Return to Transcripts main page


Appeals Court: Request Denied to Immediately Restore Travel Ban; Trump: Better to Get Along with Russia Than Not; Commercials Navigate Political Landscape; Patriots Revenge Tour. Aired 7-8a ET

Aired February 5, 2017 - 07:00   ET


CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Instead the court wants both sides, the Washington attorney general and the Trump administration, to file legal briefs before making any final decisions on this.

[07:00:08] VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Also new in just the last hour, the government as we know is arguing the ban should be replaced, or should be in place, I should say, that they are saying that it is in the national interests, their phrase, of the country, to allow a rocky, special immigrant visa holders to travel here into the U.S. Those particular visas are issued to Iraqis who work with the U.S. government and military as translators or interpreters, when the order was first signed.

There were a lot of questions why there was no exception put in place for those special visas, roughly 50 of those given out for a year, even as they argue that nationals of those seven countries listed should not come to the U.S., there will be exceptions made for those special immigrant visas.

Let's get right now to CNN justice reporter Laura Jarrett to explain what happened overnight.

Laura, good morning to you.


Well, it was a busy night. So, it started with the Justice Department filing an emergency motion in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just after midnight, and what they were asking for was to press pause on the Seattle judge's decision that had temporarily halted enforcement of the key provisions of the travel ban. But just three hours later -- so this was overnight, the Ninth Circuit said no to the federal government. The federal court of appeals denied the Justice Department's request, and in a very short order early this morning, instead, as you said, they asked both sides to file legal briefs so that they could hear more about the issues before they make a final decision on the emergency motion.

Now, what this means practically speaking, is that the ruling by the federal judge in Seattle, that sweeping one by Judge James Robart, suspending the ban, that remains in place for now.

BLACKWELL: Absolutely. What's the timeline here? There are specific times that are given in this order, right?

JARRETT: That's right. And so, the next step that we will see is the state attorney general will get a chance to respond to the government, and they will file a brief later tonight at 11:59, and then we will see the U.S. Justice Department get another bite at the apple. They get a chance to file a reply brief by 3:00 p.m. on Monday. Then, what we're likely to see is a hearing by the Ninth Circuit.

PAUL: All righty. Laura, stay with us here.

We also want to bring in Laura Coates, a CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, and constitutional attorney, Page Pate, with us as well.

Thank you all for being here.

Page, I want to start with you.

When we were talking -- she was talking about that timeline. Overall, there are a lot of people in other countries watching this and trying to figure out if their visas are going to be valid for the long haul. How long do you believe it's going to take to work all of this out? Is this going to go all the way to the Supreme Court?

PAGE PATE, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY: Well, that's certainly possible. But at this stage, the Ninth Circuit has asked for additional argument, additional briefings on the merits of this case. And I think that is incredibly important. I mean, we've had several federal district judges decide to stop the enforcement of the travel ban at least temporarily, but no one has really addressed the merits of the case. No one has really looked into the constitutional arguments and made a decision one way or the other.

So, if you really want to do, if you want to brief it, hold oral argument, that's going to take at least week, could take much longer if the judges go back and forth on it.

PAUL: Laura Coates, the Department of Justice in their appeal is arguing that, look, there is classified information here that makes this country unsafe and that's part of why we are gunning for this travel ban, so to speak, and we want to put the limits on it. How do you argue that? What do you say when you are talking about classified information that nobody else is privy to?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you can do kind of an in- camera, which means the court would look at what they're talking about and not have it public. But the reason they brought that information up, Christi, is because the president has a great deal of deference when it comes to issues of national security. And although the courts will always balance the constitutionality of particular law, they will have to balance that against the presidential power to determine who has entry into our country.

And so, what they're doing is essentially saying, listen, in my back pocket I've got the golden ticket, and that golden ticket is my presidential prerogative to try to determine national security in this country. And so, what you're going to see is a preview of what is a comment to Supreme Court. The brief that they filed largely mirrors what they're talking about in order, saying, listen, this is going to be an issue of national security, it's an issue about whether the people who are arguing they have a chance or a litigant in court actually do have that, and whether people have a right to come into our country. This is the core of our constitutional bedrock.

