Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Reported Bus Explosion In Jerusalem Injures At Least 15; High Court Takes Up Obama's Immigration Plan; 9/11 Bill Heightens Tensions Between U.S. And Saudi Arabia; A Thousand Homes Flooded In Houston Area; 200+ More U.S. Troops To Go To Iraq. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired April 18, 2016 - 12:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:31:07] ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news here at CNN, I want to get you right to Jerusalem where there are reports of massive fire, possible explosion as well on a bus. These are the images, just startling when you see that black smoke, those flames.

This incident apparently leading over a dozen people injured but and it's a big one, a lot of questions still remain about. I mean, you originally think terror right away. It may not be that simple.

CNN correspondent Oren Lieberman live on the scene right now. So what do we know about what happened?

OREN LIEBERMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, at this point, we know there are at least 16 injures. Two have those are seriously injured in this fire with reports of an explosion right before education. The question is, exactly what is it that caused the explosion and the fire?

Police called this an attack which brought back memories of the second (inaudible) suicide bus bombings but backtrack just few moments later and said right now all possibilities are under investigation. All possible causes of the reports and the sounds of an explosion and the fire. Police say the fire started in an empty bus but there was a full bus right next to it and police say that's where the injuries come from.

Again, 16 people injured, 2 critically. Police still trying to figure out exactly what caused this and it blocked off the entire area. This is in southern Jerusalem. Ashleigh it's not that close to us but we were able to see the smoke because of the size of the fire from here in our bureau.

BANFIELD: Yeah, these images we're shown right now like right across the city. You can see the plume. Oren, thank you.

It's so odd because normally they have that figured out really quickly when it's a suicide attack or a terror attack of some kind. We'll continue to touch base if Oren when we know more about that. Thank you for that.

And coming up next, the fight over President Obama's controversial executive orders on immigration, it has made its way all the way to the Supreme Court and that's where the argument is happening now.

Has the president overstepped his authority? Does the state challenging him even have the right to do it? Amazing. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:37:26] BANFIELD: Demonstrations are underway in a big way. In a nation's capital as the state of millions and millions of undocumented immigrants is hanging in the balance.

The Supreme Court just now hearing the arguments in a case that is challenged President Obama's executive orders to stop those deportations for some. Some of those immigrants. I want to talk more about these arguments that have been taken place today with CNN's Justice Correspondent Pamela Brown who's live on the steps of the Supreme Court, Professor of Law at George Washington University, Jonathan Turley and friend of the program. Thank you Jonathan. An immigration Attorney Charles Kuck, joining us live as well from Atlanta.

First to the reporting, I always want to know the tea leaves. How the argument sounds. Can you point me in either direction when you heard the challenges from those eight, yes, eight justices. Pamela that I will not ask you to pontificate about what you think might happen, but really what it will sound like?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it's always dangerous to predict. But Ashleigh I'll tell you the justices, the eight justices seem deeply divided over whether the president has the authority to create an executive order that shields millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and gives them work authorization and benefits.

The conservative justices seemed to think that was a job for Congress and that this was executive overreach. In fact, at one point, Justice Candy (ph) said this seems upside down and the conservative justices also seem concern with the language saying that this would give them lawful presence. They said, how can they be given lawful presence if they're in violation of the law?

The administration says "No, this will just be a tolerated presence while we focus on the highest priority targets and not these low priority targets who are, children, people who came to the U.S. as children, parents of U.S. citizens." And the liberal justices seem to sympathize what the administration argument that there are 11 million immigrants and the President has the discretion to prioritize who is deported and who was not. And why not let those millions who will be here out of the shadows to apply for work?

If it is divided, Ashleigh, 4-4, that is bad news though for the Obama administration. That means the program will not go forward.

However, it could go forward on a technical question of standing. Whether Texas, that the state really leading the charge with suing the administration -- can really prove that it is injured by the program. Texas contends it will now have to spend millions of dollars subsidizing driver's licenses for these additional undocumented immigrants.

[12:40:02] And it says it's directly impacted. The administration says it's indirectly impacted. That it's a choice to subsidize. Texas doesn't have to. So it could come down to standing. It'll be very interesting to see when the opinion is released likely in June or July. Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: Well, hold that thought Pamela. Let me go to the professor on this one. Because standing is not simple, it seems rather uncomplicated, but Pamela makes a great point. If Texas in the 25 other states have to deal with it and pay for all the logistics and the administrative costs, that's an injury. So tell me why an injured party might not in this case have standing.

JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF LAW GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, this is a long standing debate. I happen to be when some people call a standing dove. I tend to prefer courts to hear the merits of these cases. After all, this is a majority of states before the court. Texas is the lead one. There are 26 states. And Texas has documented that they could be out millions of dollars.

