciary chairman holding up a key confirmation of a top justice official until he gets more answers. >> i expect people to respond according to what they told me, and in this particular instance, we were not given the respect that the constitutional -- gives us of oversight of the executive branch of government. and so that's very irritatinirr. >> reporter: the house intelligence committee is calling on the justice department to immediately provide any information to support president trump's allegations that were made during a saturday morning tweet storm 11 days ago. >> president obama wouldn't physically go over and wiretap trump tower so, now you have to decide are you going to take the

tweets literally? and if you are, then clearly the president was wrong. but if you're not going to take the tweets literally and if there's a concern that the president has about other people, other surveillance activities, looking at him or his associates, either appropriately or inappropriately, we want to find that out. >> reporter: nunes and the top democrat of the committee, adam schiff, disagree on one key piece of their investigation, whether the trump campaign had any improper contact with russians who were meddling in the elections. >> do you have any evidence of that? >> not that i'm aware of. i wouldn't answer that question as categorically as my colleague. >> look, the answer is no. >> reporter: and the attorney general said today that he never gave the president any evidence or reason to believe he had been wiretapped by the obama administration. >> i have recused myself. i'm not talking to the president

or the people who are investigating the case and unable to comment on any of these details. >> reporter: today was the day in which senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island believed he would get an answer from james comey on a central question, whether or not the fbi is actually investigating the trump campaign and any alleged contacts that occurred with russian officials. the deadline that he said he agreed upon with james comey came and went. they did not get an answer, but comey telling both him and senator lindsey graham today they would send a letter next week to answer some of their questions including evidence seeking whether donald trump was wiretapped by barack obama. but the fbi saying it's going to be a chasz lassified letter. we'll see if anything becomes public. >> to the top democrat on the house intelligence committee, adam schiff. i want to ask you about this breaking news on the wiretapping the president's comments. first i want to ask you about

the breaking news at this moment, the president has just been informed that hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on his executive order. the new and revised one on foreign travellers from six countries and refugees. up with of the main reasons was because of comments trump repeatedly made on the campaign trail about banning muslims. do you have any concern that this could make the judges seem political, that they're looking at political statements and taking a political stand? or not? >> i don't think it's question of the judges being political or looking at political statements. i think what the judges are properly looking at is what was the intention of this executive order, and you can't ignore the legislative and nonlegislative history here, particularly if you would learn in discovery more about what rudy giuliani said about the trump administration coming to him and saying how do we put this muslim ban in a form where we can put

it off as something else. there's no walking away from that history and i think it is pertinent to the legal issues that the court has to decide, but i think also on the broader merits the administration will have a very hard time demonstrating that the selection of these six countries was something other than arbitrary and that it was somehow a good indicator of who might hoo later commit an act of terrorism. if that was the criteria, you'd have to put pakistan or saudi arabia or others at the top of the list. >> you heard the president in that interview saying, quote, wiretap covers a lot of different things. obviously according to the dictionary, it doesn't. it means to tap a telephone or telegraph wire, an old definition, in order to get information. he's referring to what he says more generally. do you think that's fair or not? >> no. i think it would be laughable if

it wasn't so serious. a wiretap is a wiretap and particularly when he elaborates that he believed that president obama was tapping his phones. i don't think wiretap is broad enough to cover what is a baseless accusation, a complete fabrication by the president of the united states. it's certainly not broad enough to cover that. and that is exactly unfortunately what is involved here. >> i want to play again a little more what the president said today about the wiretap investigations because he said more information is coming. you're obviously the one in the investigation, you're seeing it. >> i think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks. >> you, again, are the one receiving this information. house intelligence committee. seen anything interesting, what these things could be and why over the next few weeks? >> sure. first of all, we have seen nothing, no evidence to support

the president's claim, nor does anyone really expect to. i think what the president is saying is in two weeks look forward to me giving you another obfuscation, another distortion, another, you know, feint, maybe i'll tell you that in another couple weeks i'll have another explanation. of course over the last couple weeks we've seen endless permutations by sean spicer and kellyanne conway and others as they try to rationalize, make sense of, explain away what you really can't, that he accused his predecessor of being bad and sick and wiretapping him. i want to underscore why this is important, because some would write it off as just the president being the president, but first of all, like his comments to bill o'reilly when he said we're no different than russia, putin is a killer but how are we any better, these comments that his predecessor wiretapped him also undermine our democracy. they play into the russian narrative of things that, yes,