PAUL: The president has tweeted, based on my account in the last 22 hours, no less than ten times since this controversy has started, and he has taken some shots at the judge in Washington, of course.

[07:05:05] And we've had some response to that. Senator Patrick Leahy said this, he said, "He seems intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis and now, he's attempting to bully and disparage yet another federal judge."

What do you make of the tweets and the openness that the president, Page, speaks so freely about, in terms of his criticism? And criticizing a decision is one thing, but to disparage one is another.

PATE: Right, Christi. I don't think we've ever seen anything like this, where the president is singling out and calling a federal district court judge who has a lifetime appointment, who was appointed by another president, a Republican president, confirmed by the Senate and then calling him a so-called judge. We have not seen personal like that from another executive I think in the history of the country unless you want to look all the way back until we are going back almost pre-civil war days.

So, I think it's very unusual. I don't think it's helpful to the legal arguments, the constitutionality of this order. But I kind of understand the White House's position, because they're looking at one federal district judge one of many federal district judges who have decided to stop this executive order which was such a priority with this administration. So, they are clearly upset. But I think they ought to focus on the legal arguments and not the personal attacks.

PAUL: All righty. Laura, Laura Jarrett, we were just talking, Victor was just talking about the U.S. embassy official in Baghdad saying that they will now, quote, "in the national interest of the country allow Iraqi special immigrant visa holders to travel into the U.S."

Do you anticipate that when all of this is said and done, there may be some modifications to the travel ban as it stands now?

JARRETT: Well, we've already started to see that, right? I mean, think about what has happened even over the last week since the president signed that executive order. We started out not really knowing where green card holders stood and they were going to have to get a special waiver. And then, the White House walked that back earlier this week and said, no, no, the travel ban doesn't apply to green card holders.

Now, we've seen what happens with people who hold certain visas. And so, I think it's too early to tell exactly what the final version of this order is ultimately going to look like. PAUL: A lot of people have been weighing in on this, including law

professor Alan Dershowitz. Let's listen to what he had to say yesterday.


ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR OF LAW, EMERITUS/HARVARD: Anybody is free to criticize judges. I have criticized judges. I wrote a whole book called "Supreme Injustice" criticizing the Supreme Court for Bush versus Gore. It's the nature of the criticism.

President Trump used words that seemed very injudicious, very likely to alienate some of the appellant judges who might sit on this. But these judges will decide the case on their merits, and it's a closely divided case that reasonable people can disagree about. I think in the end, the stay will be, at least, partly lifted, because parts of the executive order are constitutional.


PAUL: Laura Coates, do you agree?

COATES: I think that's right, that some parts will be lifted. And, of course, you are right, the president of the United States, it's his prerogative to speak on other branches.

Remember, we've got three equal parts of the government, and the judiciary must remain independent and not the marionette, even when it's unpopular with the president of the United States. Interestingly enough, you're coming from a week where you have a Supreme Court who has said just that, who has very -- his career has been about making sure people acknowledge separation of powers and the judiciary remain a powerful entity in the United States.

But keep in mind here, not every part of the order was struck down or halted by the Seattle judge. Only the parts that have kind of the leanings in terms of the Establishment Clause and other entities. So, you don't have a sweeping ban, you have one that points to what may be a constitutional battle before the Supreme Court as the parts that have been halted.

PAUL: So, Page, real quickly -- for people who are sitting in other countries with valid visas trying to determine, do I try to get to the U.S. or don't I at this point, how would you advise them?

PATE: Well, based on the actions that the administration has taken so far, Customs and Border Patrol, seems intent on allowing those individuals to come into the United States. So, I think if you have legal status, obviously, if you are a citizen, if you're legal permanent resident or you hold a valid visa, I think the only consistent thing about all of this is that all of the judges who have looked at this particular thing and even the administration is allowing those individuals to come into the country. But if you do not have legal status, it's a totally different situation and I would not encourage anybody to get on a plane and head this way.