For those of us on this side of the standing question not dealing with the merits, we view that as a very strong claim. The question though is not how we feel about it but probably how Chief Justice Roberts feels about it. He has always been what you call a standing hawk. He's tend did not to review standing broadly. The tended to reject the ability people to get in front of the court particularly states.

There was a very important case called Massachusetts versus EPA where he was very critical of state standing. It's interesting today that he seems to be somewhat divided on it. Many of us expected him to come right out of the gate over the fairly antagonist view of standing. In reality he sort of nuanced questions on both sides.

BANFIELD: Well, I think a lot of Republicans will be gazing in a fascinating way to see what Chief Justice Roberts says because they've been quite upset with some of the other decision Obamacare that he has made.

So I'll ask you Charles Cook. Is there without getting two in the weeks because this is not a simple question? Is there a way that this court, all eight of them, can come up with some kind of a compromise or is it possible they'll come up with a compromise? Sometimes it can be really confusing for those reporters who run out with those decision to try make them on the air live.

CHARLES KUCK, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Well, I think the only compromise that could come out of this, that works for both parties is they split 4-4 and send it back to the circuit court for more findings. So, I don't see any real good compromise coming out of this that both parties are pleased with.

BANFIELD: So Jonathan Turley, let me go back to you on the issue of the only eight. Some people who are steeped in all things Psychotus (ph) will know this. But the fact that there are only eight people deciding after Justice Scalia's death is tricky. It really does put this court in a situation where they could end up in a deadlocked circumstance and it means whatever their current situation is stands. And the current situation is a little complicated as well. Can you explain the progression, how we got to Psychotus, and if they are deadlocked? What is the law of the land?

TURLEY: Well first of all, this case started out with district court that rules the administration had not satisfied critical conditions like getting noticed and comments to the public. And then went to the court of appeals that said, yeah, that's right. The administration violated the law in that sense. But then doubled down and said, by the way, we don't think the President had this authority.

And what makes this case fascinating for those interested in constitutional law is that the President made no secret of the fact that he took this action because Congress refused twice to do what he asked them to do. And so, it creates this very clear constitutional issue of who has authority here. Congress is saying, look, you have two choices, right? You can convince us or you can change Congress.

But there's no license to go it alone and the President is saying, well, yeah, I have a little bit of wiggle room as an executive to issue these types of orders. There's no question about authority for one branch. And that is there's no question the Supreme Court can overturn that. Their authority is clear. And the questions today indicated that some of these justices are deeply concern about whether the President you serve Congressional authority.

BANFIELD: All right. Jonathan Turley, thank you. I have this feeling, Charles Kuck, that you either had your phone ringing off the hook or it's about to ring off the hook. People with, you know, questions and a people wanting representation in any case. Thank you to the both of you. Do appreciate it. Nice to have you both.

KUCK: You're welcome. Thank you.

BANFIELD: Coming up next -- and our Pamela Brown has zip back in to do the work that she's doing on live at the Supreme Court. Thank you, Pamela. We'll continue to tap in with you when we get more information. Appreciate it.

BROWN: Absolutely.

BANFIELD: Up next, a bill that would let 9/11 victims and their families, of course, sue foreign governments. Not just the people. The governments. It's not only complicating President Obama upcoming Middle East trip but it could also cost the United States billions and billions of dollars. And put people in the U.S. in jeopardy too.

[12:45:04] We're going to give you both side of that issue in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: I want to take you to Texas right now, really incredible pictures. More than a thousand homes in the Houston area have been flooded after a wicked rain came through there this morning. More than 150 people had to be rescued from high water and it comes fast, folks. A lot of them, of course, getting stuck because their vehicles, ah, went driving through the water and then they couldn't drive any farther. Some even went so far as to try to swim away as their vehicles were sinking and if you want proof, I have it.

Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE CAMPION, ABC 13 CORRESPONDENT: Dude, you've got to get out of the car. You've got to get out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What should I do?

CAMPION: Swim.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What?

CAMPION: Swim, swim.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I have to do?

CAMPION: Leave the car. Swim.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Leave the car?

CAMPION: Leave the car. Swim.

[12:50:07] Come here sir. Come here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

CAMPION: So we're here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I didn't see it.

CAMPION: Yes, hey we can hear you. Are you OK, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm OK

CAMPION: Are you OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, I'm OK.

CAMPION: Watch your step, sir. Watch your step. Did you just not think the water was that deep?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. I didn't think it was deep. My car was under.

