nearly three weeks after president trump's inauguration senate democrats continue to hold up the confirmations of some of these cabinet picks. could the delay tactics of them among the democrats faithful or will they pay a political price? it is all "happening now" ." >> jenna: will begin with a fox news road, president trump doubling down on his right to enact his travel ban, telling a group of top law enforcement officials this morning his executive order was "for the security of our nation." welcome to the second hour of "happening now." i am jenna lee. >> jon: i'm jon scott. we are awaiting a key decision that could come down any moment now after the administrated made its case to a federal appeals panel to reinstate the president's order on immigration including a temporary ban on travelers from several muslim majority and agents. we have fox team covering this with kevin corke at the white house but we begin with dan springer at live in seattle with the latest on the appeal. >> a ruling could come at any time, we are certainly expecting one this week. at yesterday's telephone

hearing, two main topics dominated. first, does the state of washington have legal standing to sue president trump over his executive order? many experts say the state has not been injured, is a third party and therefore has no right to interfere with the president's power to keep americans safe from attack. the other big issue was the motivation for the travel ban. trump says national security, but washington state's attorney is trying to use the trump campaign pledge to ban all muslims from coming into the country as evidence that this is just an attack on islam. >> there are statements we have quoted in our complaint that are rather shocking evidence of the intent to do this against muslim. >> it is extraordinary for a court to base this determination on some newspaper articles. >> president trump as you can imagine is following it all very closely purity spoke about the case early this morning and earlier tweeted that the temporary restraining order issued friday was a horrible, dangerous decision and tweeted

also this this morning: "if the u.s. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. politics!" but the justice department lawyer yesterday missed an opportunity to correct the judgment he claimed there was not a single arrest of someone from one of those the seven affected countries on terrorism charges since 9/11. in fact, there have been several. according to the associated press, november, is molly refugee injured 11 people in a car and knife attack at ohio university. he was killed by police appeared months earlier, a refugee from iraq pleaded guilty to providing support for isis in plotting to blow himself up. 2011, men were arrested in kentucky planning to set weapons and money to al qaeda, none of that is on the record the court is now deciding on. >> jon: thank you. >> jenna: president trump assisting has the right to control immigration while accusing the courts of playing politics. white house correspondent kevin corke is live at the white house with more on that.

>> always nice to talk to you. you are right, the president this hour is scheduled to meet with the ceo of intel who has made a very clear he is opposed to the executive order which would essentially be a travel ban or pause depending on your perspective. meantime the president means convinced it is the best way to help keep americans safer, and that is exactly where we are as we continue to await the decision by the ninth circuit. president, of course, talking about that any speech this money to the major cities police chiefs association conference conference, he warned there would be increasing security risk to the united states as a result of this ongoing legal dispute. >> we have to allow you to do your job, and we have to give you the weapons that you need. this is a weapon that you need. and they are trying to take it away from you, may be because of politics, or may be because of political views, we can't let that happen. >> meanwhile the white house continues to circulate for internal comment a series of

draft of an executive order on handling terrorist detainees. this actually language in the latest draft that would direct the pentagon to bring future isis detainees to the prison at guantanamo bay, cuba, of course president obama attempted to shut down that facility, was unsuccessful. president trump meanwhile says he's going to load it up with some bad men. we expect to get the play out of the meeting with the intel ceo, bring that to u.s. and as we get it, but for now, back to you. >> jenna: we are a few seconds away from that, you're watching president trump in his meeting with the ceo of intel. wheezing these meetings over the last several days and as the meetings take place there is often taped play out we get that we can bring to your life. here's a little bit of what we are seeing, let's go ahead and listen in here. >> you have never seen so much paper on a president's desk. that is because we are negotiating lots of deals for our country. i just want to introduce frank,

the ceo of intel, a great company and brian called a few years ago and said we want to do a very big announcement, having to do with our country but also having to do mostly with arizona, in the jobs in the great technology that will be produced. so this is brian, why don't you say a few words, maybe also talk about what you're going to be making as your promise. >> thank you, mr. president. it's an honor to be here today representing intel and to be able to announce our $7 billion investment in our newest, most advanced poverty, part 42 in chandler, arizona. we will be completing that factory to make the most advanced 7-nanometer semiconductor chips on the planet. intel is very proud of the fact that the majority of our manufacturing is here in the u.s. and the majority of our research and development is here in the u.s. while over 80% of what we sell

