professor dershowitz, to you in miami to start us off, it was said mostly by lay people listening in tonight, it was a like a law school class, that the attorney representing the trump administration got the worst of it. he was a last-minute substitution. there were a lot of long pauses. he didn't have the best outing. can you tell us what you made of who had the better case and what the likelihood is that this court is going to return the world to what the "new york times" called global chaos the day of this executive order? >> i think it's very low probability that the court will upset it injunction, precisely for the reason you stated, that it would cause chaos and they o would have to again reverse it if they changed their view. i think that the state of washington would win in front of this court. i think it would be a mistake for the government to seek a stay from the supreme court probably won't get it. i think if it went to the supreme court on the merits, the trump team would win. the establishment cause argument is a real stretch. it says congress shall make no law respect

dershowitz is an expert on that. >> okay.vestigation that congressman jason chaffetz and elijah cummings announced for kellyanne conw conway. after all those spider webs, kellyanne conway is the person who will be investigated because she plugged ivanka trump's clothing line yesterday? >> of all the serious things going on in this country, what kellyanne conway did by the letter of the law was wrong. having said that, if you watch the clip, it's clear she's joking. it's also clear in the way she's answering. she did not at least from my estimation go on there, like i am totally plugging her line. it appears to be a threeaway line, she was joking back and forth. there are so many outrageous moments that important things like the president having, from all accounts, a fairly successful conversation with the president of china last night, over an hour, where he reinstated the one china rule which was an outrage three months ago, he's going to be spending several hours -- a couple days with the prime minister of japan, these are

also joining us, allan dershowitz, ron brownstein and cnn international correspondent ivan watson. peter, to you first, although they have never met trump seems to trust vladimir putin very much. would you trust putin to help us in the fight against it's sis? >> i don't think i hear him saying that he trusts putin at all. i hear what he says is that for what the leader of russia is supposed to do for his country, he has respect for what putin has been able to accomplish. but i don't see him at all, number one, saying that he trusts putin, and number two, taking any actions at all at this point in time, in terms of reaching out to russia, and indicating in any way that we're going into this naively, fully trusting putin at all. he just says, at least the clip that i heard said, yep, we

alan dershowitz, f. michael higgin both am at university of baltimore and constitutional

laura coats, alan dershowitz, ariane devoe, paul kallen and jeffrey toobin. as we await that press conference, the president of the united states has come out and said he thinks they will win. see you in court. moreover he thinks this decision was political. >> four judges have looked at this case so far and all four have come out the same way. two republican appointees, the district judge and one appellate court judge and two democratically appointed judges. in a world where democrats and republicans often see things differently we have two republican judges, two democratic judges seeing this case the same way. doesn't mean they're right or the ultimate result of this case will turn out the same way, but it's a pretty tough argument to make at this point that they are all just simply opponents of the trump administration rather than judges doing their jobs. >> as we await the presser, we are days away from arguments in the underlying constitutionality of the ban itself, right. this was a restraining order essentially. but this ruling but not just a ruling on

all a alan dershowitz. what does it mean? >> the judge's order, is a national order, saying you have to have uniformity in the way immigration laws apply. it will apply equally to the west coast and the east coast. kennedy airport to l.a.x. it is very broad. it goes through provisions of the executive order. and it says i'm staying this and staying that. in my view, i think it's overbroad. it concludes at least that there is a plausible argument of unconstitutionality in relation, not only to people who are in the country, not only to people who already have visas, but perhaps, as well, to people have haven't gotten visas from syria and other countries. my prediction is from the ninth circuit will limit this ruling, programs overruperhaps overrule. but i don't think the ruling as written, will be on appeal. and we have a massachusetts court, that has a thorough opinion, that comes to the opposite in many respects. it says this isn't a muslim ban. it doesn't involve violation of religious rights. we have a conflict in two diff

