welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing this big breaking news day with us, big breaking news being president trump's travel ban upheld by the united states supreme court. it was a divided court, a 5-4 decision, and two of the justices that sided with the white house lectured the president for his rhetoric even as they embraced his view of executive power. but a win is a win. we expect to hear from the president any moment now. reporters being told they'll be let into a white house meeting. chief justice roberts said this, quote, the proclamation is squarely within the scope of presidential authority. neither dissent even attempts

any serious argument to the contrary. remember, the first two attempts were, to put it mildly, a mess, both legally and politically. the president's twitter feed suggesting he might also be a bit surprised. supreme court upholds trump travel ban. wow! give us the white house reaction as we wait to hear from the president himself, jeff zeleny. >> those are the president's view, i'm told, perfectly. he was watching this unfold on television. members of the white house counsel's office was explaining the ruling and the word that came out immediately was vindication. that was an official statement the white house released from the president a short time ago. let's take a look at it because it's quite interesting in its language what it chooses to say. today's supreme court ruling is a tremendous victory for the american people and the constitution. the supreme court has upheld the clear authority of the president to defend the national security of the united states. in this era of worldwide

terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country. this ruling sauls a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country. so a mixed message there. the president has been blasting again and again democrats for not, he says, wanting to secure the borders, with little evidence of that. it is clear the president is seizing upon this supreme court victory which specifically is about that third version of the travel ban revised again and again, not the overall immigration argument. but he is making it part of the argument. he's going to be speaking in the cabinet room with members of congress who are over here for a prescheduled meeting. but john, important to point out, what has changed here at the white house since that early travel ban, steve bannon, of course, his top adviser, was deeply involved in that.

he's gone. so much has changed over the last year and a half, but the president will ignore all of the nuances of this ruling and he will simply claim vindication. john? >> and as he does so, jeff, i just want to make clear, reporters are now being allowed into this meeting of the that was -- that was not the plan until we knew the result of this ruling, correct? >> that's correct. press was not allowed and there was no white house briefing scheduled, either. but it was decided cameras would be allowed in. the white house officials made that decision to me shortly after, a few minutes after it was clear what the supreme court ruling was, john. >> understandable the president wants to celebrate. joining us now is jonathan turley. he's a decision expert and professor. >> from the first opinion issued

on the travel ban, i thought that it would be reversed by the supreme court, because the court was relying -- the lower courts were relying so heavily on the president's public comments and tweets. and that was pretty unprecedented to the degree to which they did it. and so what the majority said is that you can't ignore the rest of the record, you can't rely so heavily on those types of statements even though the majority took a sort of slap at president trump at one point. they talk about how other presidents have elevated the discussion, including president bush going to a mosque after 9/11. so the majority conveyed they didn't agree with the statements. but they were really focusing less on the travel ban, less on president trump as they were on the judicial function. and they said that this really goes to the record upon which we have to rule, and they felt that the ninth circuit had gone outside those navigational beacons. >> essentially saying what candidate trump said, or even

early president trump said was not the issue, it version 3 before them. does this president or the next president have any new power today that didn't exist yesterday, or did they just clear up this argument on whether him as a candidate saying muslim ban, or the early messy moments of early in the administration that they were going to set that aside, even though they didn't like it? >> john, i think it's the latter. what the majority pointed out, which i believe is demonstratively true, that the court gave sweeping access at the border of who was allowed into the country, and they said you can't disregard that with this administration. part of it goes to that judicial aspect. going into the future, there is no question this is a win for the president. but presidents have really been getting wins for about two decades now on immigration. there was a very important decision last year that said that you did not have to give a bond hearing to hold people effectively indefinitely.