is sold outside of the u.s. we are consistently one of the top five exporters in the country, and one of the top to research and development spenders in the united states. we have been able to do that even while the regulations and tax policies have disadvantaged us in the past will relative to the competition we have across the world. 42 is in investment and ed tell, but also the u.s. future and innovation in the semiconductor industry, 42 will employ approximately 3,000 direct high-paying, high wage, high-tech jobs and over 10,000 people in in the arizona area n support of the factory. this factory will produce, as i said, the most powerful computer chips on the planet, powering

the best computers, the best data centers, autonomous cars, all of these devices are the most powerful computing devices on the planet. at intel, we have a simple saying "while other people predict the future, we build the future." this factory is a great example of that. i want to say thank you to the president for this opportunity to be here today. >> thank you, brian. you have something over there to show a little bit about the new product. >> this is an example of what will be built in 42. this is one of our newest wafers, 7 nanometers will be built at 42, and this is the future of computing. >> do you have any questions for brian? i know you have done for me. [laughter] >> reporter: the other business outside you have outside the country, do you plan to bring you back here?

>> this isansion and growth, so this decision is about growth and new jobs in the u.s. >> great thing for arizona, believable company and product. we are very happy. i can tell you the people of arizona very happy, a lot of jobs. what do you see your total investment will be what? >> total investment in just this factory is $7 billion, but in arizona we already have two other factories in arizona. so we have several tens of billions of dollars in investment in factories in arizona. we are the number one private employer of arizona. >> how long have you been planning this investment? >> we been working on this factory for several years. we held off actually doing this until now. [indistinct question] >> it is really in support of tax and regulatory policies that we see the administration

pushing forward that really make it advantageous for us to do manufacturing in the u.s. >> thank you. >> thank you all. thank you very much. thank you. >> jenna: we need to listen to the end because you never know what president trump might say. we want to catch any news big big headline coming from the intel ceo right there with president trump, new factory that has been in the process of being built over the last several years, $7 billion approximately 3,000 jobs, most important part of that announcement came from the ceo directly were he said they were moving forward with this plan despite the disadvantage of tax policy, domestic tax policy, and they felt because of the new proposals they are hearing from president trump that it was the right time to move forward. interesting news they are, we will continue to watch the white house for others, in the meantime, we have big news smoke coming from the courts. >> jon: we are awaiting the ruling from the ninth circuit court of appeals, they heard arguments last night as to

whether or not president trump's immigration order be any temporarily immigration from seven majority muslim nations is legal. let's bring in fox news anchor and attorney gregg jarrett. what might this court to do, what are the options? >> they could reverse themselves, highly unlikely, judges generally don't do that. they could let the lower court temporarily restraint order stated or demanded back to the lower court for more hearings. i think there is a possibility they could modify the lower court decision, hold some of it, strike down part of it that was broached by one of the judges last night. there is also something else i could have been here over the next three weeks. president trump could centrally accelerate his extreme vetting policy program, put it in place, revoke the order and proof, all of these lawsuits go away because they would be nothing for the judges to rectify or remedy. >> jon: the judges question whether president trump has the authority to do what he has done

here. >> is astonishing because honestly it's a no-brainer, the constitution gives power to congress, congress gave it to the president, is in a statute, is abundantly clear. it seemed like these judges were trying to make policy decisions and political decisions last night, second-guessing the wisdom of the president's decision-making, that is not the judges job. >> jon: they are supposed to figure out if he is following the law. simple. >> exactly, the threshold question is do these plaintiffs even have the right to be in the courtroom, are they standing, how are they harmed directly and immediately? the answer is they are not, but it looked like the judges were searching desperately to find a way to allow the plaintiffs to remain inside the courtroom. >> jon: here is a snippet of what took place, and exchange between the justice department lawyer arguing on behalf of the trump administration and judge richard clifton, listen in. >> we are not saying the case should not proceed, but it is extraordinary for a court to

enjoin the president's national security determination based on some newspaper articles. that is what has happened here. that is very troubling second-guessing of the national security decision made by the president. the notion that we are going to go back -- >> you deny that in fact the statements attributed to then candidate trump and to his political advisors in most recently mayor giuliani, do you deny those statements were made? >> no, i would note that judge robart himself said he was not going to look at campaign statements. >> jon: they were arguing over campaign statements went then candidate trump talked about banning muslims into the country. >> it's completely irrelevant. it doesn't matter what politicians say on that campaign trail, they often reverse or retract the things they say. the legal test is is there a

rational basis for the president, based on a classified intelligence information, to make the decision to protect the safety in the lives of american americans? those judges don't have that classified intel, and they were asking last night kind of for that information, none of their business. >> jon: fascinating. are awaiting the decision. we will have it for you as soon as it comes down. gregg jarrett, thank you. may senator jeff sessions will finally get his liver attorney general tonight and democrats throughout the confirmation process, could that tactic backfire on the party? our next guest says that democrats have misplayed their hands as tempers flare on the senate floor. >> you stated that a sitting senator is a disgrace to the department of justice. >> let me understand -- ahh, sir?