." >> professor dershowitz, before the break, robach said there were map issues including standing.ssuming the president does not take your advice and issue another executive order, goes to the supreme court, do you think the issue of standing is going to be primary? >> i do. and i think that the supreme court will not accept the lower court's rulings on standing. this is the most extreme extension of standing i've ever seen. it gives the state of washington standing to raise constitutional issues on behalf of a family in yemen who have never been to this country and are coming for a tourist visa. it's a stretch. also the establishment argument which would give standing because the establishment clause is limitation on government, it's hard to say there's an establishment of religion here because they picked seven terrorist nations that happened to be nations that are involved in islamic extreme terrorism and giving preference to religious minorities. the refugee act in 1944 gave preference to jewish refugees being victimized by nazism. if it goes to the supreme court on the merits

alan dershowitz, same question for you.you think -- i think i heard a prosecutor saying, a federal prosecutor saying, she believed that this would indeed go to the supreme court. it wasn't a question about it. walk us through the process here. >> i think it will. but it will take some time. i think by tomorrow, we will see an appeal filed in the ninth circuit. i think an appeal will be filed in the first srcircuit by the plaintiffs. i think there will be a -- if you don't reverse this or consider it in the next 24, 48 hours, we're going to go directly to the united states supreme court. the united states supreme court is reluctant to take a case from the circuit courts. if you have two circuit courts in conflict, the case may develop get to the supreme court within a matter of days. we saw that in bush versus gore. we've seen it in other cases. courts are very nimble. they have 24/7 availability. you have duty judges, you have circuit judges. so we could get an a opinion from the supreme court by the end of this weekend. it

allen dershowitz. thank you so much for your brains. >>> anyway. we continue to watch the ongoing vote in the united states senate to confirm senator jeff sessions of alabama to be the next attorney general. that vote coming after an unprecedented day, unplus de of protests on the floor of the senate as republican majority leader silences senator elizabeth warren for reading a let r by dr. martin luther king's widow. we'll have an exclusive interview with tim kaine coming up, the 2016 vice presidential candidate, when we return. this is "hardball," where the action is. your insurance company won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says, "you picked the wrong insurance plan." no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car plus depreciation. liberty mutual insurance. >>> welcome back to "hardball." we continue to watch the united states senate, right now holding a confirmation vote on alabama senator jeff sessions for attorney general. earlier this evening, senator t

because dershowitz is giving him the right advice! you've got to yank that unconstitutional order and replace it with a good one. that may be the direction they go or they may be doing a supplemental or separate order. i do think that they're moving too fast. when i worked in the white house, my nickname was mr. no. and they need somebody and the white house city council, don mcdan needs to do this, and the justice department needs to do this. it seems like donald trump is surrounded by yes men and women. i think they need to take the time and do it right. the ninth circuit has given him a road map, and he would be rise, the president, to take that road map. it is true, i may even get jeffrey to agree with me on this, it is true that the weakest part, the weakest link in the chain of the distinguish-making in the ninth circuit is the aliens who have no connection to the united states at all. and that is where he should focus. they haven't even had the -- talk about wet foot/dry foot, they haven't even set foot inside the system to hav

the order itself is about seven pages in length, and, you know, as professor dershowitz mentioned, the judge does folk -- focus on the fact that we need uniform rule in this area. and this judge has said the only way to do that is by having one district court order upheld. >> do you expect to hear, will the judge, just in terms of hough thhow this works, is this the final order from the judge, or would possibly this weekend he write more? >> i'm not sure, anderson. things are happening pretty quickly here. i would have to check with my team. i'm not sure if this is his final order or if something more is coming out. >> david's got one more. >> the ruling comes down and says by 5:00 on monday you have to have materials in hand for motion for preliminary injunction, can you explain the difference between a tro, the temporary restraining order you have now and the preliminary injunction you're seeking? >> i'm sorry, david, would you mind repeating that? is that from the order you're quoting from? >> yes, it's from the order, and it says the court orders, the court will schedule if request

bring in alan dershowitz, matt lewis -- good to have you all on. matt ask you about the "new york times" reporting. h.r. mcmaster breaking with president, not calling terrorists, radical islamists and signaling what might be more moderate approach to the islamic world. do you think so? >> i will be very interested to see how this plays out. does he walk the talk? is this reporting solid? because this is surprising. i mean i think that calling it radical islamism is the moderate position. don't want to accuse all muslims of being involved in something bad. but calling it radical, that qualifier, and islamism, i think is the accurate and even dare say politically correct term. but i have great respect for general mcmaster and the work he did in the counterinsurgency. if anybody has the credibility to say this is the wrong terminology, he would be one of the people. >> alan, i know you want to respond. i bring up a good point, this is "new york times" reporting, not cnn's, go on alan. >> first of all i think trump is right to call it radical islamic t