this is part of a long string of victories in that sense. so trump is playing a strong hand when he deals with immigration policies in the court. it doesn't mean that it's politically the correct thing or not. but i do think this is a shot across the bow for lower court judges. many of us criticize president trump for the statements that he made on twitter and on the campaign trail, which were reckless and they were disconcerting, to say the least. but this is a warning to lower court judges that you're going to have to distance yourself a bit more and focus on what is a more traditional record in making these decisions. >> read the law, not follow politics, i guess, might be one way to put it. jonathan turley, appreciate your insights. joining me in studio is rachel bey, elizabeth knox. john, you've done this for a while and this case brought new drama. >> completely. as i said, more than 25 years,

but when you imagine the weight of this question, the president we have, and the justices involved, for more than 40 minutes they takd about who should win, who should lose, starting with chief justice john roberts acknowledging what donald trump had said. he read back some of those statements. islam hates us, and he referred to the website donald trump had used for his campaign and didn't take down until after the inauguration. and he said, those things do not significantly undercut what is the president's power, and not just under federal law but under the constitution on religious rights. and the chief also, i believe, anticipating -- not just the dissents that were read from the bench, but the kind of divisions we've seen played out and that you put on the air earlier, tried to head off that kind of criticism saying, we are looking right at the law. we areking at donald trump as a president, not so much as donald trump. so it was quite amazing. and then the thing that came

after that was steven breyer speaking for himself, and then justice sonia sotomayor speaking for herself, and then ginsburg taking the position o saying, wait a minute. look what he has said. look what you're doing here. and she used the word "sham." those national security interests you're hanging your entire opinion on here, the federal policy power of the president, those are a sham. and she likened it to koramatsu, which was the supreme court decision upholding a government order that took thousands of japanese americans in world war ii and put them in camps. >> the press poll has been brought into the white house, so we will hear from the president momentarily. we'll bring that to you as soon as we get it. to the timeline, this is version 3.0. january 27, one week after taking office, the trump executive order banned seven muslim nations. march 17, a new executive order after some losses in the courts,

exempting people who already had visas and green cards. then by june 26, the supreme court agreed to hear the travel ban. then the third version added north korea and venezuela which helped the administration's argument this was not all targeting muslims. i want to read from the majority opinion. i find it striking that both the chief justice who wrote the majority opinion, and the swing vote on this court which wrote a consenting opinion -- concurring opinion, forgive me -- both lectured the president for his rhetoric. they essentially said, we believe you have this power. we don't like the things you said. we're still going to let you have this power. plaintiffs argue that the president's words strike a fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in vils of our constitutional tradition. but the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. it is instead the significance

of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. in other words, we're going to let you have the power even though we don't like what you said. >> and you asked if it gives him more power or changes the law. i think it empowers this particular president who, throughout his entire time in office, has repeatedly made statements that are potentially unconstitutional, made statements about policy that he wants and then had his administration turn around and try to craft it into something that will pass legal muster. that is, for a lot of people, an unsustainable way of governing, but i think for this president this is the way it's going to be, and i think what this ruling essentially says to him is your words don't matter as much, and your justice department can turn around and try to make something that works, cobble something together that works, and you could go ahead. i think that's very empowering

for president trump who has not really wanted to rein himself in in that way. >> it doesn't confront a new power but it gives a lot more clarity to this white house about what this particular makeup of this supreme court will tolerate, how they are approaching these matters of la. for a white house that is, in large part, defined by that kind of chaos, i think that's pretty useful for them. they know roughly how this 5-4 breakdown will go. >> those five are not going anywhere. if anthony kennedy leaves, it will be a president trump appointee there. so this is for probably his whole first term. >> i wasn't going to get to this today, but since you mentioned justice kennedy, there are some kennedy watchers, tea leaf readers, who read his lecture to the president, which is even stronger than the chief justice's, saying, come on. this is not appropriate conduct. you have this power, any president has this power, so i'm going to go along with it but i

don't like this. some would say kennedy is not going to leave because of trump. is that reasonable? >> you can't imagine how many theories are out there, john, and i'm inclined to think he's not leaving, but because of how much anthony kennedy mulls and wrings his hands over decisions, i think this ultimate decision over whether he's going to retire, i cannot bet what he's going to do. but i think it was important for him and the chief justice to lay down markers of how they view the president in those statements, but you can't take a thing off this ruling. it was 100% for donald trump. >> it was for donald trump. version 3.0. the president, to his credit, a win is a win. he will claim a political win. he gets a big legal win here. just a reminder, let's go back to the campaign trail. version 1.0, steve bannon's not very well lawyered, not very well written ban. >> we have called for a complete