russia, we don't make any bones about it, we're a corrupt plutocracy, we don't pretend otherwise, so are the americans, they're just hypocritical about it. when you have a president of the united states saying basically putin is right, i've been bugged by my predecessor, we're equally corrupt, that just feeds that whole destructive narrative. >> one thing i'm trying to understand, a tough one, but we understand maybe there's questions out there. i ask you, is it possible there was some sort of surveillance obviously of russians who were having conversations with people in trump tower or of russians who may have had -- been in trump tower, that there was surveillance that ended up picking up the trump campaign and things they said? is that possible? >> it's possible when we look at foreign spies talking to each other that we might collect what's called incidental collection, where either a foreign spy talks to an american or a foreign spy talks to another foreign spy about an american, that's called

incidental collection. but of course that is not only lawful but it's also not what the president was talking about. he was talking about president obama bugging him in trump tower. >> he must be held to account for the specific definition. if there was surveillance and it picked up people in the campaign and came from some sort of order, fisa, again, we don't know -- you have the information -- if that happened, are you concerned that many americans may see that as surveillance? they may see it as something tone against the trump campaign and a technical definition of a

witch-hunt? >> it's not a technical definition. we're not expecting the president to flip to the code book and see how title xviii defines wiretap. he used it in colloquial terms. barack obama tapped my phones. by his own language, by his own lay terms or by expert terms, it all adds up to the same thing. we are prohibited from talking about any form of classified information as it pertains to foreign intelligence gathering or a criminal wiretap. we can't discuss that, but, you know, we can discuss this accusation because it is completely without merit and i think it's incumbent on us to explain to the public what is lawful surveillance and what isn't and what sean spicer is saying the president is saying is not logically coherent or possible because what it means is to say on the one hand the president wasn't subject to an investigation and a court approved warrant and on the other hand we still believe they

were tapping his phones means that the fbi would have had to have engaged in some rogue operation unsupervised and unapproved by a court and there's no evidence of that. >> appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. next, live pic churs from nashville. the president will be there. he's going to be speaking at a rally moments from now. and he is expected, jeff zeleny reports at this moment, to respond to his travel pan being blocked again. the words and what he says are crucial. plus, paul ryan refusing to tell cnn if the health care bill will pass. calls it a goofy question. is it? and jeanne moos on whether we should take president trump literally or seriously. >> they take him literally and not seriously. >> no, no, no. don't take him literally. take him symbolically.

you can't predict the market. but through good times and bad... ...at t. rowe price... ...we've helped our investors stay confident for over 75 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence.

find fast relief behind the counter allergies with nasal congestion? with claritin-d. [ upbeat music ] strut past that aisle for the allergy relief that starts working in as little as 30 minutes and contains the best oral decongestant. live claritin clear, with claritin-d. how to brush his teeth. (woman vo) in march, my husband didn't recognize our grandson. (woman 2 vo) that's when moderate alzheimer's made me a caregiver. (avo) if their alzheimer's is getting worse, ask about once-a-day namzaric. namzaric is approved for moderate to severe alzheimer's disease in patients who are taking donepezil. it may improve cognition and overall function, and may slow the worsening of symptoms for a while. namzaric does not change the underlying disease progression. don't take if allergic to memantine, donepezil, piperidine, or any of the ingredients in namzaric. tell the doctor about any conditions; including heart, lung, bladder, kidney or liver problems, seizures, stomach ulcers, or procedures with anesthesia. serious side effects may occur, including muscle problems if given anesthesia; slow heartbeat, fainting, more stomach acid which may lead to ulcers and bleeding;

nausea, vomiting, difficulty urinating, seizures, and worsening of lung problems. most common side effects are headache, diarrhea, dizziness, loss of appetite, and bruising. (woman 2 vo) i don't know what tomorrow will bring but i'm doing what i can. (avo) ask about namzaric today. so we know how to cover almost alanything.ything, even a "truck-cicle." [second man] how you doing? [ice cracking] [second man] ah,ah, ah. oh no! [first man] saves us some drilling. [burke] and we covered it, february fourteenth, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

another block of president trump's new travel ban. jeff zeleny is in nashville where the president will be speaking in moments. you've been reporting the president knows about this. will he talk about it? what he says or doesn't say about the judges and the next steps could be crucial to its fate. >> he has been informed. i'm told it's not a matter of whether he'll talk about it but how and what he'll say. this would not be a true trump campaign rally if he shied away from the opportunity to go head on into this. this of course is all over one

