we know judge curiel is an american born in indiana.e's race is determinative of their ability to do their job. that aside, do you see it as dangerous, the way that senator leahy does? >> i think it's potentially dangerous. i think it's -- we should quickly add that the administration is handling this in exactly the way you would want a president to handle that. they're going to appeal. of course they're going to appeal. but they're reinstating those visas and letting people in. they're not challenging that. i worry that the white house, what it tells the customs folks, you're not doing this, we're not going to fully obey this judge and they're not. they're obeying the judge. that's reassuring. i think we should underscore that. that the actions they're taking, are very much in comportment and consistent with tradition. the tweets that are coming from the president himself are not consistent with that. >> let's talk about the three weeks that we have seen play out since the president took office. in terms of the response or backlash of

his name is gonzalo curiel. and he is not doing the right thing. >> reporter: during the campaign, he insisted judge gonzalo curiel could not fairly preside over a lawsuit over trump university because of the judge's mexican heritage. democrats are now threatening to make these attacks an issue in supreme court confirmation hearings. senator patrick leahy said, "we need a nominee for the supreme court willing to demonstrate he or she will not cower to an overreaching executive." >> and david wright joins us live tonight. david, there is another headline we are also following. new information tonight about president trump and his business interests? >> reporter: that's right. new documents released as part of a freedom of information act request show that trump remains closely tied to his business empire. it's not exactly a blind trust. the two people who administer it are very close to trump. his eldest skpon son, and a top exec sieve of the trump organization. and trump remains the sole beneficiary. tom? >> dav

judge as donald trump did against the federal judge involved in the trump university case, judge curiel indiana, because of his mexican heritage. he raised questions about his legitimacy as a federal judge in that case. it's another thing when you are a sitting president of the united states, to call a highly rejected federal judge a so-called judge and claim his -- his analysis was ridiculous. >> right. let's just refresh our viewers what exactly he said. it is galling. in one tweet he said about the judge, the judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others who do not have our best interests at heart. he goes on to say, cannot believe -- in the court system. >> that's the most amazing thing. >> people pouring in. bad. goes on to say i have instructed homeland security to check people coming into the country carefully. the courts are making the job very difficult. let me go to the white house website which was easy for me to do to look at what they say about the judiciary. they say judges are appointed for life. quote-unquote, by design because it insulates them from the

his name is gonzalo curiel. and he is not doing the right thing. he knows he's unfair. this judge is of mexican heritage. i'm building a wall. >> in you are saying he can't do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism? >> i don't think so at all. >> sometimes you pick a judge. doesn't workout. that's happened. numerous of them over the last 25 years, that's happened. >>> the last thing you want are judges put on the united states supreme court that are going to destroy our nation. >>> if you are a good student in high school or a bad student in high school, you can understand this. >> eugene, donald trump and judges, complicated history there. that was a compilation of all of the things he said about judges. and i think his sister is a sitting judge, or retired judge. >> yeah. >> so, one in the family. what do you think is going on? >> i have no idea except that if you hit donald trump, he hits you back. and he perceives any sort of adverse decision or opinion or dirty look as an assault on him personally and that's the way he is. and i just -- y

he talked about judge curiel and disparaging terms when he got a case. stephen miller cast doubt on judicial review of executive actions. and then we had yesterday, of course, the white house chief of staff, reince priebus, talking reflecting gorsuch the vision of donald trump your it can you clarify what that vision is? is that vision someone who does what the president wants, as adjusted by those remarks? or is the president filled vision bigger than that? i think when the chief of staff referred to the president's vision, reince priebus was referring to the idea that here you have a man legals extraordinary talent, is respected by people across the political and ideological spectrum. he's an originalist. he's a textual list. he takes the constitution seriously and he understands the relationship between enforcing the structural constitution, the separation of powers, checks and balances on one hand, and the preservation of liberty on the other. i think that is, in a nutshell, what the chief of staff meant. whether judge courses will be someone who is