shutdown of muslims in the united states until our state representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. i called for a ban after san bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger. but now, many years, and i have to say many are saying, that i was right to do so, and although it is temporary, we must find out what is going on. >> people are so upset when i use the word muslim. oh, you can't use the word muslim. i'm okay with that. i'm talking territory instead of muslim. >> look, the president is going to claim a win. if you look back at the history, it's pretty messy. the supreme court is essentially saying once the professionals of the administration took over the writing of this, they got it right within executive authority and we're going to let it slide, all that stuff. >> yeah, they certainly looked at his comments, but the opinion also gave a statistic, which was the travel ban only encompassed 8% of the world's muslim population. so even though they were looking at this and they said, yes, all

these five original countries are predominantly muslim countries, there is a huge -- there is a lot more countries that have muslims. so clearly this wasn't directed just at religion is what the court said. >> again, we're waiting to hear from the president. he's in a meeting at the white house with members from capitol hill to discuss another immigration issue but he will talk about the travel ban. we'll bring you that momentarily. also reaction on capitol hill where this decision is as much a victory for one republican senator as it is for the president. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.

tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of pression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidalts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com who's already won three cars,

two motorcycles, a boat, and an r.v. i would not want to pay that insurance bill. [ ding ] -oh, i have progressive, so i just bundled everything with my home insurance. saved me a ton of money. -love you, gary! -you don't have to buzz in. it's not a question, gary. on march 1, 1810 -- [ ding ] -frédéric chopin. -collapsing in 226 -- [ ding ] -the colossus of rhodes. -[ sighs ] louise dustmann -- [ ding ] -brahms' "lullaby," or "wiegenlied." -when will it end? [ ding ] -not today, ron.

-when will it end? [ ding ] does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number.

them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or goline today. welcome back. today's big breaking news, the supreme court delivering a victory for the president on the travel ban. the president meeting with reporters right now at the white house. we'll have it for you in a few moments. he says, this is a great vic

tovictory for our country. it's also a great victory for the republican on the hill. manu raju is here. manu, what's this like for people on the hill? >> the democrats are outraged at this decision. they thought this could have been confirmedith mitch mcconnell keeping that seat. neal gorsuch was confirmed to that spot. divided on the court, divided on capitol hill. i caught up with senator cory booker, a possible 2020 candidate. he said this is not in line with american ideals. >> if it was really about our safety, it would be a different tailored list. but again, this started from a person in a campaign talking about mexicans and muslims in a way that just disappoints me. >> i tell you, this is part of the never trump resistance to

mischaracterize this as being a muslim ban. this is not a muslim ban. it's not anything president obama didn't do when he was president, so i'm not surprised the supreme court ruled the way they did. >> reporter: and don, one republican breaking with john cornyn and jeff flake, of course, a trump critic. he said, i think they got it where they need it to be constitutional, but i think the world sees it for what it is intended to be, a muslim ban, so jeff flake clearly sees this as a muslim ban, and democrats are also saying the same thing, john. >> the daily beast jackie kosinich joins us today. this is a victory for president trump. and democrats don't like this for mitch mcconnell. they would not even let him have a hearing so it carried over into the trump administration. that's mitch mcconnell gloating,

sending this picture out shaking neal gorsuch's hand. saying, as the president celebrates, thank me. >> you saw this immediately on the ruling coming down when you saw the breakdown. the words merrick garland all over twitter from democrats. there is still so muc bitterness from that. so you have to -- and as -- if democrats are able to take over the senate, you can see the tit for tat already bubbling to the top should there be another vacancy. there are a lot of ifs here, but the tit for tat is definitely boiling to the surface. >> let me add to the ifs. if you look in the mirror, when hillary clinton tried to make an issue of merrick garland, tried to make an issue of making that supreme court pick. who do you want to make it, him or me? republicans win way more often than they lose when these are the issues.

