Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

El Chapo Situation Examined; Marco Rubio Speaks at Campaign Event; Stock Market Selloff Discussed; Cruz Lawsuit Detailed. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired January 15, 2016 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:30:04] ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: This cartel, it would certainly, it was hard to tell whether it was support or not, but a lot of people really didn't like her. Is she taking in on the chin for any of this?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN: Yeah, we've heard even less from her than we've heard from Sean Penn, and one comment from her saying that she thinks there has been misleading information on the press, nothing else from her. Sean Penn did point to her and say she is the one that arranged this meeting.

It's very interesting, here is Sean Penn saying that he does not believe that it was his meeting with El Chapo that lead to the eventual re-capture, the idea that he's discouraging people from saying that, because he does not want to be targeted by this cartel, is something to discuss it's right out of Hollywood fiction, isn't it?

BANFIELD: It is just unbelievably fascinating with A-listers everywhere. Brian thank you appreciate it.

Coming up next presidential candidate Marco Rubio just took to the stage in New Hampshire. If you want to hear what he has to say live after the big debate last night and being in the (cross)(ph) season of the debate you're going to, is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: I want to the take you live right now to New Hampshire, because the Republican presidential candidate and Senator Marco Rubio speaking live at a town hall this Henniker, New Hampshire. Let's listen in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[12:35:11] SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They don't pay enough money. They don't pay enough. And you know why they're not being created here? Because we've become too hard and too expensive for those jobs to be created. We now have to compete with dozens other countries and they're going there instead of here.

You know why? Because our taxes are too expensive. Because our regulations cause too much to follow. We're going to fix that when I'm president. We're not going to leave it the way it is. We're going to bring our debt under control. That means, we're going to save social security and Medicare. We're not going to have it -- we're not going to disrupt it for the people that are on it like my mom,

But Medicare and social security is going to look different for me and for the young people here than it does for our parents. Anyone who tells you differently is not telling you the truth. If we don't do something about it, there will be no social security or Medicare by the time you retire, even by the time I retire. And we can fix this. For what it will take is I'm going to retire at 68 instead of 67

And if I made a lot of money, my social security is not going to grow as fast as people that made lots of money. And my Medicare money would be the option of buying a private plan that I like better. These are not unreasonable changes for people who are 25 years away from the retirement or 45 years away from retirement. And if we do that, we can save these programs and balance our budget. We are getting rid of ObamaCare, and replacing it. This is not a good law. It's not a good law.

When I am president, you will be able to control your own healthcare money, and whether it's a refundable tax credit or money from your employer. You're going to be able to use to buy any kind of heath insurance you want from any company and any state in America. If you are a young person, my brother-in-law is 29, he's single and no children, healthy eating, he's never going to die.

So what he's going to do with his money is probably fund health savings account. So he can pay for primary care, that if he get sick he's going to have a hospitalized plan. But the choice is going to be yours not the government. And we're going to fix immigration. I understand this issue guys. I did not read about immigration in a book. I didn't watch a PBS Special Front Line on immigration to learn about it. I lived it My dad was an immigrant, my mom was an immigrant, my grandparents were immigrants, my community is all immigrant, my wife's entire family are immigrants

And this issue has changed. There's a group a radical Jihadist group ISIS that is using our immigration system against us. They have a sophisticated understanding of it. They are recruiting people who are posing as doctors and engineers and you name it, fiancees. They're looking for people who have waivers, with visa waiver status. They're contacting trafficking networks in Latin America to get people in through Southern border. This issue first and foremost has to be about keeping ISIS out of America.

And that's why when I am president, if we don't know who you are, and we have to know who you are and why you are coming, if we don't know that, you are not getting in when I am president of the United States. And we're not going to have amnesty, that's not the answer we're going to enforce our laws. There will be consequences for violating our immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are going to lose their federal funding. If you're a criminal alien, you're going to be immediately deported. And we're going to enforce our immigration laws. We're going to secure our Southern border.

I'm the son and grandson of immigrants, enforcing our laws is not anti-immigrant, it is what sovereign countries do. And when I'm president we will. And the last point is national security, that's the reason why we have a federal government. We have a lot of problems that we have to address in the country, but many of them don't have a federal government solution. But the one thing that (inaudible)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: That's Senator Marco Rubio at a live town hall in New Hampshire, and if you've been looking there at the right side of the screen, that little box is showing some ugly numbers.

We just did a segment on Wall Street and just after we spoke, this is now what's happening. The DOW has plunged below 500, and still falling it down 521 plus and that is 3 percent. That is big, that is huge. We're going to talk a little about this, keep an eye on these conditions on this Friday leading into a long weekend, that's significant.

And then also after the break, You have probably heard a lot about what Donald Trump says regarding Ted Cruz and his eligibility for president, demanding even on stage that last night that Cruz get a declaratory judgment from the courts to say that he is eligible. Well guess what, it's finally happened someone has launched a federal lawsuit saying settles this once and for all. Your going to hear all about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:43:46] BANFIELD: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Our breaking news, the numbers on the screen don't lie. We have been down below 500 in the United States DOW index after several minutes now, there has been an absolute plunge on Wall Street right since the opening bell. In fact, within one minute of the opening bell today, stocks were plunging towards 300 in the negative. I want to get to Alison Kosik who is live right now at the New York stock exchange.