you the law? we've had some complaints of... is that a fire? there's your payoff, deputy.

git! velveeta shells & cheese. there's gold in them thar shells. a heart attack doesn't or how healthy you look. no matter who you are, a heart attack can happen without warning. a bayer aspirin regimen can help prevent another heart attack.

be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. bayer aspirin. is it keeps the food out. for me before those little pieces would get in between my dentures and my gum and it was uncomfortable. just a few dabs is clinically proven to seal out more food particles. super poligrip is part of my life now. tech: at safelite, we know how busy your life can be. mom: oh no... tech: this mom didn't have time to worry about a cracked windshield. so she scheduled at safelite.com and with safelite's exclusive "on my way text" she knew exactly when i'd be there, so she didn't miss a single shot. i replaced her windshield giving her more time for what matters most. tech: how'd ya do? player: we won! tech: nice! that's another safelite advantage. mom: thank you so much! (team sing) safelite repair, safelite replace. >> jenna: seems like a long

workday but the senate has actually been in session for more than 48 hours now as the democrats install on confirming the president's cabinet. that is all they can do, they cannot stop the proceedings, if they cannot stop the eventual conclusion, final but for attorney general nominee jeff sessions as expected this evening after a heated debate. he's expected to be confirmed, to congressional correspondent mike emanuel has been awake for 48 hours. no, he has had some breaks, but has been a busy time. >> no question about that, latest tension came after republicans voted to silence senator elizabeth lauren after they accused her of violating rules of the senate, this latest dustup was between senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and warren, the senator from massachusetts. mcconnell accused warren of impugning the words and conduct of senator jeff sessions, wording him of making derogatory and possibly racist comments a decade ago. they said things now are historically bad. >> we have to grow up.

i suggest all of us take stock of ourselves and see if we can treat each other with greater respect. but i have to say, i resented come as much as i like the distinguished senator from massachusetts, i resented the constant diatribe against a fellow senator. even if everything she said was true, it was not the right thing to do. >> senators are holding speech marathons around the clock on each of president trump's nominees, jeff sessions the alabama senator, the attorney general is the one being considered today and top democrats after the latest dustup are blasting their g.o.p. colleagues come accusing them of being anti-free speech. >> only speech being stifled is the speech that republicans don't agree with. even speech that is substantive, relevant, on point to the matter this body is considering an appropriate and measured in

tone. >> as percentage of war in, we caught up with her in the hallway a short time ago. >> this is about caretta scott king letter, that is all it is about. she wrote a powerful letter about an important moment in history that directly involved jeff sessions, it is directly relevant to the question of whether or not jeff sessions ought to be the attorney general of the united states. mitch mcconnell did not want me to read that letter. he stopped me. >> many expected tough cabinet confirmations after the difficult 2016 campaign, but a lot of folks are surprised about the treatment of one of their own in senator sessions. >> jenna: thank you. >> jon: for his part, the president says it is disgraceful that democrats are delaying his cabinet appointees. we will get into that with our political panel. we are also awaiting the daily white house briefing, such a star just minutes from now.

we will bring that to life when it begins.

>> jon: you know there will be fireworks in the brady briefing room when sean spicer takes to the podium there to address the members of the media regarding the latest come in the big argument underway right now is whether or not the president exceeded his authority by issuing that temporary ban on travel from seven majority muslim nations. the ninth circuit court of appeals says it will rule soon on that come in you know they will be talking about it a lot today at sean spicer's daily briefing. we will have that for you momentarily when it begins. in the meantime, the president is becoming increasingly frustrated by democrats dragging their heels. he fired off this tweet last night: "it is a disgrace that my full cabinet is still not in place,

the longest such delay in the history of our country. obstruction by democrats!" joining us now with some political reaction, lisa boothe, president of strategies and a contributor to both "washington examiner" and fox news, and daniel mcglocklin, attorney and liberal commentator and author of the book "the federalist society: how conservatives took the law back from liberals." welcome to both of you. so lisa, are you making any predictions about how this court is going to rule? >> no, not yet. i look at it more from a political lens. if you look, at least prior to this most recent executive order, a plurality of voters were with him on this, the rollout with a little sloppy, so that is where the hangups are for the administration right no now. >> jon: lisa, the law we decided in the segment with gregg jarrett seems to make it clear that the present has the authority to determine whether certain people should be allowed