democrats saying this year it will be different. is that true? >> to your point, in 2016 the exit poll showed clinton voters, 48% of them said this is a big issue incourt. 56% for trump voters. they're being blown out of the water for republican voters who are voting on this issue because of the life issue and any number of things. but i think what's different about this moment is that mitch mcconnell really changed the rules when he took the merrick garland seat, basically. and democrats had never seen that before. they didn't think that was a thing. i think that really changes their orientation -- >> they didn't think he had the spine to hold out. >> it changed their orientation potentially around these supreme court seats. not only is it a question of what do democrats vote on, but what do democrats do if they take control of the senate? will they be willing to give donald trump the same gentleman's agreement that they thought barack obama had. i think that remains to be seen. >> it is a danger to try to

provide consistency to the trump administration. the president is waiting for reporters right now. he said this was a great victory for the country. as this was making its way through the courts, the president got mad at his own people. he said, in june, the democrats should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered-down politically correct version they submitted to the supreme court. so the president was whacking them until the end, though he'll celebrate today. >> details, details. >> i just want to read some of the democratic reaction here. it's a legal decision, the president has won. 5-4 in the courts. we're done. but the democrats want to continue the conversation. this is chuck schumer. the travel ban doesn't make us safer and the supreme court ruling doesn't make it right. this is a backward and unamerican policy that fails to improve our national security. is that a policy or is it the

democrats' efforts this time trying to use the issue, the courts and immigration, to motivate their base. >> democrats are not running on the courts, they're running on health care and the opioid crisis and they're running on all these other issues. they're following the virginia model much more than what chuck schumer is saying about this. there is a policy argument to point to these restrictions and say they make no sense. there are a lot of countries with major extremism problems that aren't on this list. you could actually make a national security counterargument. that's not going to motivate a ton of voters, i suspect, but they're turning out in better numbers because of judges. twitter is running on merrick garland, but democrats across the country are not running on the judges, and i don't think this changes that. >> he's meeting at the white house. he's talking about his victory with the travel ban from the supreme court. he's also talking about zero

tolerance, funding of his border wall. supreme court on the travel ban, but there are many more fights just ahead.

uby making it easy to verifye you hyour car and driver.ome, uber is moving in a new direction. forward. only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol® parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what?

you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long.

welcome back. we're standing by to hear from the president of the united states. a big victory today from the supreme court on the travel ban. he is meeting inside the white house, a meeting to lobby republican lawmakers for his border wall money. we'll see a tape of that meeting shortly. the president has been talking to reporters for 20-plus minutes so far. this meeting a chance for more tough talk for the president after the big reversal and new signs his zero tolerance policy

is no longer really zero tolerance. look at the headlines here. the customs border official said he's no longer referring to migrant families for prosecution. he tells reporters he wants to do well on the vote. not quite sure what that means. most reporters continue to pivot on what they consider a show boat to a smaller version simply targeting those family separations, making it unlawful to separate families that come across the border. fix that and the immigration quagmire perhaps will quiet down before november. we're waiting for the president. on capitol hill, republicans, they promised the moderates that they get a vote so they can at least go home and run a campaign ad and say, i voted to protect the dreamers. even though the bill is most

unlikely to pass the house and the senate wouldn't consider it even if it did pass the house. so the moderates get to go home and say, i voted for the dreamers. if you're from a farm state you can say i supported a bill that hems t helps the migrant program. is that all this is? >> it looks like it. it's going to go down in pretty spectacular fashion, we predict, tomorrow. the president is lobbying senators about the wall. he wants to build his wall. well, guess what? he doesn't want it enough to actually stick his neck out and say, listen, guys. i'm going to back an immigration bill that some of you call amnesty because it does build my wall. the house republicans are going to consider a ball that considers $25 billion in not just actuating funds but appropriate money that cracks down also on illegal immigration. but the president has been unwilling. he's been slippery, flip-flopping left and right and not willing to say, i want you

