>> from now on it's going to be america first. >> and joining me now is the vice president of the united states mike pence. mr. vice president, thanks for coming in. >> good to see you, chuck. >> let me start with the overnight developments in the ban. there are ten different suits in various courts. >> correct. >> obviously one is the washington state. i know you're pursuant in appeal to this decision. >> we are. >> is it time to cut bait and say, you know what? rescind the order and go through congress because there is support for the idea but the specifics appear to be a challenge for you. any thought of essentially rescinding and trying again? >> from the outset of his campaign for president and the outset of this administration president trump has made it clear. he's going to put the safety and the security of the american people first and using a list of countries that the obama administration and the congress have certified, were compromised and by terrorist influence, seven different countries are

permanently suspending immigration from syria and suspending for a set period of time the remaining six countries is consistent with the president's commitment to do just that. we are very confident the president is operating within his authority as president and both under the constitution and under clear, statutory law. that's what's so frustrating about the decision. >> statutory law is confusing because there is the one you're referring to in 1952, but there was the one passed in the '60s. it seems that some people believe makes this unconstitutional. >> well, look, when you have people as diverse as allen dershowitz and jonathan turley who have acknowledged the merits of the president's action under the constitution and the law, i think it speaks to itself. we're very confident that we're going to prevail. we'll accomplish the stay and we'll win the case on the merits, but again, the focus here is on the safety and security of the american people. >> that's why my question on the idea of sort of pulling it

because if this is a concern and this is something that you can't wait, you and i both know the court system will take a while. this could take weeks, maybe months. why not do this in a way when you have proper consultations with different departments? there was a part of this that many republicans in congress believe it was done hastily. you have the opportunity to do a do-over. why not? >> it was not done hastily. there may have been some leaders on capitol hill that were not informed in the usual niceties of washington, d.c., but look, we live in a dangerous world. they have inspired violence in the homeland. we saw in the basement of the louvre a machete-wielding person in the country. the threats that we face is real and they elected president donald trump for many reasons, but one of them was for us to rethink our immigration policies relative to ensuring that people

who represent a threat to our families and communities do not come into this country and we will continue to press that and we remain very confident that the president's actions are on solid constitutional and legal grounds. >> let me take you at your word on that. you brought up the louvre and you noted the person came through from egypt. on this travel ban, no egypt, no pakistan, no afghanistan. that is -- if this is your concern, then why weren't those countries included? it does feel as if it's sort of -- it was more done because you wanted that obama talking point. >> well, no. it was done because both the congress and the prior administration identified seven countries. one, in syria torn asunder by civil war and the other six that lack. here's the issue as secretary kelly said so well in that press conference. the issue is these are countries that do not have the internal systems in place so that we can be confident today that when people present themselves for

access to the united states that they are who they say they are. now there's a 30-day review under way. there is a temporary suspension. we're going to work with those remaining six countries for ways to enhance, but the other countries we mentioned and our policy is that we're confident that someone comes from that country that they are, in fact, who they say they are. this is really about the safety and the security of the american people. it is not a religious ban it is people coming into this country for countries for which we cannot be confident that they represent a threat. >> does the president undermine when he told that they would prioritize christians. >> the president was reflecting on the fact that christians who have faced persecution across theed bier middle east have not been treated. >> so it's a religious test. >> it's not a religious test. people are straining to do that.

it identified seven countries irrespective of the religious composition of those countries. seven countries have been compromiseded by terror ifrm, and i've got to tell you, we respect the right of every american to be heard on protest, online there are messages and that's what freedom looks like and that's what freedom sounds like, but i truly do believe that a majority of the american people are grateful that we have a president who is willing to take decisive action, use the authority he has under the constitution and the law to pause with regard to these seven countries and rethink the way we admit into america. >> you don't accept the notion that you guys did this hastily and a little sloppy? >> we live in a dangerous world. i think the american people welcome a president as decisive and as action oriented as president trump. >> i want to ask about the president's criticism that he called him a so-called judge. that's the leader of the