david gergen, elizabeth foley, and professor dershowitz is with us. i want to get your reaction to what attorney general ferguson said, that he's in it for the long haul and going to take it to the supreme court if necessary. do you have any doubt this will go to the supreme court? >> i think it will go to the supreme court, and i think what will happen is he will win the first round. because i don't think the ninth circuit will undo the injunction. that would cause chaos, especially if they think they would then have to renew the ban later. so i think he's going to win the first round. on the second round he'll have a partial victory and a partial loss. they'll rule that some of the executive agreement is constitutional. some of it's unconstitutional. and then they'll have to make a decision, whether to accept half a loaf or whether to try to appeal to the supreme court, where you get an uncertain result, because you have the 4-4 split. >> professor, do you agree with professor dershowitz, and what would that split look like of getting half a loaf? >

joe is out of money. >>> attorney alan dershowitz will join us. we will ask him about michael flynn broke federal law over his conversations with russia. plus congressman jason chaffetz gets an earful in utah over everything from neil gorsuch to his comments of kellyanne conway buying from ivanka trump's line. she was giving a free commercial. someone who works in the white house. we will talk about whether she will be held accountable for her comments. >> this seems like 2009. >> republicans are facing what democrats faced in 2009. >> we will get to that. >> on monday, we are going to face, weather wise, what we faced yesterday because bill karins, i asked for snow. >> we didn't ask for that much. >> i asked for snow and i'm getting it, aren't i? >> monday looks interesting because monday could ab stronger storm but may be more isolated to the eastern portions of new england. get to that in a second. this is an interesting developing story in california. the oraville dam. this spillway. >> whoa. >> gave way yesterday. they are releasing all of th

. >> 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

here is liz bernie and alan dershowitz. thanks for coming on. twice this week president asked about a rise of anti-semitism in this country. both times didn't answer the question. this was wednesday. >> since your election campaign and even after your victory, we've seen a sharp rise in anti-semitic incidents across the united states, and i wonder what do you say to those among the jewish community in the united states and israel and around the world who feel your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones? >> i just want to say we're very honored by the victory that we had. 306 electoral college votes. we were not supposed to crack 220. you know that right? there was no way to 221. there's tremendous enthusiasm out there. as far as people -- jewish people, so many friends, a daughter who happens to be here right now, a son-in-law. and three beautiful grandchildren. i think you're going to see a lot different united states of america over the next three, four or eight years. >> and here was his answer yesterday. >> 48 bomb

alan dershowitz, f. michael higgin both am at university of baltimore and constitutional attorn attorney paige potaaid joins as well. super uber panel. you've been digging into the court documents. complete repudiation of the travel ban. >> it certainly is. big blow to the trump administration and three judges repudiated the travel ban saying in 29-page opinion that the government failed to provide enough evidence to support why this travel ban was necessary for national security, the urgency of national security as we've heard from the government and president trump specifically saying this is about national security. that's why we had to roll this out quickly. talked about the fact the government failed to show why the seven countries listed in the travel ban pose such a threat. and at one point the court says does give deference to political branchs. executive and legislative, with national security and immigration, it had every right to review the case. during the oral arguments justice department ar

joining me now, named attorney and professor emeritus at harvard law school, alan dershowitz. professor, he's taking your advice. for the last several days on cnn you have been saying rewrite it explain. >> well, he says there's an imminent threat and we know he'll lose the stay application and it will take months to get to the supreme court for a partial victory. i think it's only logical to rescind the order and moot the ninth circuit opinion or simply revise the order and institute a new one while taking a slow track up to the supreme court. the last thing he wants is a 4-4 affirmance. he's smart to scrap the order now, apply it only to people who have never been in the united states, have no contact with the united states, have no standing to raise this issue and in that way he can accomplish both goals, protect the security of the country and not have a constitutional crisis on his hands. >> do you think that he expands or limits that list of seven nations? does he put in a christian nation so as to avoid an argument over the establishment clause? >> that would be foolish