he was very critical, not just on twitter, but in spoken words about judge curiel in san diego during the campaign, trump university, said he was biased because he was mexican. even though he's american, born in indiana. he was also critical of the ninth circuit while they were deliberating this case, which seemed to be rather self-defeating. that said, these judges are supposed to rise above those things. but you have to wonder when judges are attacked by the president or anyone else if it doesn't affect them on some level, make them a little less respectful of presidential authority, which is what the justice department is asking for in this case. they'll give deference to the president when the president is not particularly respectful of the judiciary. >> that assumes that the president is actually speaking to the courts when he makes those tweets as if he's speaking to someone else. the other pattern this fits into is the broader pattern of trying to delegitimize anyone who is a dissenting first. first the media. now the courts. the idea to set up a baseline throughout the country

i mean, this is a president who, during the campaign attacked judge curiel, overseeing the trump university case. he said he couldn't make fair rulings because he was, quote, mexican. not true. this judge was american, born in indiana. what do you make of attacks like these and what they do to our judicial system as a whole is this. >> i don't pay attention because i do policy, not politics. government, 99% of government is like the iceberg. it's what's beneath the water and what actually makes policy and implements policy and the stuff that people talk about and tweets, i just don't pay attention to it because -- >> you don't pay attention to what the president of the united states tweets? >> i used to never listen to obama's speeches either. that's rhetoric. i'm not dismissing rhetoric. i'm not saying it's not important but if you're a policy analyst and look at what the government actually does, you look at what the government actually does. >> this is a president who said we're a nation of laws. this is about law and order, what the nation is about and undermining, is he not undermining

you suppose more republicans are not condemning this attack on the judge when trump attacked judge curiel who was presiding a case over him. why aren't republicans speaking out? >> i think in washington there's always a disincentive for one party to criticize someone of the same party. i don't remember democrats criticizing president obama much. >> but president obama never attacked a judge. >> that's true. but he had been overturned more by the modern courts. i a agree with charlie. there's a difference between with what trump says and does. those are the things that have impact on real people. but again, i think the case law here and i think the constitution is pretty clear that the president of the united states has the jurisdiction to decide who enters the country with regard to immigration and i think this did not handle people in transit and the issue of green card holders and visa holders. the court will decide it ultimately and we'll have opening arguments tomorrow. >> i want the producers look up that stat about president obama. let's take a look at one of the things he says and

he questioned the ability of judge curiel to be the decider in a trump university case. saying he is mexican when the judge was actually born in indiana and is a u.s. citizen. so now twice he has questioned the standing of u.s. judges. does it concern you? >> i don't think it's appropriate at all for anyone to call names or, or disparage a judge because you disagree with their ruling. i think there's no place for that. and specifically in this case, clearly this judge views the executive order differently than the president does. and so i think to call him a so-called judge, i think it's not appropriate whatsoever. he needs to do exactly what he's doing, put it in the hands of the department of justice. let them put their legal defense together and a legal response ability together and go through the appropriate channels. >> we can all agree that donald trump has a history of calling names. i worked for ted cruz, lyin' ted as donald trump liked to call him. that's his nature, that's what he will do and that's going to continue. but to call a judge names just because you

is reminiscent to what he did last summer when he was a presidential candidate and attacked judge curiel, argued that he could not adjudicate the case fairly because he was of mexican descent. now the clear difference, he is president of the united states. this is something that i think is going to be very interesting to see how republicans react to when they are back in washington. wanting to turn the other cheek on almost everything donald trump has said since taking office, this may be a bridge too far for them. >> vice president mike pence believes the travel ban will be eventually reinstated. but this could very well be a long, drawn-out process. how damaging has this already been for the trump administration, and what's the potential damage going forward, you think? >> first of all, there's no guarantee it will be reinstated because president trump is in the same difficult situation that president obama was in during his administration. what we see here is that the democratic states of washington and minnesota are using a weapon against president trump that republican states forged