PAUL: OK. Good to know.

Laura Coates, Page Pate, Laura Jarrett, we appreciate your voices in all of this. Thank you.

PAGE: Thank you.

COATES: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: All right. We'll talk about the political consequences of this protracted battle over the president's executive order.

Also, President Trump praising Russian president, Vladimir Putin, in a new interview, and appearing to criticize the U.S. in the process.


[07:13:26] BLACKWELL: Let's talk about the protracted legal fight over the president's executive order now. We have with us, Jack Kingston, former senior adviser to the Trump campaign, and former Georgia congressman, A. Scott Bolden, former chairman of the Washington, D.C. Democratic Party, and David Drucker, senior congressional correspondent with the "Washington Examiner."

Good morning to you, gentlemen.



BLACKWELL: So, let's start by going into the DOJ's appeal. We know that there's breaking news overnight that the ban is still blocked for now until the circuit -- the appellant court in the Ninth Circuit gets more information from each side. Let's put up here full screen one here.

Judicial second guessing of the national security determination in itself imposes substantial harm on the federal government and nation at large.

First, Congressman, to you on that -- how does this pose a substantial harm to the nation?

KINGSTON: Well, I think in terms of the president's right under Code Section 1182, the president does have the right to determine which aliens could be a threat to the nation and limit their access to our country. And so, I think that what he is saying is we have seven countries, which the Obama administration designated as countries of concern because they don't have proper vetting, and inaccurate documentation and so forth. And under that Section 1182, the president can limit access to the United States of America from that. So, that's -- I think that's where they are probably coming from.

[07:15:00] BLACKWELL: So, Scott, to you, they phrase it or characterize it as judicial second-guessing. One man second-guessing as another's check or balance. From your perspective, what do you make of the statement, that claim from the Department of Justice?

BOLDEN: Well, it's checks and balances, and the judiciary is an independent part of our three-party government. The reality is the president has (AUDIO GAP) the authority on this. Jack is absolutely right about that. What not so much so it would violate the Constitution, whether it has a disparate impact or discriminatory impact on our laws or even those who can legally travel or those who want to legally travel here will become green card holders.

So, look at it this way, the juxtaposition between presidential power and that of the Constitution. If you violate the Constitution or if we don't follow our own rules and regs, the judiciary can strike that down. Natural tension, but it's there. And so far, right now, the Ninth Circuit as well as 11 of 12 judicial districts havesided with the states on this.

BLACKWELL: Hey, David, we spoke yesterday with Pennsylvania Republican Congressman, Charlie Dent, and he says there should be more congressional oversight in this arena, and I want you to listen to something else he said.


REP. CHARLIE DENT (R), PENNSYLVANIA: The threats can come from everywhere, not simply these seven countries, although it's true, there are real problems in those seven countries and others in the Islamic world that we have to contend with. So, I say, let's take a broader perspective. It seems that the order in my view was overly broad, rushed and not properly considered and vetted.


BLACKWELL: How pervasive in that sentiment in the president's party in Congress?

DAVID DRUCKER: Well, I think there was a lot of disappointment that they rushed this through and did not cross all their T's and do all their I's. I mean, most Republicans on Capitol Hill wanted to support this, because they support the underlying substance of what the executive order was getting at. But they didn't understand enough about what it was doing because there was not enough communication and they felt ultimately that it wasn't vetted, an interesting term here, because of what we are dealing with.

But that they weren't thorough enough, the administration, probably because they didn't have a attorney general in place, they didn't have a secretary in place, they didn't feel that there was enough coordination, which ultimately led them to where they were. So, I think the administration would have had more support initially.