CAMPION: You're going to leave the car.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: You darn right. You're leaving the car. Lord, that's a Steve Campion who works for ABC 17. And help to rescue that man. We only know its Andy (ph) right now. He seems to be OK. But that is what happens. The water comes up so incredibly fast. Here's what's great about this story. So far, we have no reports of death regardless, a thousand homes being flooded.

I'm going to turn you now to the ongoing war against ISIS. More than 200 additional American troops are now going to be headed to Iraq. That announcement coming so that they can join the fight to take back the ISIS controlled city of Mosul. These new troops will now be closer to the front lines and of course that means they will be at greater risk. They'll also offer aviation support and provide force protection. The announcement happen just a short time ago, and this did too. Take a look. That is your Defense Secretary Ash Carter and that is him arriving in Baghdad, Iraq. And yes, this was an unannounced visit.

More rising tensions in the Middle East as President Obama prepares for a visit there, putting a focusing on relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States. But Saudi Arabia is warning something right now. It said it going to sell off billions of dollars in American assets if Congress goes ahead and passes a bill to let the victims of 9/11 and their families and other terror attacks as well sue foreign governments. Sue them.

Case centers on 28 pages of that 9/11 commission report. Those are 28 pages there are so classified and they are set to focus on the role of overseas governments in the 9/11 plot. Saudi Arabia has long denied any involvement and never been implicated. Of course, the majority of the suicide bombers in 9/11 were Saudi but we're talking government here.

I want to talk more about this with CNN Chief National Security correspondent Jim Sciutto, and CNN Legal Analyst Paul Callan.

So Jim, that the nuts and bolts of this. It's not that simple. It never is. There is a state department situation that could be catastrophic if this kind of a bill were to pass but help me understand where the dynamics are here. The frozen (ph) account for this.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, so here's the thing and Paul will notice as well. Since the '70s, it's been U.S. law that U.S. citizens cannot sue foreign governments. The change in this proposed legislation is that they can, if foreign governments are found to be involved in terror attacks on U.S. soil that kill Americans. Hence the interest in 9/11.

Now that the key thing about these 28 pages in the 9/11 report and CNN, we did our own reporting on this going into last year is it centers on one particular Saudi government official and did he have knowledge of the 9/11 attacks in advance. Did he provide support? There's evidence that he met with some of the hijackers.

So the question becomes, was this a Saudi official who is freelancing? Who was doing this on his own illegally or did he have some blessing or even just a blind eye turned from someone in the Saudi royal family? What the administration has said to this point is that there's no evidence this was Saudi government policy, that it was intentional. There is evidence, perhaps, that Saudi Arabia let this kind of thing happened and this been well reported that there were many powerful wealthy Saudis who are at least providing financial support to al- Qaeda in the run-up to 9/11. That's why this is so key of course a very sensitive issue. As you noted, Ashleigh, in the beginning -- the introduction of this story Saudi Arabia is saying, listen, if this law passes, we will sell hundreds of billions of dollars, billions with a "B" of Saudi assets in the U.S. that will be economic cost to this. It's a real potential issue between two allies that already, you know, have a bit of a rocky relationship on a number of fronts right now.

BANFIELD: Also known as a can of worms, I believe. Let me just read something quickly that came from Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York. He says "He stands by Chuck Schumer in the legislation to hold foreign state accountable for providing financial support to those who viciously attacked our country that the statement goes on. He didn't named John Cornyn and that's the other side of the bipartisan bill the Republican from Texas.

But Paul Callan, the issue here also would affect Americans. It's easy to lodge these kinds sailboat (ph). But if you know it can come back at you and bite you where the sun don't shine. It's a little harder to stomach this. Why is that?

[12:55:01] PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, yes. I could have a really big impact on the American military. For instance, drone attacks that we utilize widely in other countries to try to take out leaders of al-Qaeda, there's collateral damage that occurs in many counties.

Innocent civilians are killed. Could those people sue the United States then saying the United States took away the sovereign immunity of Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries? We should have the right to sue in our country exposing us to billion dollar lawsuits elsewhere. Which is why for almost 200 years, international law has recognized this concept of sovereign immunity ...

BANFIELD: Yeah.

CALLAN: ... that countries shouldn't really allow individual courts to sue other countries. It should be worked down as a matter of foreign relations.

BANFIELD: It's super fascinating topic and no more fascinating right here in city of New York where you practiced for, you know, both of your career.

Paul Callan, thank you. Jim Sciutto as always, thank you as well.

And thank you everyone for watching CNN continues our special coverage ahead of Tuesday New York primary. Representatives from all five campaigns are going to join Wolf Blitzer, and that gets going right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)