. >>> with me now is alan dershowitz from harvard law school. i know you've been watching this debate and i'm trying to learn what i should have learned in law school but i didn't go. let me ask you about this. why would an appellate court talk about policy like this, saying that none of these countries, these seven countries have sent us a terrorist yet. and i wonder why in a courtroom precedent may be everything but it's certainly nothing to do with terrorism. they pop up from all kinds of places, sirhan sirhan came from the west bank or somewhere, from jordan at the time. we don't know where they're going to come from. muhammad ali came from egypt. how do you rule on the appropriateness of a ban or an executive order when you're saying you can protect -- you can predict the future if you're a judge and presidents can't. >> look, this is not a solid decision. this is a decision that looks like it's based more on policy than on constitutionality. there are many, many flaws, and if i were trump's lawyer i would say, look, here's your situation.

start with evan perez, sara murray and alan dershowitz. we're going to start with you evan. great reporting from the team in washington and we appreciate it. american people do as well. part of the team that broke this story last night. what is the latest? >> today is a day the white house is on the defensive. wanted to make the point they did nothing wrong in the contacts between the white house chief of staff reince priebus and deputy director of the fbi andrew mccabe. if you recall all began last week after cnn and "new york times" reported there were contacts between people with the trump campaign and people in russia known by u.s. intelligence sources and suspected of being perhaps agents of the russian government. those contacts were all happening while russians were trying to interfere in the u.s. election. after that report happened, according to the white house today, they said that andy mccabe, deputy director of the fbi approached reince priebus and said something to the effect that the "new york times" story in particular was quote bs. so they say only after that

. >> alan dershowitz is a professor at harvard law school, joining us via skype in miami, florida.k this case will be argued, this appeal? and how likely is success for the trump administration? >> well, there are 29 judges on the ninth circuit, three of them get selected to hear a case. so we're playing judicial rule oat. the court has some of the most liberal and some of the most conservative judges, it depends on who's drawn in the wheel. the argument the government will make is that these states don't have standing to object to the president's executive order, that the president's executive order is constitutional and the president is authorized to make the kinds of judgment he made and it's impossible to predict what the outcome will be. my own judgment is that part of the president's executive order is constitutional. part of it is unconstitutional. what's required is a calibrated nuance the approach to it. so far, none of the courts have given it that kind of approach. the court in washington said the statute, or the regulation is unconstitutional. and we're not clear what t

alan dershowitz is with us. kathleen sibelius is here. tom donohue is with us. a big show this morning. i you to stay with us. we kick off at jobs in america. as early as this plane. it's coming later today and it's coming after workers at the same plant but it against joining the union. he will fight to his my lago estate for the weekend. they touted the success that they've seen. the workers were all in. jobs have artie started to search. it will instead invest $700 million in michigan creating many many jobs. it will invest $1 billion in ohio and michigan creating 2000 new american jobs. they were with me a week ago. keeping many jobs here that were going to leave. betsy, good to see you. thank you for joining us. he really criticized the price. i expected to go very well. because trump has used the pulpit so effectively to persuade business leaders to make more product in the united states if you're going to sell it here make it here. on the press conference yesterday. but now the real change occurs. and let me underscore that repealing obama care is a jobs

. >> if you can stay with us, i want to bring in our panel, page pa pate, alan dershowitz and ken kuch kuchenelli. i would like to give you a chance to ask the attorney general a question, if you'd like. >> sure. one of the arguments made in what i think was a very good brief by the justice department was that there is a compromise possibly a foot here. namely, you didn't even ask the judge in the federal district court to extend his injunction to people who have never been in the country, have never set foot in the country, who are just seeking a visa. you didn't ask for it, he grarnted that. the justice department is now suggesting that well maybe you can split the difference here. maybe you can continue the injunction as to people who have been in the country, who have had contact with the country, the people you described coming to work or reunite with relatives while elimb 2345i9ing the injunction as it applies to people who are outside the country, have never been in the country and probably have no constitutional right to come into the country. would you be prepared to sit down