to pass this bill. and that is exactly why this bill is going to fail tomorrow, because republicans are not going to vote for something unless he gives them cover, and he is too afraid of the far right and the word "amnesty" to back something that he actually proposed. >> it's a critical point because the compromised bill doesn't say we will eventually give you $25 billion, it gives it to him. it's right there. it's appropriated money. it's there in the bank for the president, but he won't do it. the president doesn't like to focus on his failures or retreats or flip-flops. he had to concede ground and reverse his own family separation policy. a number of republicans have said the way to make this cleaner, to move these cases along faster, is to hire more immigration judges. so when families or individuals are apprehended coming across the border, you deal with these cases more quickly. here's the president again, a major administration retreat, but his answer to that is talk tough. >> we have thousands of judges already. so if a person comes into our country, steps one foot, they take their name, they bring them

to court, they then release them, they go into the country, you never see them again. it's the craziest thing i've ever seen. so i said today, i don't want judges. i want i.c.e. and border patrol agents. >> to rachel's point, there is a legislative compromise that includes a lot of things that would drive the trump base crazy. they do consider any protection for the dreamers to be amnesty. it might be a small piece of america but it's a significant piece to the president. instead he thinks this is a successful midterm message. >> which is no due process. >> yeah, he wants to run on being tough on immigration. he wants to run for fighting for his wall. not necessarily getting his wall, but fighting for it, because the compromise is too costly to him politically. and this is a president who has never really -- i think he believes that the judge thing is a politically correct thing to say and do, and he simply doesn't want to go there. it is better for him to go to his rallies and say, we just

want to get them out. that's what he's been saying since the campaign. >> kim, can we just say, though, there aren't thousands and thousands of immigration judges, there is something like 400. that is a key fact check there and they are completely under water and backlogged because of the president's policy. >> republicans are proposing offering 100 more. >> yes, because this is still the united states of america and there is due process. the president, probably with today as the exception, has been kind of against the judicial branch. so this is just another example of that. they slow him down for his whims. >> getting back to the point that rachel made earlier, they're not just going after undocumented. they're going after very specific populations and they're trying to crack down on asylum. this is a point about the judges. that they're kicking out people who came here, who were granted protected status. they're trying to cut back on people who get to claim asylum. jeff sessions reduced the number of categories that qualify for

claiming asylum. what they don't want is people getting here fleeing unimaginable violence in their home country. they go before a judge and they say you have incredible fear for your home country, so we'll grant you asylum here. >> and before we had the family case management system, and this was a 99% effective program that people who came into the country seeking asylum, they would make sure they got to their judicial hearings. they got rid of it, and i.c.e. told the daily beast this the other day because too many people were getting accepted and too many people were actually getting granted asylum. this was working. >> he talks about gangs, he talks about illegal immigration, but the policy is to keep people from getting in illegally. that's a clear policy goal. up next, details on another major ruling we just got from the supreme court. this one is combining free speech with the question of abortion rights. again, we're waiting for the

president of the united states. stay with us.

almost $800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey! oh, that's my robe. is it? when you switch to liberty mutual, you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call for a free quote today. you could save $782 when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance.

topping our political radar today, another big 5-4 ruling from the supreme court just a short time ago. this one strikes down a california law that required family ping centers that oppose abortion rights from telling clients they could obtain abortions at other facilities. the majority opinion saying that creates an overly burdensome disclosure requirement. they say it is following the law, the republicans' request relating to the russian investigation. the latest letter gave a deadline yesterday on producing more documents and information on confidential informants. the doj says it's already complied.

they show several issues still outstanding. voters across seven states headed to the polls. among key races to watch, the senate race in utah where mitt romney is heavily favored to win the nomination and then the republican election. his constituents? >> utah knows better how to run utah than washington does. get washington out of our hair. i'm asked from time to time, mitt, you ran for president. you lost. why are you running again? and the reality is just because you get turned -- you know, bypassed, turned down for general doesn't mean you stop fighting. and i'm going to keep fighting for the things i believe in. >> up next for us, the president picks a fight with harley-davidson. we also remind you he's in a meeting with reporters right now talking about the travel ban. stay with us. behr through it, in one coat.