into the united states. >> that is what a lot of people with a legal background have been saying. trump emaciation through a political lens, this is a big deal for him because this is the first big fight he has seen it play out in the courts, so i think it is pivotal for him to win this legal battle for him both politically and also in the eyes of the law. we will see what happens. >> jon: also on the president rights and prerogatives, the constitution says the senate advises and consents on cabinet appointees, but it does not say that senators should set out to block every single one. >> you're absolutely right. i guess the first thing i wanted to say is this is not historic length of time, it's been 20 days since the president has taken office with the last -- three of the last four presidents went into march and april and sometimes even may before their cabinet was complete. i will say democrats are doing what little they can to make sure that the cabinet

appointments maintain their ethical obligations and experience obligations, and i think devos particularly was a concern for democrats as a related to her experience for the job and the ethics concerns related to both her paperwork and the fact that was not divested fully from certain businesses. >> jon: i guess it is glass half empty or half-full because republicans are saying this is all about obstruction view they just want to hamstring the president as he tries to get about the business of administering the country. >> i agree, and i think what we're seeing is what we saw with president obama last year with the supreme court nomination. i think citizens should be really concerned that we are seeing a political process that is more concerned with obstruction than getting the job done. i think that counts for both sides, republicans don't have much of a leg to stand on because of the obstructionism we saw around president obama which led to an immigration executive order that was held up in the courts, and other similar from what we are seeing with

president trump. >> jon: senator orrin hatch of utah is a conservative republican who has been in the senate a long time, 30 years or so, here is his warning to his fellow senators about the way things are going right now. >> last night was off the charts be the democrats are still upset they lost to donald trump, they hate donald trump, so they are trying to slow everything down, stop the senate from operating, will not even let his cabinet officials through. this is the latest i remember a cabinet official still waiting to get approved by the senate. it is pretty pathetic, really. >> jon: lisa, as we watch for sean spicer's appearance there in the west wing of the white house, what do you think about what senator hatch had to say? >> he's absolutely right, so as president trump, this is a degree spewed on the day of president obama's inauguration, republicans helped the democratic party confirm seven of his nominees, "washington post" said the democratic tactic is an

unprecedented break from senate tradition. i think this is going to play out politically very negatively for the democratic party. rahm emanuel recently said the democratic party needs to take a chill pill, they are not going to win back congress in 2018 and the congress needs to focus on moderating versus fighting these losing moral battles. i think he is absolutely right there because if you look at the makeup of the democratic party, and you look at the 2018 electoral map, there are ten senate democrats that are running in states where president trump won, five of those states he won by double digits, so i think playing this level of obstructionism could eventually really politically be damaging to the democratic party. >> press secretary spicer: do you think it could backfire against democrats? >> i agree with lisa completely. if everything is an outrage, nothing is an outrage, and democrats need to take that to heart. i will say that there has been an unprecedented amount of activism, phone calls, protests, you name it, so the other thing we have to consider is democrats are actually listening to their

voters in delivering what it is that their people want. >> jon: thank you both. >> jenna: as we await the ninth circuit's decision on president trump's travel ban, by homeland security chief john kelly says the potential threat from those seven countries band is very real. in the trump administration argues a temporary pause is needed to prevent "terrorist if infiltration into our country." >> in 2015 and 2016, both congress and the administration made determinations that these seven countries posed the greatest risk of terrorism. the president comes into office with an obligation to protect the national security of our country. picking up for kyle.

here you go. you wouldn't put up with part of a pizza. um. something wrong? so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? you want the whole thing? yes, yes! live whole. not part. aleve.

>> jenna: fox news alert, we are awaiting the white house press weaving as we are moments away from that. we are also awaiting the ninth circuit appeals court decision on president trump's travel ban. homeland security chief john kelly speaking out in very clear terms about just why the part of the road targeted by mr. trump's executive order is such a national security concern. >> the good news about them declaring the caliphate is we know where they are in we can go destroy them or at least deal with them. as they go to the winds because mosul falls or issues in syria change, they are available to visually in a text to go to other parts of the world to do

their dirty deeds. so there are thousands we know of fighters that when they make the decision will move out of places like iraq, that part of iraq that has been called by the caliphate and parts of syria come in they will be available to create their brand of mayhem in europe and potentially the states. papers are not hard to get in that part of the world, particularly since in many cases they overran ices in the affiliates overran government offices that make papers, so it is not a small threat. >> jenna: michael welcome immigration attorney and former federal prosecutor and interestingly enough, mrs. trump's immigration attorney and hans, he is the senior legal fellow at the foundation, i appreciate both of you appeared want to weave in a little more news to all of this, secretary kelly made the statement publicly and also said