alan dershowitz. great to have your perspective on all of that. thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you. >>> all right. also on saturday, president trump telling fox news in a brand-new interview that he respect the russian president, vladimir putin. >> that's right. mr. trump acknowledged president putin may be a killer but added that we've got a lot of killers. take a listen. >> do you respect putin? >> i do respect him. >> do you? why? >> well, i respect a lot of people, but that doesn't mean i'm going to get along with them. he's a leader of his country. i say it is better to get along with russia than not. will i get along with him? i have no idea. >> he's a killer though. >> it is possible i won't. >> putin's a killer. >> we have loot a lot of killer. what, you think our country is so innocent? >> claire sebastian joins us from moscow. certainly interesting words from mr. trump. what did you make of them? >> yeah, lynda, it is not the first time we have heard it from mr. trump. it is the first time since he became president we heard had

we will hear from alan dershowitz in the program. president donald trump if he deal gorsuch last night. if confirmed, the nomination was delayed vacancy after the death of justice antin scalia. >> and keeping another promise to the american people by nominating judge neil gorsuch. was that a surprise? >> is the process missed in the senate, that george burns imus on both sides of the aisle. >> this is a very bad decision. well aside the mainstream of american legal thought. >> that was nancy pelosi weigh in a month night. asked you earlier what you're getting for people about all of this pushback from the dems. >> bottom line is this. they are loving the resistance movement. but people on the far left, a lot of people look at this insane this is establishment, politics as usual and getting worse that it has been. you say we are not going to work on anything together common either no or yes, but there's no compromise. the bottom line in the supreme court is a lot of people didn't want to vote for donald trump, but did so because of th

alan dershowitz, famous constitutional scholar and long-term harvard law professor. dershowitz described gorsuch as highly credentialed and hard to oppose and dismissed the idea that he would be caricatured as some sort of extreme right-wing idealogue. that doesn't seem to fill what i know about him, dershowitz said, adding that gorsuch will be hard to oppose on the merits. indeed, he will. that's precisely why our democratic colleagues are making the debate on his nomination about other things and other people. that's also why they are arguing that there are special hurdles for judge gorsuch to clear, hurdles that they are forced to admit were not there for the first-term nominees of democratic presidents. when even a left-winger like rachel maddow can't help but admit that a person like gorsuch is a relatively mainstream choice, when even maddow characterizes his attempt to fill a nomination as radical, it's hard to argue otherwise. now that won't stop many on the far left from trying. i invite democrats who spend many months insisting we need nine to now follow th

harvard law professor and attorney alan dershowitz is in boston. he gave this assessment.ody can be confident on either side. this is an extremely complex issue. many people think the order itself, the president's order, is awful, and a terrible policy. that does not mean it is unconstitutional. the president has great authority to restrict people from coming into the country. but it is not unconstrained. it may be unconstitutional to some people but not to others. for example, if you have a family in yemen with no connection to the united states and they are just trying to get a visa to visit and i turned down by someone to visit and i turned down by someone who has a visa or somebody prohibited from coming back, they may have a substantial constitutional claim. so it is very complex. it is going up to the ninth circuit with 29judges, complex. it is going up to the ninth circuit with 29 judges, some of the most liberal and some of the most conservative. we call itjudicial roulette. nobody knows which judges will be picked and nobody can predict what the outcome will be. h

harvard law professor and attorney alan dershowitz joins us now from boston. say in his report that donald trump has tweeted, "we will win!" is the right to be that confident? nobody can really be confident on either side. this is an extremely complex issue. i think this is an extremely complex issue. ithinka this is an extremely complex issue. i think a lot of people think the order itself, the president's order, is awful and a terrible policy but that does not mean it is unconstitutional. the president has very correct authority to restrict immigration into the country. it is not unconstrained authority, though. the order may be constitutional to some people but unconstitutional to others. for example, if you have family in yemen who has no connection to the united states and they want to get a visa to visit and they want to get a visa to visit and they are turned down, they would have reason. if somebody in the united states with a visa or somebody who had attended university in the us who was prohibited from coming back, they might have substantial constit