key campaign pledge, that travel ban. but the whole reason he's holding a rally is about another campaign pledge repealing obamacare. he's trying to turn applause into action and start governing. >> reporter: president trump is coming back to a favorite haunt, the campaign trail. he's hoping a rally will jump-start his agenda, starting with a key campaign promise already in jeopardy, replacing obamacare, trying to revive that old magic that swept him to the presidency, his big rally tonight here in nashville is an official campaign event paid for by his 2020 re-election committ committee, not one organized by the white house and open to everyone. >> donald trump has got to go! >> reporter: one way to keep most protesters outside. >> usa! >> reporter: so the president can fire up his base as he did for more than a year. the same day he took the oath of

office, he filed his re-election paper work. his campaign bank account instantly flush with $7.6 million remaining from 2016. but it's a new and unusual way of doing business. considering president obama and president bush waited until their third year in office to open their re-election committees. one republican close to the trump campaign telling cnn, this is all about building him up. people close to the president say he's feeling increasingly isolated in the white house, suddenly part of the establishment, facing resistance from the gop's conservative onners. with that divide hanging over the party, people lined up for hours today to see their new president, include mag rhee long, a nurse from nashville. >> i think people should give him a chance. he's going to be there for at least four years and so why not build up america instead of tear it down? you know, and build up the president and give him a chance. >> reporter: andrew sparks, a paramedic in west tennessee, wants republicans to follow the president's lead on health care.

>> i think the first thing they need to to is get on the same page. we're not going to get anything done unless we all get on the same page. so, you know, president trump, he's new, and speaker ryan, he's been there a little while. so it ain't going to hurt to listen to what president trump has to say. so it ain't going to hurt. >> reporter: team trump hopes the power of those voices can persuade reluctant republicans to get behind his agenda. michael glassner, leading the re-election effort, defended the rallies telling cnn if it's unorthodox now, it's unorthodox to run a primary campaign paced on a large campaign rally model. it wasn't long ago mr. trump had this to say about a president and his campaigning. >> by the way, president obama should stop campaigning and start working on creating jobs. we have a president, all he wants to do is campaign.

>> reporter: president trump will be coming out at some point. there is a bit of a delay in the program. his lawyers and the whole administration is looking over this court ruling even as they look to washington state and maryland for other potential rulings yet tonight. so a campaign rally in nashville suddenly taking on newer and more urgent meaning of one of the biggest campaign pledges of all, that travel ban. >> crucial how he relies. bit of a delay. it will be fascinating because you have washington, maryland coming out with rulings tonight. will they contradict hawaii, also issue restraining orders? kayleigh mcenany, contributor for "the hill" and former ambassador norman eisen, also the white house ethics czar for president obama. ambassador, president trump going to be going out on that stage, not just something to go out and talk about obamacare or as it may be the travel order

tonight but an official campaign rally, right? two months into his presidency, using re-election funds more than 1,000 days away from that. you were at president obama at this point when he was in the white house. returning to the campaign trail so soon, re-election funds. what do you say? >> thanks for having me back. it's extraordinary. i think that president trump is driven to this by the chaos in his administration, the empty chairs, the many defeats that he's already suffered, this travel ban ruling, the initial one tonight from the hawaii court, just the latest black eye on top of the russian investigation, the loss of mr. flynn, and finally, he has an emotional need to connect so it's neediness all around that's putting him out on the campaign

trail. it's unaushlened i think cop tony blair to doing what he was elected to do -- govern, not keep running. >> kayleigh, what do you say? president obama started his 2012 campaign in april of 2011. let's be honest, this is extremely early to do anything like this. when obama did that, trump at the time was tweeting our country is blowing up and barack obama is out campaigning. another tweet, barack obama always campaigning or on vacation. isn't he being hypocritical? doing it years earlier. >> i don't think so. he's got a great jobs report, delivering on his promises. he was critical of president obama because president obama wasn't delivering on his promises to the people. i'm happy he's paying out of the re-election fund, not the people's fund, the treasury. i was at his melbourne rally. he speaks directly to the people. it's a face-to-face chat where he reports to the people, breaks through the media because the media, we talk a lot about

russia and the investigations going on. we never get to talk about the content of his executive order. this is his chance to talk to the people unfiltered. >> ambassador, what do you say to that? is it effective? is it better he to it with his own re-election money than taxpayer money? i think that we have a president here, erin, who has a 40% approval rating, if that. this is a time in the presidency when presidents are usually reaching out, they're still basking in the honeymoon, building their base, assembling the support to govern. i think that by reaching back to the 39, 40, 41% who approve of him, his base, control who comes to these rallies, he's costing himself the ability to unify the country. so, no, i do not think this is a good thing. i think it is a sign of turmoil,