he presented more information in a classified setting as to the timing of this executive order. michael, now i'm looking down and seeing this from the associated press that our top u.s. commander in iraq says he expects to retake mosul and iraq and syria over the next six months but the next several months are going to be particularly crucial. what about the timing of all of this? how does that impact whether or not this was legal to do, or is legal to do? >> the president acted quickly and decisively, and we should in no way be hamstringing him from protecting our shores. that said, carve out permanent residence, carve out dual nationals, don't have something vague that shines the constitution into a closet. it's so important we do things right no matter what our motive is. this president is a patriot and genuinely inclined and trying to make america safe, but at the same time, we have to make sure we put our judicious orders and that congress who have the very

power to officiate and immigration make sure that the president does not discriminate, by the 1965 act come he's not allowed to this given a based on national origin. there is no indonesia on this, saudi arabia, it looks selective. >> jenna: let me ask a bit more on this, and what was significant about secretary kelly making those comments for example about syria is that syria has no functioning government we are speaking to at this time, so it would be great to be able to reach out to the nation of which the origin of the people on this be in belong, but if you can't reach out to the functioning government of that nation, then what are you to do? >> i am sorry. look, in fact the reason these countries are on the list and other muslim countries are not on the list is because these seven countries are feeling or a field countries, indonesia has a functioning government. that makes vetting possible and much easier. this is just a temporary suspension to make sure that we have the kind of extreme vetting

that is needed for seven countries and even the obama administration put on their watch list because they are the largest sources of terrorists in the world. >> jenna: michael, back to your point, you are saying the president should have certain powers, but you have some issues with some of the specifics of this order that you feel if he did not include that it would not be as having here to have this conversation. >> article three is very vague. i'm also a patriot, former federal prosecutor and immigration law professor, we don't want policies being taken place in the courts. we also want to make sure, again, we get this right. the president does not have the exclusive authority to exclude all persons. there are green card holders that have been vetted properly, and yes, we don't want to have people come forward if there is no law enforcement or intelligence basis that can be done, and there are administrative ways of reckoning with this. if this was a temporary suspension, if this was

genuinely inclined, it would not be meeting itself out in this fashion. certainly, the way it was rolled out beds a lot of questions, and i believe there are ways if the government wants to limit this, again, students have less of a right then green cardholders who have less of a right than citizens, i know when i travel internationally, i don't have the right to go to an american embassy because the equal protection does not work until it hits our shores, but we do have to make sure that we act as the moral compass of the world and the cop that plays by the rules. >> jenna: i see what you are saying. hans, what is your response to that? there is too much in this bucket, if the band is a bucket, there is too much for it to be legal seems to be michael's argument. >> that is dimly not the case. congress has 100% authority over immigration, and it delegated to the president and a very simple statutory provision, it gave the president the ability to suspend the entry of any alien if he believes it is detrimental to

the interest of the united states peer that gives them almost unlimited authority in this area, and it is very clear that the united states supreme court has said the zenith of the government's part to my power is at the border when it comes to choosing who to come in and out. there is no legal issue here are the president acted lawfully within the federal statute and within the constitution. >> jenna: mike, i'm going to give you a second to respond, i do want to play this down because you measure there's a way to also involve congress, secretary kelly, the new head of the department of homeland security, talking to lawmakers yesterday, there was a bit of a sound when he was asked about evidence about terrorists that have maybe slipped into that united states as refugees come he was at doing mike asked pointedly about that, i want to play this exchange. >> you don't have any proof at this point. >> not until the boom. >> not until what? >> not until he actually blow something up or going to a mall and kill people. we won't know until then. >> jenna: it is quite an

exchange, what do you about tha that? >> we should not be playing to america's fears. we fought pirates on the high seas. i've said this a few times already. the alien and sedition acts were available to our president in those days to exclude dangerous aliens come in the president can come if he wants under section 212f of the immigration act as the gentleman said, exclude people, but he has to do it uniformly. you cannot violate the establishment clause by creating exception even if it is well intended jews and christians for and minority religions could we have to get this out of the cous and get the president and his good offices the opportunity to create better vetting, we all agree on that, but the rules of engagement must be in concert with our constitution and not flaunting it. >> jenna: hans, the timing of it, though, circling back to that. there is, as michael points out, an argument that some of this should be taking place in congress, we should adjust our policies that way through the