howie: even the liberal harvard lawyer allen - alan dershowitz d sally yates was wrong. >> i'm not aonstitutional scholar, but i agree with erin. she did what her job was. howie: the office of legal counsel approved this. >> they are not the be all and end all. they had a history of torture during the bush administration. howie: you don't think she was grandstanding? >> i agree she did what her job was. i think she felt she had a legal responsibility. now after we have seen multiple judges questioning the refugee ban, what she did doesn't seem that crazy. >> donald trump was right to fire her? howie: talk about the optics of the way this was covered. there was a womb in the news, sally yates. an obama holdover did this in part to get attention. >> she wants the job at msnbc as a political pundit. she is a liberal hero. but the rule of law was not followed here. the press coverage was overblown, the massacre thing was completely wrong. cnn weren't with it all day monday. they had stuff online on their site thursday calling it a sunday night massacre. the huge story this week because t

in cnn's chief legal analysis, jeffrey toobin and laura coates, nia mallika henderson and alan dershowitz. jeffrey the supreme court nominee said the attacks on the judiciary is doe moralizing and disheartening. >> i think judge gorsuch was artful and true to his personality. it's restrained person. registered discontent in mild way and helped himself politically in separating himself from the president trying to prove he will be independent, not a rubber stamp. >> strategy? >> i think an element but also think it's sincere. a lot of judges are very upset by this kind of criticism. frankly i think president trump is entirely entitled to criticize judges. we have this idea they can't be criticized. they're not exempt but he's using infant ill, juvenile things calling them so-called judges. ridiculous. >> does it help your case if you have cases in front of them? >> i don't know that it's that, just not persuasive criticism. >> how do you think the president is reacting to judge gorsuch's comments. >> in some ways probably prepped on this. seen this before with nominees come before congress

states from again challenging it in court which is something that former harvard law professor alan dershowitzys he expects. >> these challenges are going to persist over the next four years. we now have not only the courts challenging the president, but we have states for the first time really, states serving as a check and balance on the executive branch. and that's a newton phenomenon, and it will be a very important one. >> reporter: of course, the administration's hope is that with this new and improved executive order the courts will allow it to stay in place while any challenges work their way through the courts. eric: it's continuing. garrett, thank you. arthel: okay, we now know that president trump is weighing all options after his travel ban of halted in federal court. but what does it mean for the white house to be hit with this early legal setback? nils standish is here, white house columnist for the hill. we just heard reporting that the president is considering issuing i want to talk to you about early reports of what that entails apart from new security measureses and is the fo

alan dershowitz coming out with an editorial saying if ellison is elected chair of the dnc, they aree the democratic party. pretty serious stakes here. and as you noted, with a party that is so clearly divided. elizabeth: yeah. and i think it's so funny because i've seen a lot of networks play that piece with hillary clinton, and afterwards they would have a segment and debate, and this was on a number of networks, on whether that helped or hurt the cause. and i think you're certainly seeing a different message here at cpac which is, obviously, a conservative meeting, it's been a conservative meeting for a long time. the last president to attend was ronald reagan. we've had this conversation many times. but what we've noticed over the past couple days that we've been here is it isn't necessarily staunch conservatives that attended in the time, it wasn't diehard donald trump voters, it was really a broad array of people who came. they came here for different reasons, and they're deciding to coalesce as a party because we heard reince priebus say when he and steve bannon were together

alan dershowitz, frederick lawrence, and david benkov. great to have you all here.n, in january jewish community center received this call from caller with disguised voice. >> and in a short time a large number of jews are going to be slaughtered. their heads are going to be blown off from the shrapnel. there's a lot of shrapnel, there's going to be a bloodbath that's going to take place in a short time. >> the threat turned out to be a hoax. so far all threats hoaxes. 70 reported bomb threats in 54 jewish community centers this year alone and cause chaos and fear and jewish cemetery desecrated this weekend. are you worried they can escalate? >> no question. happened in europe. saw it in france, in a number of places. other parts of europe. yes they can escalate. there are two types of threats coalescing at the same time, threats from the alt-right that manifest by these calls and maybe violence but equally important are threats from the hard left, particularly on college campuses. jewish, pro-israel students don't feel comfort on many campuses. saw a film called "h