behr marquee, #1 rated interior paint. find it exclusively at the home depot. so, my portfolio did pretthat's great.year. but the market was up nearly twice as much. that's a tough pill to swallow. exactly. so i started trading. but with everything out there, how do you know what to buy? well, i think my friend victor has just the thing for you. check this out, td ameritrade makes it easier to find the investments that might be right for you. like our etf comparison tool it lets you see how etfs measure up to one another. analyst ratings and past performance... nice. td ameritrade also offers access to coaches and a full education curriculum to help you improve your skills. that is cool. and if you still have any questions you can always chat with us on facebook or call our experienced service team, 24/7.

yep. just because you're doing it yourself doesn't mean you're on your own. that's great. you're still up. alright. you're still up. if i knew you were gonna run the table i wouldn't have invited you over. call (866) 285-1912. act now to take advantage of commission-free trades for 90 days, plus get up to an $800 cash bonus when you open and fund a new account. ♪ i wok(harmonica interrupts)ld... ...and told people about geico... (harmonica interrupts) how they could save 15% or more by... (harmonica interrupts) ...by just calling or going online to geico.com. (harmonica interrupts) (sighs and chuckles) sorry, are you gonna... (harmonica interrupts) everytime. geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

. wisconsin, i love wisconsin. made in america. harley-davidson. made in america. unbelievable. they were with me all the way, right? and they love these bikes. >> flashback to the good old days, meaning february of last year, when president trump seemed ready to hit the open road with harley-davidson. what a difference a trade deal can make. the president now attacking the iconic motorcycle brand for threatening to move some production overseas. the company says it has to do that to avoid retaliatory penalties in one of its biggest market. the president unleashing a flurry of treats on harley. one saying they're simply using these tariffs as an excuse.

and they're quitting. they will receive a backlash as a result. the president is taking a risk here. harleys are made in wisconsin and pennsylvania, two of the states the president carried. retaliatory tariffs are hitting farm states where the president was successful. he's not backing down here. the part that unnerve s a lot o people is how the president of the united states is personally singling out an american company and hitting. >> everyone would agree that sending an american company overseas is not a good thing. the president is saying harley-davidson is just using this as an excuse, they were already going to be moving jobs overseas and basically saying they're going to be hit and that people are angry in the united states and their workers are angry and they're going to pay a price. but you know, i was just listening to speaker ryan who did his press conference. he's from wisconsin where

harley-davidson is headquartered. he was asked about this and he didn't blame harley, he blamed the tariffs. he said the tariffs are attacks. american companies have to look out for their bottom line. if they're going to save money and their customers are going to save money by them moving jobs overseas, that's what they're going to do and he put the blame skba squarely on the president. >> and yet he's not upset enough to name the president and to take back the authority to -- from trump on tariffs. he's not that upset yet. perhaps maybe because he's leaving, i don't know. but the other thing, i would keep an eye on harley because i don't think they'll be alone. the president was at columbia, south carolina last night. right down the road, 95 miles or so in spartanburg, there is, i believe, a bmw plant that manufacturers -- that employs quite a few people in that area. he was talking about levying taxes on foreign cars. that's going to be problematic. like you said, companies will be

looking out for their bottom line and don't have the same loyalty to the president. >> the president had a long meeting with reporters, 20-plus minutes. he talked about inheriting a bad trade deal. he talked about north korea, he talked about health care, he talked about the travel ban, he talked about wall funding. on this trade issue, the "wall street journal" editorial page said, the president of the united states is a republican but he is banding with the tariff deal. the "wall street journal" said, there trump has said the big league support of harley employees helped him win the swing states in 2016. mr. trump is also going to have some explaining to do to wisconsin cranberry farmers, florida orange juice producers and iowa soy and corn growers. good luck to republicans running