representatives of the people. but then time he becomes an issue as well, in circling back to the point at the beginning of the segment about whether or not there was pressure to put this band and like the indefinite ban of syrian refugees in place because of what is happening overseas, what it looks like over the next six months. how does that intersect? there is a broader debate happening about philosophy and legality, and that is 100% appropriate, but that we have real-world pressure that looks like we are also dealing with, how do you balance the two? >> congress already acted on this. in 2015, they passed a border enhancement act that in fact the obama administration used to put almost all of the countries that are in the current executive order on a watch list because they were countries of concern. so congress already acted. they gave the power to the president to do this. i don't think in any way it violates any establishment clause or anything else because the president in this order has

said we are going to prioritize allowing people and who are being persecuted because of their religion. we have always done that. that is not discriminatory in any manner. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but didn't want not specifically ask the president to issue a new order covering output protection for permanent residence, people who are already titans of industry who are responsible for american employment, people with very strong family ties, students who are working on practical training for amazon and microsoft? >> the white house has already said this does not apply to permanent residence. frankly, many of the big employers like microsoft and google and others have been abusing the law to bring in people from outside, not because there is a dearth of americans who can fill those positions, but so they can pay them lower wages. >> i disagree. to speak of it is fact. >> bill gates sets himself in

the progenitors of the greatest technology see the greatest patents, not only from americans but also from future americans which is foreigners. >> jenna: a lot of this ban came out of conversation of keeping us safe from terror, we don't want to offer it civilly from the bases of fear, you said, but the white house looks like it is addressing this question about whether or not individuals have come to our country from the seven countries name that me to do us harm, they just supplied john roberts with an excessive list they also applied for the judge regarding whether or not this was the case but they lifted off people that came into the country from these seven countries that are beyond that were arrested or part of terrorist plots. so with information like that, going back to the legality, what do you think a judge is going to do with that list when he or she sees that, and how does that get weighed into the decision about whether or not this ban continues? >> very, very good question.

i don't know that they have had an opportunity yet to have an airing of that list or put forward testimony and statements to have this vetted properly in our legal system. yes, we are not going to wait for a boom, no one should be exploiting fear, and we have to be -- the greatest experiment in democracy with these extraordinary golden day doors, make right by the legacy of our founding fathers, get rid of isis as we did the pirates but the very time that we set a moral compass as the cop on the street that when they execute justice, we do it judiciously and with heart. why are we stopping refugees, why are you running scared? >> jenna: let me read a little bit because i'm seeing it for the first time, i think both of you will find this interesting. i will stop when we see sean spicer. here's the list i am seeing. here is an example of that with lists for the court appeared on june 3rd, 2015, is emollient national admitted to the u.s. as a refugee when he was a child

and he subsequently became a nationalized u.s. citizen was sentenced to 35 years in prison after being convicted of conspiring to commit murder in syria on behalf of isis. another exhibit, february 5th 2015, citizen of somalia who came to the united states as a refugee in 2007 was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison for conspiring to provide material support to foreign terrorist organization come in the list goes on. these are the examples that the white house says the strength into their case, does it? >> it does, but the whole mistake here is that no loan of federal judges sitting in a district course in washington has the right to substitute his judgment for the presidents on what might be detrimental to the national security of the united states. again, the statute in question gives the president almost unlimited authority, in the u.s. supreme court has said when it comes to national security and foreign policy issues that the president has great authority. no federal judge should be

substituting his judgment for that of the president on this issue. >> jenna: are we headed to the supreme court, is that the next step based on the string above your arguments? >> there is no way this is not heading to the supreme court unless the president clarifies this and does it more judiciously. >> jenna: let me ask, what happens if sean spicer doesn't step to the podium to say we have made some changes, then do things change? >> remarkably it changes. the president has the intelligence apparatus and law enforcement in the military, and yes, the judge should not be infringing or replacing his opinion because it is a judicial opinion, but let's not forget that we have checks and balances here. the president owes deference to the courts as the courts owed deference to the president. historically, supreme court decisions have turned to immigration as political questions, they have a look at immigrations and deferred to the culinary power of congress in the shared acts of congress, but