dershowitz, how do you think democrats will respond to this pick? still upset about the merritt garland, that he never got a hearing or vote. >> two issues, one is qualifications, as jeffrey said equally qualified. very qualified. democrats can't object to the qualifications and probably not the ideology, president is entitled to pick someone whose ideology is close to him. will object that the vacancy should have been filled by democrat president and not republican president and will make the same arguments made in the months past that there's nothing wrong with the four to four court. that was ted cruz's argument, that the president can be denied his choice if there are institutional problems. in the end that view won't prevail. trump was smart, picked someone whose qualifications can't be attack and and whose ideology is not so skpreem like the bork nomination to lose the republican supporters. going to get all the republican senators and i don't think they'll waste the nuclear option on this. i suggest we'll see mr. gorsuch on the supreme court

cnn homeland security analyst and cnn legal analyst and harvard law professor alan dershowitz. the bottom line here, what is the biggest change. it seems like it's the definition of who a criminal is just expanded. >> certainly the definition of who is a deportable criminal expanded, but the order in totality makes anyone unlawfully makes anyone removable. >> anybody? >> the devil will be in the details and how this is implemented. do they adhere to the priorities they stated or do they use this as a marching order to deport anyone some. >> and the rise in the number of ice agents, how significant is that? >> that will increase the ability to remove people, but other things have to happen here. you need to have attention space and the number of immigration judge resources to effectuate the proceedings. that money has to come from somewhere. we don't know where that is. >>> dreamers is not included. >> this is an area where republicans were critical of obama and they were most up in arms about it. it's interesting that he chose to keep that. that's a good thing, but the rest of

joining me now alan dershowitz and f. michael higinbotham.uickly becoming our go to guys on this travel ban and what's going to happen. the government filed its briefing in its case to reinstate the travel ban. they argued the executive order is a lawful exercise of the president's authority over an entry of aliens into the united states and the admission of refugees. is that the main question here, michael? >> i think it's one of the main questions, the government certainly has a lot of discretion in the national security area. based on the constitution, the president has a great deal of latitude and leeway, the president doesn't have unlimited discretion. there are some limitations this is what the three-judge panel of the ninth circuit court of appeals will review tomorrow during oral arguments fp is there limitation? candidly, this is what the courts do, certainly the state of washington argues that it's about protecting business, it's about protecting their universities, and it's also about religion, but this is what the courts do, they

. >> out front now alan dershowitz 37 let's start with the breaking news in the federal district courtchallenge will proceed, the administration had wanted a delay, there's no question where judge robard stood on this. this adds to the precedent against this order? >> it doesn't add much it's to be expected that a judge will say, let's continue. the real question is if there are enough votes for rehearing, will the ninth circuit rescind the stay that the three judge panel affirmed or will it keep the stay in effect until such time the argument can be had on the merits in front of the 11 judges. we know it's going to be a period of time before this order can come into effect. the president has no choice but to issue a new order. he can rescind the old order and take it away from judge robard and maybe going into a court seeking a declaration the order is could constitutional. and go to the fifth circuit or 11th circuit. the good thing from the trump point of view, they're finally getting some good legal advice. there seem to be good lawyers now working on realistic lawyer like options a

law professor allen dershowitz help sought what some of those changes could look like. >> you have toistinguish between categories of potential visitors to the united states. also have to put a few more due process safeguards into the process so that it seems to be fair for the courts and maybe tone down some some of the weirdest language. demonstrations hope is that executive order will be strong and detailed enough the courts will allow it to stay in place while any legal challenges to it play out. julie: garrett tenney thank you so much. pro-life activists and counterprotest rowling at planned parenthood clinics all across the country asking congress and president trump to take away federal funding to the organization. u.s. law bans the use of federal funds for abortion. antiabortion groups say they expect protests as as many as 225 clinics. planned parenthood supporters organized 150 counterdemonstrations of their own. and the north carolina tens of thousands of protesters turned out in downtown rallies. today take a look at this. we are told they are marching against president tr