individual, his first response is to personally dee legitimatize the critic, whether it was judge curielg the campaign, lind i graham who he accused the other day of wanting to start world war 3, or john lewis. that is his m.o. to challenge anybody who challenges him. to jackie's point, what we're seeing here is really significant because it is the opening of another -- the opening of another front where you have the president, much like president obama, not only having to fight the other party in congress, but facing resistance from the states that are controlled by the other party who are essentially opening a second front against him, in this case through the courts. >> quickly, jeffrey, if unanimously these three judges rule against the president, judge canby, why freed land, judge clifton, do you think he's going to tweet about the three of them in >> i would say that's about as certain as the sun will rise tomorrow morning. that we will get a tweet reaction one way or another. >> everybody stand by. there is a lot more news coming into "the situation room." this note to our viewers

he did it with judge curiel during the campaign. he did it just a few days ago on twitter to the washington state federal judge, saying he's a so-called justice. what do you make of when he said this morning if these judges wanted to help the court in terms of respect for the court they would do what they should be doing? he said a bad high school student could easily ruin on this in his favor. >> we always talk about the fact that the president has a bully pulp pulpit. i think we've never quite seen it quite so much bully. and in this case, donald trump is really, as jeff zeleny said, beginning to run up against the limits of a government that's based on on three co-equal branches. the fact of the matter is trump is used to having a situation where things are done because he says they should be done. and that doesn't work in the american constitutional system. and it's very, very odd to see him standing at a podium saying basically, not only are we right and we look forward to prevailing, but everybody who opposes us, even in the j

harkens back to what people think were the low points of the campaign, where trump took on judge curiel. is it different now that he's president? >> it's very different. now he speaks with the authority of the presidency and the executive branch. this is the executive branch attacking the judicial branch, doing it in an unseemly way. but also causing confusion about how our system works. the judges are there to interpret the law, apply the law. this is somebody who is not a so-called junl, as he was dismissively referred to, his confirmation was like 99-0. he's duly confirmed, lifetime tenure, has probably handled hundreds, if not thousands of cases. it sidetracks the conversation. on the merits, the president is going to have to go in and make his case in court. he's not going to win this on twitter. >> let's talk about the argument and the merits. this is really just an injunction whether or not it will be lifted. gloria, to you, this will no doubt go to the supreme court. i doubt we'll see the president criticizing the supreme court justices on this one. they have to make a decision

it would be the first time as president -- >> yes, judge curiel of course. >> for his mexico an heritage, saying that he was biased in the trump university case. we'll see if the so-called judge gives a response today. kelly, thanks so much. kelly o'donnell reporting in west palm beach. for more details on this legal order which temporarily blocks the travel ban, i want to bring in nbc news chief correspondent pete williams. pete, let's talk about how this ruling came about and how it counters the completely different ruling from a massachusetts judge. >> well, it appears that the government is abiding by this order to stop enforcing the president's executive order on immigration, and we don't know that from the government, though. we know that from the airline industry. because almost every airline that flies people from the seven countries that were covered by the executive order to the united states has issued a statement saying anybody with valid travel documents from those seven countries can now travel again. that's thing one. thing two is that the industry group that represents ai

we did hear him attack judge curiel over the trump university suit during the campaign last year. what i think took it to a different level with trump is when he said, if there's a terrorist attack, blame this judge. he said that in a tweet. i think that took it to a different degree, where it's moving the responsibility away from the executive branch and that was unusual. >> imagine if i judge had tweeted out, calling the president a so-called president. >> 90% of presidents attack criticize the judiciary, they criticize the content of decisions, the arguments coming from judges. that's completely normal in our system. when you go into court as a lawyer for the federal government, you're criticizing the judge, right, if you're appealing something. so that is totally normal. what is different here, he seemed to, and it depends on how you read "so-called" -- he seems to attack the legitimacy of this judge, that the judge had the right to rule the way he did. that's why i say if the judge had attacked president trump's legitimacy and say, he lost by three million votes and the russi

let's keep in mind, the attack on judge curiel signaled one of the low points of the campaign. he may i think get a similar blowback. we heard mitch mcconnell and others saying, whatever else you may think about the merits of the decision, the personal attack is not warranted. >> what do you make of this, david? where is the advantage for president trump in this? how does this help him win this case? >> well, i don't know if he's quite looking at it like that. >> it might have nothing to do with it. >> he might be looking for political advantage. this is not the first president to criticize a judge or a judicial decision that he did not like. president obama during his state of the union address called out members of the supreme court directly, republicans were upset about that, george w. bush complained about -- >> that led to some supreme court members not showing up for those addresses anymore. >> correct, they didn't want to be in the middle of a firestorm. the issue here is what the judge's job is and whether or not the president understands that. and he might, but be choo