we need to speak well of america's majesty and the glorious lady liberty but if you miles from here because right now, we should not be turning our backs. we should be using immigration to complement the areas of our economy that are fledging or need support, it we should make sure we roll up and put isis down, no doubt, that is our job. >> jenna: i speak for our viewers that we appreciate both your thoughts in the conversation. it will continue, thank you michael, thank you, here is sean spicer. >> press secretary spicer: example of real-world results the trump administration is getting in its pro-jobs agenda. intel ceo brian krzanich announced his company is building a high-tech manufacturing facility to create roughly 10,000 jobs and errors on appeared between the factory itself and supply chains which is the latest wave and economic optimism sweeping the country following the presidents victory. in his inaugural address, the president laid out an ambitious video to create jobs over the

next decade. from the beginning of his campaign bring jobs back to our struggling community has been one of the parts of the president's message that most resonated with the american people. having hired 10,000 people himself, the president is keenly aware of what prevents businesses from being successful in creating jobs in the current economy. president obama by contrast visited the same factory site where the factory will be billed during his last election visit in 2012, touching the government incentives that were supposed to bring back jobs that had been lost to asia. president trump knows that for business, the real government incentive is government restraining itself. for too many years, washington has smothered industry in this country under burdensome regulation. this administration will set out to free businesses from constraint of government bureaucracy and regulation. under the president buy american, higher american, the government is going to get out of the way of businesses to allow them to thrive. just last week, the president

signed what we've been calling the one end, to out executive order requiring that every new federal regulation is adopted, to must be eliminated. this will provide much-needed relief for businesses that have been regulated and settled with an absolutely staggering amount of additional redtape as much as $1.9 trillion per year by some estimates. in 2014, the national association of manufacturers calculated the companies in every industry paid an average of $9,991 per employee to comply with federal regulations. it has only gotten worse since that study was conducted. by relieving even a small portion of this burden, we will allow businesses to grow and hire more people. projects that have been installed or studdard have been revived in anticipation of the presidents progrowth policies but last quarter, confidence among ceos of u.s.-based companies jumped by 4.2% points

in the worldwide global point survey, one of the single largest quarter gains in history. this is only the beginning of the president's agenda. moving on to recap the presidents afternoon and evening yesterday, as you saw, we officially announced the 24 people who will be serving the president and his cabinet on the white house web site yesterday. the president looks forward to having all these distinguish qualified men and women in place as heads of departments and agencies so our government can start fully working for the american people and enacting the agenda he brought forward during the last campaign. the president spoke with two foreign leaders yesterday during his call with the president of spain, they discussed their shared priorities including efforts to limit isis, the president additionally reiterated that united states commitment to the nato and emphasize the importance of nato allies and share the burden of defense spending. president trump also spoke with the president of turkey where he conveyed u.s. support to turkey as a strategic partner in welcome their contributions to

the fight against isis. last night, the president had an incredible he meaningful visit with current officers who enrolled in the green berets qualification course. these young men and women who will be at the tip of the spear serving our country and some of the world's most dangerous places as intelligence officers. the president told these brave young soldiers how proud he was of their commitment toward everything to keep us safe and how humble he was to serve as their commander-in-chief and they could always count on him to have their back. also yesterday, the department of justice presented its arguments before the ninth circuit court in the case concerning temporary restraining order on that president's national security executive order. as i did yesterday, i want to emphasize the issue before the ninth circuit right now is extremely narrow peer the question is simply whether or not the president's executive order which we maintain is fully lawful to the constitution and u.s. code should remain in effect while the courts actually consider it on its merit. we expect the court to issue a decision on this matter soon, it we will have a statement once that is done.

today, the president spoke before the major cities police chiefs and the major county sheriff's winter conference. in his remarks, the president reiterated his commitment to a great national partnership between his administration and law enforcement. while there are many things the federal government can do to improve safety and our communities, it's truly rests with the police officers, ships and deputies who risk their lives every day in our streets. their mission is critical to the future of our country. these brave men and women have a true friend in the white house, and as the president said many times, we must protect those who protect us. he will continue to do that throughout his administration. later this afternoon, the president will participate in a standing legislative strategy meeting of his team here. the team has been working around the clock to engage lawmakers and get the president's agenda moving through congress but yesterday the vice president attended a republican policy lunch where he discussed how the administration will work with the senate to deliver results to the american people. of course, the vice president also passed a historic vote for secretary of education

betsy devos on the floor of the send and then leaders were in his office across the street. the larger governmental affairs team is meeting direct communication to state, local and tribal leaders that we know what issues are affecting local communities, and so far they have contacted all g.o.p. states because of the house, states presidents, in all but eight g.o.p. state senate majority leaders. our legislative team is obviously also engaged in judge gorsuch's nomination. yet another full day of meetings in the senate with both republicans and democrats. he met this money with senators flake and others come in this afternoon he will meet with cotton m blumenthal, mccaskill in heller. we are also pleased to see another democrat, a senator from new hampshire come out to say that the eminently quad up due to a qualified judge gorsuch deserves an up and down vote here that brings is not denying total democrats who have expressed their willingness to treat judge gorsuch fairly. we hope more democrats will continue to join their colleagues in fulfilling their constitutional duty to offer