executive branch. you know, that made a lot of people uncomfortable. i know your answer is hey, this is donald trump, people need to get used to it, but there is a tendency here to just not take critics -- not take criticism constructively or seriously. he accused chuck schumer of having fake tears. it's like any time he gets some sort of critique he wants to commune ify them and make them go away. is that healthy? >> the look, the president of the united states has every right to criticize the other branch of government, we have a long history of that in our country. >> is this a way to do it? >> i think people find it not only refreshing that they understand the president's mind and how he feels about things and he expresses himself in a unique way, and again, the judge's actions -- look, the judge's actions in this case in washington which are adodds with the federal district court in boston that upheld the

constitutionality, the federal judge making decisions about american foreign policy and national security, it is frustrating to the president and the whole administration and millions of americans who want to see judges that will uphold the law and recognize -- >> all he did was put a pause. >> before the president of the united states has, under the constitution, to manage who comes into this country. >> all he did was put a pause. on this issue of criticism i found something you said about president obama. take a listen. >> this president has shown an unusual interest of commenting on critics in the media and the capitol hill. the people don't want to hear about the president's comments and criticism. >> i know when one party is in power. that's what mike pence thought when they got caught up in criticism. should the president take the

advice? >> my hair has changed a lot. the presidents are able to respond to the critics. the president of the united states represent all american people and president donald trump will exercise the prerogative to criticize other branches of government when he thinks they're not acting in a way that's consistent with the best interest of the american people. >> all right. i've got to ask you to respond to something, an excerpt of the super bowl interview the president's doing about vladimir putin. here it is. >> do you respect putin? >> i do respect him? will i get along with him, i have no idea. >> putin is a killer. >> a lot of killers. we've got a lot of killers. you think our country is so innocent? >> moral equivalency? is there a moral equivalency there? what was that, mr. vice president? >> not in the least. not in the least. look, president trump has been willing to be critical of our country's actions in the past, but what you're hearing there is a determination by the president of the united states to not let

semantics or the argument of the past get in the way of exploring the ability to work together with russia and with president putin and the days ahead, specifically if you played the rest of that interview. he said he didn't know if we would be able to get along with him better, but the president's top priority is to hunt down and destroy isis at its source and we have a common interest with russia to do that. the president has made it clear. >> you know the putin record here. let me just put it up here. obviously, a former kgb agent, in itself an institution of mass killings, what he's done to promote separatists in eastern ukraine, proxy wars that he's gotten involved in that, of course, ended up in the killing of innocent passengers on mh-17. then there's the list of mysterious deaths that are putin-related. this is not -- what american leader has done something similar? that's what the president seemed to say there. >> no, that's not what the president said in the least.

>> then why can't he say a negative thing about vladimir put sn putin? >> he has expressed himself in the campaign, an election that he won that he was determined to go forward and see whether or not we might be able to start anew in a relationship with russia. the president has said many times if we got along with russia better that would be a got thing for the world. if we were to confront isis and destroy radical islamic terrorism, that would be a good thing and what you have in trump is someone who is not going to look in the rear-view mirror so much as looking out the windshield. he's also made it very clear, chuck, maybe not, maybe it's not going to work out and he's absolutely determined, he had a productionive conversation with president putin. he spoke to the ukrainian president poroshenko yesterday about the need to maintain the cease-fire. he's going to continue to engage

these world leaders. he's going to put america first, and he's going to look, as he always does for a way we can move forward that we can advance the interest of the united states. >> are you comfortable with using those same words to describe vladimir putin? >> well, using what words? >> basically, you know, yeah, he's a bad guy, but we've done bad things too. are you comfortable with that moral equivalency? >> i don't think it's a moral equivalency. >> do you think he misspoke? >> no, i truly believe. look, president trump has been critical of american policy in the past, and i expect he's always going to continue to be candid with the american people, but what you have in this president is an absolute determination to re-engage the world. i see it in the telephone calls with world leaders. we saw it when prime minister may came, but it's to re-engage world leaders with american interest, to bring american strength back to the world stage. >> okay.

>> and president donald trump, people know that here is someone who knows how to put a deal together and if he can make a deal with russia or other countries it's going to advance the security of the american people, advance the interest of peace in the world and we'll look to do that. >> vice president pence, i'll leave it there. i know you're going to the super bowl. do you have a rooting interest? >> you know, the indianapolis colts are not there, and i'll be on neutral ground, and it's going to be a great game and we'll have the opportunity to travel with a couple of america's heroes that we'll bring down to the super bowl. >>re