on the trump t in november. >> here you have not all is your policy not working, it's having an opposite effect and it's costing jobs. that said, the story that i really want everyone to look at is not so much the tariffs, it's all the negotiating that's happening without the united states. the eu tariffs in mexico, for example. also hitting cheese makers. there is a trans-atlantic trade view in canada. american companies are becoming less competitive versus their china rivals, asian rivals, australian rivals. climbing back into these markets is going to be significant. >> clawing their way back and

the patience of the president's own party is diminishing, but will there be just words and whining? we've crossed a roubi krrubicon. th president couldn't be more mistaken. you want to shrink a trade deficit, there is a better way to do it. have a recession. >> the president doesn't seem to understand the fundamentals of trade. that's what makes this so bad. but i also am not sure his own voters are going to hold him accountable for this. one of the reasons he's doing it in the first place is because he's banked that toughness as a principle is more important to his voters than anything else. we'll see about that, but that's the president's bet right now, and it's a huge, huge bet because he could lose big. >> it is a huge test. tough talk hasn't gotten him the wall. tough talk has not gotten him

trade wins yet. there is no results yet from it, is the interesting part. when we come back, a debate about civility with americans is now a debate within the republican party. i'm only in my 60's. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you.

call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel - and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country.

[ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now - and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.

any minute now, an extended conversation between reporters and the president of the united states. his supreme court travel ban win one of the issues, but health care, trade, many other issues on the tae. we'll bring it to you as soon as we get it. meantime, civility pitting democrat against democrat today. maxine waters facing criticism after she urged her party to lash back. republicans say she should resign. but the public rebuke, undoubtedly, is coming from her own party's leadership. >> i stronging object to those harassing folks if they don't agree with you. if you disagree with something

or someone, stand up, make your voice heard. no one should call for the harassment of political opponents. that's not right, that's not american. >> now, congressman waters pushing back and explaining herself saying she never called for harm to be done to anyone. that's troue, she just said protest wherever they are. breitbart trying to turn this to conservative advantage. like this, maxine waters' remarks prompt trump aides to get guns, carry permits and threaten violence. maxine did not say produce violence. some saying she took it too far. >> nancy pelosi -- almost called her speaker pelosi -- rebuked her on this. not only are they from the same party, they're both women, so her condemning these comments is

noteworthy. clearly pelosi and other democrats are worried that if democrats take this sort of approach they're going to alienate people who are independents who do not want to see this sort of toxic rhetoric. they want somebody who is trying to get something done, not somebody who is being an obstructionist and just wants to fight all the time. so they're thinking about the election, and yes, they need to obviously drum up support from their base, but they're also concerned about alienating people and that's why they pushed back. >> and that's why republicans like this fight. they said we kind of baited them into this and they took the bait. simone sanders, a strategist, many might remember her from the bernie sanders campaign. she said, there is a danger here when you have a white democrat telling a another democrat to be quiet. >> i want to eat my shake in

peace, but when they're talking about moovlts, those movements should be non-violent and non-confrontational. >> is there a risk? chuck schumer and nancy pelosi worried about independence, worried about middle america. is there a risk in trying not to get maxine waters to stoke them, do they need to worry about african-americans? >> there are people just like there are trump supporters who were so angry with their own party, so angry with the establishment that they didn't mind the president saying, oh, you know, if you hurt him, i'll help you out, get you a lawyer at his ralliesme. they didn't mind that with trump, and democrats run the risk of ignoring that segment of their own base, so angry and worked up about trump that they want to protest. they want to be president and

they want to be heard. >> some of the gaps are generational, right. some of theounger party activists are more likely to be in your face. you see the same thing in impeachment. >> we'll have the president for you any second. wolf takes over. he starts right now. have a great day. hello, i'm wolf blitzer in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. we begin with breaking news. a major victory for president trump. the united states supreme court today upheld the president's travel ban restricting entry into the united states from seven countries. iran, north korea, syria, libya, yemen, somalia and venezuela. the ruling was 5-4 with the chief justice john roberts writing for the conservative majority. our justice correspondent jessica