advice and consent on the presidential nomination. also on the hill, we expect attorney generally doing my general designate jeff sessions to receive a full vote, as a bushel he has become commonplace in the senate, democrats once again spent hours last night in a counterproductive discussion about what if president trump's clearly qualified nominees, not to mention one of their peers. senator sessions has a long interesting which legal career, serving as both the u.s. attorney of the southern district of alabama and also as alabama's attorney general. the president looks forward to senator sessions returned to the department of justice where he will continue his service to our nation as our chief law enforcement officer. we also anticipate putting later this week on secretary designate price and steven mnuchin, finally before i open up for questions, the white house has spoken with the governor of louisiana about the severe weather on the gulf coast, and we've also be content with the mayors of the affected areas, a team is monitoring the situation around the clock and is in the process of deploying teams to

provide response and recovery activity. at this time, they have been no additional request for federal assistance, and we will update you should that change paired with that, let me go to the first question from curtis fuller from nbc in cincinnati, ohio. >> we met were part of my good afternoon, cincinnati among othd to become a sanctuary city, it vowing not to enforce federal immigration laws without specific request, they also say they want to be open and welcoming to refugees. my question today, how will president trump respond, was cincinnati faced economic or other sanctions including, for example, funding of the bridge which he said he would find when he was on the campaign trail? >> press secretary spicer: thank you, curtis. as i have noted before, the end of the day, this order is about two things. one, keeping our cities safe, and two, respecting the hard earned taxpayers who send their

money to the federal government. the president is going to do everything he can within the scope of the executive order to make sure that the cities you do not comply with it, counties and other institutions, that the remains into a cities, they will not get federal government funding and compliance with the executive order. more areas like miami-dade down in florida understand the importance of this order, it we hope cities like cincinnati and others community around the country follow their lead and comply with that. with that, anita. >> reporter: two questions. first one is, can you tell us who is paying or how it is happening with the prime minister she is able to visit lago, who will be paying r that? i asked the white house, they referred me to the state who referred me to the japanese government, it seem like the prime minister was paying in the money was going to the treasury as previously discussed? >> press secretary spicer: when he travels here? >> reporter: in the

white house would admit that. >> press secretary spicer: let me follow up on that to explain to you the exact financing, i am not sure how exactly. >> reporter: second question was during the hearing yesterday you talked about in the ninth circuit, there was some discussion about whether there needed to be tweaks to the executive order to make it clear that legal permanent residents would not be included in that, if there was a back and forth on that. will there be a tweak? >> press secretary spicer: there was further guidance i spoke about that went out, i think it out a week ago, correct me if i am wrong. it talked about wanting to make it very, very clear that legal permanent residents were not included in that. again, remember, we're not talking about the merits of the order. right now, this discussion that happened last night that the court will be willing on is specific to the temporary restraining order and whether or not it should be maintained until there is a further discussion on the merits. again, i don't want to get into the legal nuances, but right

now, the guidance is very clear that was issued several days ago, if not a week ago that this is not about legal permanent residents, so they are excluded from this. i don't know why there would be that discussion. that clarification has been mad made. jeff? reported mike he said you're not going to talk about the merits of the order, but the president this morning talked about the merits of the order, when he said the hearing last night was "disgraceful?" >> press secretary spicer: he was not arguing before the night circuit. last night was a motion, the president was very clear that u.s. code in the constitution clearly gives the president all of the authority that is needed to make sure he can regulate who comes into this country and prevent any acts, anyone who is not coming into this country in a peaceful manner. the code is very, very clear on this. so i think the president was pointing out the same issue we had in boston which is once we had a chance to argue around the

marriage, we won on it. he clearly did not argue in front of the ninth circuit last night. >> reporter: he called it "disgraceful." is that the >> when you look at the u.s. code and how clear it is written and the authority for the president to do what's necessary to keep this country safe and regulate who comes into this country, a very very clear reading. the president, i think he further went on and said doesn't matter what level of education you're at, i don't think you can misread this. i think he was very clear. so thank you. daniel? >> i was curious about this tweet that president trump about his daughter's grants and then it was retweeted by the potus account. what's the standard the president is doing in regard to his family businesses? >> i think this is less about his family's business and an attack on his daughter. he ran for president. he won. he's l