We'll we spoke a few minutes ago, Alison and then all of the sudden, almost another 200 or so points. Tell me what's happening?

ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean, the selling, clearly, picking up the steam within minutes, and you can see the volatility now is coming back a little bit off those lows. We did see the DOW down more than 500 points. I want to bring you back to August though, I don't know if you remember that huge monster sell-off that happens. I remember the DOW falling 1,000 points that's after in part China devalued the currency, really reeling the markets.

Well, what happen now is certain levels have hit that we saw in August, and there are a lot of computers and algorithms set. So when those levels hit, you see a cascade of selling. And that's partly the reason why you're seeing that very brisk selling all of the sudden.

[12:45:02] And also, it has a lot to do with it. Oil price is also tanking alongside stocks. Oil down now, 6.5 percent with a sitting very comfortably, or we can say uncomfortable for many investors, below $30 a barrel. That's the lowest level we've seen in 12 years. Great for consumers, not good for energy companies whose shares are tumbling. Part of the reason you are seeing of the DOW and the S&P 500 tumble, because they are compiled partly of those energy companies. Ashley?

BANFIELD: Alison, real quickly, when I look at the big board, and I see these slides that just, you know, for the average person look terrifying. I want you to put in context that lower number right beside the DJI where it says 15,897, what is the frightening mark? Is it below 1500 is it -- what are investors talking about being the very frightening point?

KOSIK: I think a lot of this -- it's just that they're all frightening points. I mean one thing to think about though it is no time to panic. You're not seeing panic selling. This is really computer-driven selling. There are algorithms in place doing this, so yes, we are seeing the DOW below that 16,000 level, that psychological milestone, and so the DOW has lost more than 1,000 points in a matter of, let's say a week -- a week and a half. It's really stunning when you think about it. But if you are an investor in this market, any financial analyst will tell you sit tight and ride this out. Don't make any rash moves. This is not the time to do it, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And a lot of people say it's absolutely not the time to sell it. It's always to buy low, sell high, not the opposite and I know that is painful especially when you're watching 401k.

KOSIK: If you listen and keep that -- if you got the stomach for it, you'll get plenty of people saying it's a great time to buy in and lots of opportunities. This beaten down shares are incredible at these prices, and you will hear that as well.

BANFIELD: Great deals. You know don't sell it. They are supposed to retirement. This is worst thing that you can possibly do. All right Alison Kosik, thank you.

KOSIK: Right

BANFIELD: We're going to continue to watch this because we got a couple of hours till close yet and then we got three days. It is a three day long weekend. Markets are closed on Monday. Thank you, Alison Kosik.

Coming up next, pundits said Ted Cruz settled the birther argument in last night's debate. Are they so sure? They might not have known what was about to happen. Just a few hours ago, a federal suit landed on the most important desk where it needs to be -- bam. Someone has made the challenge. Will this actually go through the courts, and reach the Supreme Court, and if so in time, and if so, what will be the decision? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:52:03] BANFIELD: It's been a major point of contention. It has been a flashpoint in fact, and particularly if you were watching last night's Republican debate. And now a Texas attorney is taking the next step in the big question over Senator Ted Cruz's eligibility to serve as president of the United States. That attorney has decided to file a lawsuit, a federal suit. Challenging Cruz's standing, because he was born in Canada to an American mother. The suit says that this issue must be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and it needs to be decided ASAP. That's as soon as possible.

Joining us now to discuss this is the attorney behind the lawsuit Newton Schwartz, who's with us and also CNN Contributor and Law Professor of the American University Steve Vladeck is with us. Just this short, if I could just ask you, why did you, you yourself in Texas decide to take this upon yourself and file the suit and will follow that by, are you surprised you're the only who's done it?

NEWTON SHWARTZ, FILED LAW SUIT AGAINST SENATOR TED CRUZ: The stakes are too high. You know, when I was in college, I was in charge of keeping athletes eligible, and no Nick Saban and no coach in the United States would risk having an ineligible player, and the stakes are exponentially much higher to have an eligible candidate for president or vice president to only have to go through the caucuses on February 1. The primary reason, a general election only to determine that he is not eligible, and that is why I brought it, because no one else did but I know he wasn't...

BANFIELD: Do you have a horse in the race or is there a reason that you -- you're not affiliated with any campaign? You're not in the election process yourself.

SHWARTZ: That is correct.

BANFIELD: So wouldn't, it has been sort of uncommon with those challenging Senator Cruz to file this suit if they thought there was anything to it?

SHWARTZ: Senator Cruz should welcome this lawsuit. He only has to appear, and the judge -- we got a very fine judge that's drawn in the case, or they're all qualified but he is imminently qualified, because I had cases against him in private practice in the Longshore cases, and I haven't followed him recently in this federal courts, but the facts are stipulated. There is no dispute. And we've gone through eight years of birth doubters as to President Obama being born in Kenya. That was irrelevant under Senator Cruz's theory is, as long as you're born to an American parent, you are automatically a natural born citizen, and that doesn't follow, and if it did, why have they been doubting about his Hawaiian authenticated birth certificate when they could say well even though he was born in Kenya, he is still eligible.