I would say this, I wouldn't be surprised to see congressional action if this battle between the administration and the judiciary continues. The judiciary doesn't like to get in the way of things that are passed by Congress and signed by the president. But as we saw with President Obama, when you get too liberal if you will with the use of executive power, that's where the courts are more likely to rein in the president.

BLACKWELL: All right. David Drucker, Jack Kingston, excuse me, and Scott Bolden, stay with us. We'll talk on the other side of this break about some of the controversial comments from President Trump about Russian President Vladimir Putin and about truth and honesty from the president.

We'll be right back.



[07:21:30] BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you respect Putin?


O'REILLY: Do you? Why?

TRUMP: Well, I respect a lot of people but that doesn't mean I'm going to get along with him. He's a leader of his country. I say it's better to get along with Russia than not.

Will I get along with him? I have no idea. It's very possibly I won't.

O'REILLY: He's a killer, Putin is a killer.

TRUMP: There's a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. Why, you think our country is so innocent?


BLACKWELL: All right. That's President Trump in a FOX News interview. The full interview will air later today.

Back with us now, David Drucker, Jack Kingston, and A. Scott Bolden.

Congressman, first to you, I want you to respond to something from Congressman Adam Schiff, who say this, "This is the second time Trump has defended Putin against the charge that he's a killer by saying in effect that the U.S. is no better or different. This is inexplicably bizarre as it is untrue. Does he not see the damage he does with comments like that, and a gift that he gives to Russian propaganda?"

What's your response?

KINGSTON: Well, I think Adam is shooting very straight here. I don't think there's a similarity between the United States and Russia. It's a disappointing statement.

The reality is that Putin has a lot of tendencies that our thuggery, as Lindsey Graham has called him, and I think the reality is respecting Putin is a different matter, working with Putin is a different manner. But condoning Putin and saying it's similar to ours is not accurate at all. BLACKWELL: And, David, this is not the first time the president has

said this. He said this back in December with MSNBC, something similar that, you know, the U.S. has killers, too. This is something that is a repeated refrain from the president.

DRUCKER: This goes back to the beginning of the presidential campaign. Trump has always been deferential towards Russia and Putin, he previously has sort of created a moral equivalence between the United States and how it operates in the world and how Russia operates in the world. So, this is really nothing new.

What's curious about this is that the president doesn't hesitate to get tough rhetorically with other U.S. adversaries, China in particular, and there's nothing wrong with taking an adversarial tone at all. And so, I think the question here that the president needs to answer once we get past all of this, sort of, you know, fury, is, of course, we want a good working relationship with a major power. That's sort of necessary for us in our position in the world, but on whose terms is the question that needs to be answered.

And so, if we are dealing with Russia on our terms, then that's something people should welcome. If we're being deferential to Russia and Putin and working on their terms, I think that's something that's a matter of U.S. foreign policy that should be concerning.

BLACKWELL: Scott, let me get your reaction on something else the president said during this interview with FOX News. This is over the suggestion that there aren't facts to back up some of the things and some of the statements that come from the president. Watch.


O'REILLY: Is there any validity to the criticism of you that you say things you can't back up factually, and as the president, you say, for example, there are 3 million illegal aliens that voted and then you don't have the data to back you up, some people are going to say that's irresponsible for a president to say that? Is there any validity to that?

TRUMP: Well, many people have come out and said I'm right, you know that.

O'REILLY: I know. But you've got to have data to back that up.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, when you see illegals, people that are not citizens, and they are on the registration rolls.

[07:25:01] Look, Bill, we can be babies, but you take a look at the registration, you have illegals, you have dead people, you have this, it's really a bad situation, it's really bad.



BOLDEN: It's just pure hyperbole, political hyperbole, and he never really did answer the question. Remember, he's not a candidate for president, he is the president now, and he continues to talk in political hyperbole, which I think is very dangerous. As I said before, he drives this narrative, and again there are no facts to support 3 million people voting illegally in this election or other election. In fact, there's empirical data to support just the opposite. He and his supporters defend this.