lee baile, alan dershowitz and of course, his most trusted ally, robert kardashian.e focus to the los angeles police department. the strategy, accuse the police of framing simpson. mishandling, even planting evidence. >> detective fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture evidence in this case. have you every falsified a police report? was the testimony that you gave truthful? >> reporter: it is an argument that resonates with the mostly black jury, especially the explosive audio of lead detective mark furhman spouting racist slurs like this. >> first thing, anything out of a [ bleep ] mouth is a [ bleep ] lie. >> reporter: the defense, in essence, put bad policemen, racist policemen, on trial. >> they put the whole police department on trial. >> reporter: another tactic the dream team used when the jurors toured the estate. >> when you walked up the grand staircase there was a large wall of pictures of the family. pictures of friends. pictures of o.j.'s career. the problem was, the overwhelming majority of pictures were of caucasian friends and colleagues of his. we had

every genuinely honest and objective constitutional scholar, people like jonathan turley, alan dershowitz, people who have openly said i disagree with the president on his decision, but he's the president, and he has every legal right to do what he's doing. that's really the question. this judge in washington is not there to judge whether he likes what the president does. that's not his job. it is not the role of the judiciary to interpret or to like or dislike a policy. it's just to determine one thing, is it constitutionally sound. and everyone who really understands the president's role and responsibilities in this have said he has the right to do it. now, frankly, i agree with the policy. but even if i didn't, i'd have to join in with the others and say the judicial branch can't just legislate -- trish: yeah. >> -- nor can it become the de facto executive branch because it doesn't like something. trish: i hear ya on that. when you say that you like the policy, i mean, this president is talking about building up our military so that, hopefully, we don't have to go to war. the threat of

jeffrey toobin is with me, former federal prosecutor paul callum, alan dershowitz, aryan devogue, tony blinken, and nurtds in the obama administration, and david urban, former trump campaign strategist. to the lawyers first. what did you hear, jeffrey? >> let me preface this saying i am the world's foremost authority on being wrong based on just listening to oral argument. you cannot pretend that oral argument is exactly what you will get in the decision. but you seem to have two judges on opposite sides. judge friedland seemed -- -- and judge clifton seemed more sympathetic to the trump administration, the republican appointee from hawaii. judge camby, the 85-year-old carter appointee, walter mondale's brother-in-law, he seemed more sympathetic to the washington attorney general but was a little harder to read. that's my take. but it's very tentative. >> paul? >> i agree with jeffrey. similar take. i thought you'd have friedland voting for washington state, clifton will vote for the government and camby is on the fence. i suspect that in the end he's going to go with the government be

t alan de al alan dershowitz. the president is watching and listen. today he lashed out at three federal court judges, deciding the case, accusing them of acting politically. listen to this. >> i listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful. i don't ever want to call a court biased, so i won't call it biased. and we haven't had a decision yet, but courts seem to be so political. and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right. >> crossed the line? is he helping his case, hurting? does it matter? >> probably doesn't matter much. of course he makes a point. courts are political. he appointed gorsuch instead of merrick garland. and that was a political decision. even in yesterday's argument, the two judges that seemed more sympathetic to washington state were two democratic appointees, and the one judge more sympathetic to the position of the white house was a republican. but he should have been angry more at the lawyer for the justice department who really didn't

and that is something alan dershowitz and others said that's a strange ruling. the d.o.j. and the court system, judges have not wanted to get into the intent of something, but actually focus on the actual law. whatever rudy giuliani said during the campaign. how can anyone take any of that seriously when there was an executive order going through the court of law. you don't know what was in donald trump's head or rudiey giuliani's head. they came up with an order that was completely lawful. charles: they are saying in their opinion the president had a plus limit ban in mind. we know that will carry the day. i'm not sure what the next move is going to be. but this look like the biggest obstacle. the public intent, the likelihood that they say this order wouldn't have success if it went through the judicial food chain. i think this muslim ban part will be the story. >> the problem is that this whole thing is written based on the due process clause of the constitution rather than analyzing the finer point of the different parts of the immigration law it's actually pretty comp