he attacked judge curiel. during the course of his campaign and the trump university case. he attacked the acting attorney general. and he's got to see that there's three equal branches of government here. and when he attacks the independence of the judiciary, it does focus the fight before us now. and that is that we want to see a nominee that is independent, not just of a president, but is not making decisions based on ideology, but instead making decisions on precedent. >> you mention independence. neal katyel has come out in support of judge gorsuch. he wrote this, judge gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. his years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence. a record that should give the american people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. your response? >> we have a solemn obligation here, george, to look at this judge's record. to look at how his decisions have differed from precedent in the past. i have concerns, of course. a care a lot about campaign finance. he concurred

he did it to judge curiel, the judge in the trump university charge case, because his parents were bornmexico and because i'm going to build a wall. he manages to personalize everything he felt brings chaos. he will not admit that he's ever made a mistake, that he's ever been wrong. that's what this whole thing is about whether they're going to have a new order. a new executive order would be an admission that the first order had been flawed, imperfect, illegal, unconstitutional and rejected, so he can't have that, so you're going to kind of do a double -- to me, it is reflective of this administration, it's three weeks in. people in the white house work hard in every administration. they get rewarded in psychic income, a sense they are involved in something bigger than themselves, that it's important, and the people in the trump white house now are just fighting basically to stay above water. >> woodruff: and there is a sense of conflict, david, virtually every day. what about, is there a strategy to criticize the judiciary, the judges, the courts over this? >> no, i don't think there

. >> look, you're talking about, when he insulted judge curiel in the trump university case, saying, basically, he was unfit to do his job because of his mexican heritage. in fact, the judge was born in indiana, a u.s. citizen. however, you say it didn't work out well for him. that was during the campaign. he got elected. so do you believe this is a president who's operate on the belief that, that, you know, what, i did it then, i insulted a federal judge then, i got elected eed and i can do it ag. >> i don't know. i think many people, we always want to be optimistic in this country. and we have tried to have the hope that this president would grow into his job. and understand that arguments about how many people were ton the mall at the inauguration, demeaning people when he loses big-time, and he lost big-time in seattle, washington, yesterday. this was a nationwide stop of his unconstitutional order. and, but instead of showing a modest degree of good faith and simply saying he's going to appeal, which is his right, he went at it half-cocked, to try to create disrespect for this j

he attacked judge curiel. he attacked the acting attorney general. and he's got to see that there's three equal branches of government here. and when he attacks the independence of the judiciary, it us now. we want to see a nominee that is independent not just of a president but is not making decisions on ideology but is making decisions based on precedent. >> neil catiel has come out in sort of judge gorsuch. he wrote this, judge gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. a record that should give the american people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. your response? >> we have a solemn on obligati here, george, to look at this judge's record. how his decisions have differed from decision in the past. i have concerned. i care about cam pain finance. he concurred in a decision, put out his own opinion that went farther than the other judges in terms of what it could do to i'm a member of the judiciary committee. it's important that we hear him out. listen to his views. it's equa

why did he say judge curiel, in his civil fraud case, back during the campaign, couldn't sit on the case because he was of mexican ancestry? was he trying to -- what was he doing there? this is how he fights. he fights by attacking the motives of his opponents. >> on some level you're exactly right, this is not new, we have seen this in candidate trump. it is something very different when it is not a candidate, it is a president who is talking about how his justice department and an executive order that impacts so many pele. that difference here. but what impact, if you see it as a threat, if you see it as a warning, if you see it as trying to pressure these judges, what impact does the president's words today have on the three-judge panel board? >> you've clerked for a justice. i've clerked for a federal court judge as well as a state court judge. they're human beings. they watch the news. it's not that it's going to change their minds but it will affect them as human beings. when you think about donald trump and his idea that he was voted in because he knows how to negotiate, maybe tha