BANFIELD: Yeah, all right

SHWARTZ: So I held double standard here. The sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and so the professor has read if it's one of the law or a new article.

[12:54:57] BANFIELD: Yeah, I wanted sir -- I wanted to interrupt only for a moment just to read a piece of your -- I think it's the 28-page, yeah, a 28-page complaint. I just want to read to our viewers one part of it. It says, "The U.S. Constitution is not a popularity document for fair weather only." And I'm assuming that's effectively what you mean by this but are you in total seeking to have a definition by the Supreme Court of natural born citizen?

SHWARTZ: Yes, (inaudible) rule either way if the Supreme Court goes against me, and he is eligible, and hopefully decide that before November 1 or before they go on the vacation in June. That satisfies my purpose. I don't usually file suits giving both sides of the case. I did this case by giving the good and the bad and the ugly on both sides citing law review of the articles pro and con. A Law Reviewer and Gonzaga said this is the worst law on probation in the constitution. It's the most ambiguous provision, and it has not been tested in 220 years. And now the time has come to have a case for testing it, assuming the facts are simple and can be ruled on next week, and if Senator Cruz or his lawyers will get with this, we can go see Judge Miller and have him -- he can rule it right now.

BANFIELD: I think the -- that I read somewhere that your support would probably be behind Bernie Sanders of Vermont if you were to head to the polls, is that sort of where you have looking at things?

SHWARTZ: If I had to vote today, and my wife and I disagree on this, I'm registered to vote, but being over 65, I can vote absentee ballot by the middle of February. I would vote today for Bernie Sanders, although, he is behind in Texas. It doesn't really matter, because Texas is a Red State, and it's going to be Republican anyway, but our daughter in California's family counteracts that with the votes in California that we just want a determination as to the eligibility that overhang shouldn't -- uncertainty should not be on the minds of any voters, and Trump has done a favor bringing it up now even at this stage.

BANFIELD: Well Mr. Schwartz, I'd so appreciate you're taking the time especially last minute. That suit was just filed this morning to get you on the air to talk about it so quickly. I do appreciate you doing this.

I do want also want to bring in Steve Vladeck who is a Professor of Law at American University sort of hash through some of the law professor to hash through some of the nitty-gritty on this. It is very complicated. It's not as simple as some people make it out to be, Steve. So with the common parlance in the back of your minds here, let's try to get through exactly what it is that Mr. Schwartz wants to define, the natural born citizen aspects of our code, our statute, and if this is really about statute or if this is about common law, because a lot of the scholars disagree. Common law would work against Donald Trump, and statute would work for him, and so explain what the Supreme Court would have to actually look at in the suit if it gets to them?

STEVE VLADECK, LAW PROFESSOR, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Well, but Ashleigh, I think the real question through this suit is could it get even that far? Does Mr. Schwartz have actually have standing? Is he the right guy to bring this challenge? But even if he did, which I think is a real long shot, or even if someone else came along who might have a better claim. The question for the Supreme Court is how to read article 2 of the constitution, where it says that the president has to be a natural born citizen. Does that mean that he has to be born in the territorial United States or does that mean he has to born such that he is a U.S. citizen automatically at birth? You know there's a little bit of debate among scholars but the general consensus is the latter that if anyone who is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth no matter where they're born is entitled to run for president. But Ashleigh just to be clear, I don't thing if we're going to get that far because this is the exact kind of law suit the Supreme Court has historically really rejected.

The opinion (ph) here of what they call a generalized grievance. There is no clear reason why Mr. Shwartz has a particular concrete injury that we wouldn't all suffer equally, and also it's a little bit early, I mean, does he knows the first caucuses, and the primaries are until February 1st. There's no indication yet. There's no guarantee that Senator Cruz is even going to win the Republican nomination, so it is an interesting legal question, but Ashleigh I have to say for the moment, I really think it's an academic question.

BANFIELD: An academic question, and yet he is a citizen, and I always like think if this is an issue about your president? This will be Mr. Schwartz' president, and that's the only reason I think maybe he might have standing. I, however, Steve, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to let you have the last word on that issue and then after wrapping there -- go ahead real quickly, five seconds,

VLADECK: Yeah I mean Ashleigh I agree with -- and we all want this issue settled. The premise is that instead of president where any single could sue at anytime to settle any question that's not our hoards (ph) into our political institutions.

BANFIELD: All right, Steve, thank you so much, Steve Vladeck joining us live and also our thanks to Newton Schwartz as well.

And I just mentioned a couple of minutes ago Ted Cruz alienated quite a few New Yorkers with this disparaging remarks about New York values. That came live on the Republican debate stage last night.

[12:59:59] So coming up, New York Mayor Bill De Blasio is going to respond in a live interview with my colleague Wolf Blitzer right here on CNN and he get under way his program right now. Have a great weekend.