of panic, of emotional hunger. it's the opposite of leadership. at this point in the obama administration we're asking how can we broaden the coalition to get things done, and those jobs are not jobs that donald trump deserves credit for, i believe. >> kayleigh, when barack obama had a rally, and had one early on, wasn't paid for this way, but when it is paid for this way, trump can control who comes in. it's people who like him. no protesters. when barack obama had a health care rally, everybody could come in. right? anybody. does this change that? if he's only letting in people who like him, does the ambassador have a point? he's not reaching out? >> i don't know, because look, i don't think we know who he's letting in, who's being censored at the door. i think he likes to speak to his supporters through an unfiltered medium. i don't find anything wrong with that. i agree with norm this is emotional neediness or

psychoanalyzing president trump in this way. on the contrary, he doesn't like to be around the people in washington like barack obama. he's not a natural bureaucrat, doesn't fit in with the political elite. he fits in with the people. it's not emotional neediness. it's wanting to speak to the people directly and be around voters, something other presidents don't like to do. >> fitting in with 40% of the people, almost 20% below the approval rating of other democrats and republicans at this point in their term. the problem is he's not connecting. presidents are supposed to reach out to all the people, including the one who is didn't vote for them. here you have policy chaos, empty seats. they're also behind in getting people approved. you have the overhang of scandal because of his unconstitutional foreign presence and gifts he's receiving. you have litigation all over the country. he's now lost twice on the

muslim ban. we'll see what the other courts do. it's a train wreck. the last thing he should be doing is going out and talking with people who agree with him. he should be talking to those who disafree with him. >> he does on a regular basis. coal miners, al gore, people from across the aisle, something noticeably absent during the obama administration. >> thanks to you both. as he speaks at this rally, as i said, moments away, this is going to be crucial. he is going to be speaking there live in nashville. his lawyers are huddled. what is he going to say about the breaking news at this hour? a federal judge blocking his new travel ban nationwide. it was going to take effect at midnight. it will not. this is a judge in hawaii. we are awaiting rulings from washington and maryland. we'll see what the president has to say about this at any moment. and more breaking news from paul ryan. tonight not answer wing whethere

has the votes to pas the health care bill. what makes this simple salad the best simple salad ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org. [student] i can just quit school and get a job. [ex student] daddy's here. [wife] hi [dad] hey buddy [son] hey dad

[wife] i think we can do this. [chancellor] adam baily. [chancellor] adam baily. come close, come close. 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. check this sunday's newspaper and save over $20 on products from aleve. blue moon is brewed with valencia orange peel, ♪ for a taste that shines brighter.

more breaking news. house speaker paul ryan right

now refusing to commit to bringing the gop health care bill to the floor next week. they said they would have it done within days, now not even next week. also refewing to say if he has the votes to pass the bill that is clearly dividing the republican party. >> as far as the house is concerned, we have consensus and we're fine-tuning our consensus going to the goal line with our president to get this done. then it goes to the senate and they start over there. >> you have consensus, came up in the house this afternoon, it would pass? >> it's not coming up this afternoon. it's going through the legislative process. that has not been finalized. that's kind of a -- no offense, kind of a goofy question or faulty premise because this goes through four committees. we've gone through two so far. >> the senior republican senator from louisiana, bill cassidy. when he heard the numbers of 24 million uninsured americans he said that's not what president

trump promised. he's on the committees that will take up the bill if it gets to the senate. i use the word if because we just caught up with the speaker and he says he may not even bring the bill to the floor of the house next week. how serious is that? is that an admission it may fail? >> i don't think it is serious. in the legislative process, there are oftentimes things that are not anticipated. it's sausage making, if you will, part of the process. i don't think it's serious. >> so he does say that this bill is on its way to the senate. so let me ask you, could the bill as is right now pass in the senate? >> you're asking me a hypothetical, which is not going to come over as it is. it's going to come over differently. as it comes over, it will be amended in the senate. the simple apps is no, it wouldn't, because the senate is going to want to amend it to take care of the considerations

we have representing the people of our states and our nation. >> let me ask you about that because, you know, when this came out, your comment, as i quoted, that's not what president trump promised. when you said that, what did you mean? how specifically do you think trump broke his promise with the health care bill that is now on the table? >> i'm not sure the president has broken his promise because we don't have the final product. but during the campaign, candidate trump said all would be covered, caring for those with pre-existing conditions without mandates at a lower cost. so if the cbo comes out with numbers that 14 million more are uninsured next year, obviously not everyone is covered and you can imagine some of those have pre-existing conditions. i've introduced a bill that does get us there so i'm hopeful on the senate floor we can adapt a bill that comes to us with something that fulfills that promise. >> your bill would allow states if they want to keep obamacare they could keep it. i want to ask you about how this