every time he got in trouble, real trouble, he attacked judge curiel, got killed in wisconsin.ence. blew through the northeast primaries. he's on his way. he wins the nomination. it all explodes again and he starts attacking the khan family, starts attacking this universe. then his poll numbers start going down and he's eight, nine, ten, 11. then the last ten days of the campaign, he does it again. >> that's kind of my point. it happens again and again. so there was -- >> you asked -- >> there's no learning from judge curiel that would carry over to the khan's carry over to -- >> you asked is he capable of doing it. he's capable of doing it when he has to do it. >> in the moment with that circumstance. what i think is worrisome. >> you're absolutely right. >> it keeps happening. it just keeps happening. >> making a defense here. >> very clear the dynamics to play to. whose was the last voice in his ear. we've seen time and again that's what he says has to do with whom he talks to and what crowd he's in front of. what time of day is it. has his staff gotten to him or is he sitti

obviously, he went after judge curiel during the campaign. he has gone after the press repeatedly.ntly the "new york times" which he calls failing and says is lying about its reporting. but we talk about the press all the time i want to move that to its side. the other thing that you argue donald trump is trying to undermine is the state of california. explain that for me. >> well, you see n all of these instances, the judiciary and the press and states, particularly big states run by democrats like california, you have pushback. you have independent centers of power that are not bowing and cow towing to donald trump. donald trump doesn't like that. so when it comes to these independent centers of power in our political economic system, again, the judiciary, and the press, and state governments like big state governments like california, donald trump really unleashes his venom. he doesn't like independent centers of power. he wants control. that's why he has strichb for his entire life. that's what his mentor roykoen taught him about. one of roykoen's messages also, really, from th

and we can even go back to the judge curiel case.nts when he curiel and then after that he was losing by five points. americans are deeply uncomfortable with this, aren't they? >> absolutely. one of the things about america is a certain deference to the judiciary. i remember bush v gore and it was very confusing and, finally, it comes down from supreme court bush v gore, and the next day, there is no rioting in the streets. al gore is conceding. it's ingrained into us that we have a rule of law. we watched the super bowl last night. you might not have agreed with certain calls, but at a certain point, you know, the calls are made and that is what the judiciary has to do. if you're not going to play by those rules, that's when everybody feels, well, this is a dangerous place we are at. >> mika, you covered around the clock while i was in congress. you covered bush v gore and there was this buildup, wasn't there? and there were all of these people saying, oh, this will set back the judiciary a decade. and, yet, they made the ruling and

he attacked judge curiel in anyone appropriate and racist ways. he said i never settle.ion was over, he wrote a $25 million check which even for donald trump is a lot of money. and here he is again attacking the ninth circuit. what's happening as soon as tuesday? a new executive order that is trying to backtrack away from those negative rulings. so a lot of tough talk but at the end, see you in court. at the end it's like hold me back. >> so hold my earrings and also hold me back, hold me back. >> hold me back. >> at 6:00 we're going to have what i call the ari melber experience. what have you got on the show tonight? >> thank you for asking. 6:00 p.m. eastern to 8:00 p.m. there's a saying in hip-hop in the street like sesame. we are going to be in the street because as you know there are a lot of protests going on. there are the things with the i am a muslim march, there's another profe festest for presi day tomorrow. we're talking to roger stone to get a republican perspective on this entire russia issue. >> are you taking suggestions on twitter? >> send me any ideas.

donald trump's low point in the campaign was when he questioned judge curiel. you can't do that.vie stars and criticize the public and you want to criticize -- fine, go at it, but you do this, then you start talking about our constitution and you start questioning the checks and balances that have protected this country from tyrants for 240 years. >> i think, joe, what they are setting themselves up for is a presidency where you have a conflict between the article 2 branch and the article 3 branch like the nixon administration and setting a template for that right now. >> what happened to nixon? >> well, in that kind of autocratic authoritarian language didn't play well for the american people and no president is above the law. they actually have some institutionala aal prerogatives >> early retirement i think is the word you're looking for. >> nixon had an early retirement but a fight so unnecessary. again, redraft the executive order this morning, put it out, and you'd get most of everything that you wanted. again, you're going to control the supreme court. you're going to cont