bill is going to change. part of the reason that it wouldn't pass today in the senate or the house is because there's a split in your party, right? there are some on the right, they want to get rid of say medicaid expansion even earlier. moderates like yourself are concerned that not everybody will be covered. you don't have the same goals, your two groups, it would seem. your own state, 400,000 people have insurance thanks to the medicaid expansion. if rolling back that sooner is what paul ryan does to get those 19 republicans on board in the house, that's a changed bill. but i would imagine that's changed in a way that makes you less likely to support it. >> you have so much in that comment, let me start at the beginning. first, the patient freedom act does not allow a state to keep the status quo. the state has to reimpose all the penalties and mandates that we're going to repeal, one. number two, it is the conservative solution that gives states options and choices.

it is what obamacare did to force things upon them. we allow states to have those choices. that is the conservative solution. going back to your kind of ending point, there's a lot of folks covered under expansion, i just wrote an article on "the hill," i think thehill.com, we point out health care will be paid for and we might think because we don't cover through this bill society doesn't pay. i'm a physician. i've worked in a hospital for the uninsured for 25 years. society is going to pay. the other thing we point out is taking care of people's coverage is good politics. the president learned that because when he got elected he got elected with those four promises -- >> you're saying you worked with the uninsured. i want to understand, if the change in the bill gets rid of the medicaid expansion, things that help the poor nest this country, gets rid of that sooner, is that a bill that you could ever support? >> that bill will be amended and i would consider supporting the amended bill.

>> you wouldn't support rolling back medicaid sooner? >> we're about coverage. bottom line is again the president ran promising that folks would be covered and society is going to pay for that coverage and we're going to pay for those diseases so i as a conservative want to make sure we do the fiscally responsible thing, the honest thing, acknowledge that they need coverage and acknowledge it will be paid for and do it in a fiscally responsible fashion. >> senator cassidy, appreciate your time. thanks. >> thank you. >> next, breaking news, president trump moment as away we said in the last hour, we are told at this moment expected to talk about the breaking news at this hour. the rather surprising temporary restraining order, trump's travel ban, the new one, will not go into effect tonight, hawaii banning it nationwide. and jeanne moos. (vo) this is not a video game.

this is not a screensaver. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's

own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ it has long been called storm of tiny bubbles, the champagne of beers. ♪ if you've got the time welcome to the high life. ♪ we've got the beer ♪ miller beer with sleep number, there's an adjustment for that. tilt your tormentor and put those snores to sleep. does your bed do that? right now, get free home delivery on select mattresses. only at a sleep number store.

but they didn't know they were all tobacco products.e... ooh, this is cool. it smells like gum. yummy! this smells like strawberry. are these mints? given that 80% of kids who ever used tobacco started with a flavored product, who do you think tobacco companies are targeting? do we get to keep any?

so how do we know when to take trump seriously but not literally? jeanne moos find out. >> reporter: tame him or leave

him, it's hard to know how to take him. >> literally. literally. literally around the little ball. >> don't take him literally about anything. >> reporter: president trump tweeted just found out that obama had my wires tapped in trump tower. no one thought president obama himself literally tapped those wires, but even the republican chairman of the house intelligence committee now says -- >> are you going to take the tweets literally? and if you are, then clearly the president was wrong. >> reporter: wrong or worse, lied, say trump critics online. if tweets are not to be taken literally, then stop tweeting. this whole literal thing first surfaced last year in the atlantic when writer and cnn contributor selena zito observed, the press takes him literally but not seriously. his supporters take him seriously but not literally. to which then candidate trump responded, now that's interesting. and confusing. >> they take him literally and

not seriously. >> no, no, no. don't take him literally. take him symbolically. >> we take the tweets so seriously and not figuratively. >> when you want literally the president of the united states, we're going to take you seriously and take you literally. >> reporter: trump supporters are always berating the press. >> you're taking it literally. >> you should take him seriously because he's a man of his word. >> reporter: make that words, plural. >> i know words. i have the best words. but there's no better word than stupid. >> reporter: literally. >> right? >> reporter: jeanne moos, cnn, new york. next, breaking news, president trump moments away from taking the stage at a rally in nashville. how will he respond to a federal ban blocking his travel ban? it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one.

i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia

thanks for joining us. see you tomorrow night. anderson is next. good evening. coming to you from a town hall. secretary tom price is the special guest. final preparations are under way. begins an hour from now. we begin with breaking news and a lot of it. just hours before the president's new travel ban was set to take effect, a federal judge put the executive order on ice. quoting from the ruling, "the record before this court is unique. it includes significant and unrebutted