The real corruption in our political system is the voter suppression that takes place in several states where federal judges struck down voter suppression laws in North Carolina and others. That's the real political reality. And we've got to keep them accountable and the Republicans being accountable when this political hyperbole becomes alternate facts and alternate reality. That's very important.

BLACKWELL: Congressman, on the specific, where is this major investigation that the president said that he would call for a week and a half ago?

KINGSTON: Well, I think it's going to happen and I think there's a lot of concern. And you've got -- California has very loose standards when it comes to who gets driver's licenses and who's registered to vote. The deputy commissioner of human resources in Texas came out with that 3 million number.

So, you know, I think cracking down on voter fraud is in everybody's interest, and I think you are going to have to do it with the state government since they run the elections and local counties and so forth to make --

BLACKWELL: Now, let's get to the larger question here, that there is a degree of that some of these statements are a bit malleable and there is very little data to support them. We saw some of those statements during the campaign and now, he's carrying them over into the presidency.

What's your degree of concern that, as it relates to the question that Bill O'Reilly asked there?

KINGSTON: So, I think in terms of him saying things often that he, like any other politician, may say something with a little bit of a stretch in it. But I still think that in terms of that issue of voter fraud, there is an issue that is out there, and I think often when you peel back what he has said, there is -- there is a reason that he comes up with these numbers and so often the -- I would say the left is so quick to jump on him, that there's an explanation behind it that is not discussed.

BLACKWELL: David, a quickly to you. A little bit of a stretch we are hearing from Congressman Kingston --


KINGSTON: Well, Scott just said there's voter suppression. I don't think there's any proof there's real voter suppression. That's a stretch.


BLACKWELL: One at a time, now. David, finish up here.

DRUCKER: I don't think there's any doubt there has been voter fraud at different points and in different elections. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the states that do run elections changing their laws as they see fit to try and tighten up security around voting. I do think that there are no facts to prove that there's the kind of voter fraud that the president is eluding to, and I don't politically understand why he keeps bringing this up, because he won, he's the president, and if he produces for the American people and they are happy with him, they are not going to care he lost the popular vote, they don't really care now.

He has all the powers of the presidency he would have had if he would have won the popular vote. So, to me, I don't understand why he keeps pushing them. But he runs the Justice Department. If he wants to undergo some kind of an investigation, he should do so, see where the results are and let it lie.

BLACKWELL: All right. David Drucker, Jack Kingston, Scott Bolden -- thank you.

DRUCKER: Thanks a lot.

BOLDEN: Thank you.


PAUL: With all the talk about politics, can we expect some of the Super Bowl commercials to get political this year? You betcha. We're going to talk about that next.


[07:32:27] PAUL: So good to have you with us. I'm Christi Paul.

BLACKWELL: I'm Victor Blackwell.

We are following the breaking news this morning. An appeals court has denied the Justice Department's request to immediately resume President Trump's travel ban.

PAUL: Now, the ban is continuing, so it is intact right now. But overnight, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked for both sides here to file legal briefs before the court can make any further decisions on that motion, those legal briefs in full are due by midday on Monday.

Now, I know you may be looking ahead to Super Bowl 51, kicking off tonight.

BLACKWELL: And wings. Wings.

PAUL: Yes, food. Food and drinks.


PAUL: He knows me so well.

And these commercials. I mean, they are getting some pregame buzz already because of political messages.

BLACKWELL: Yes, here to talk about it, CNN senior media correspondent and host of "RELIABLE SOURCES," Brian Stelter.

Good morning to you. Let's start with the ad from 84 Lumber, a Pennsylvania construction company. The commercial was supposed to show a Spanish-speaking mother and daughter fronting a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: That's right. This has been described as the most controversial Super Bowl ad. Fox worked with the advertiser to change the end of the ad, you know, because every broadcast network has its own standards about the ads it airs. So, we don't see at the end of this ad what happens with this immigrant family, whether they're able to enter the country they're trying to enter or not. It leaves it as a sense of mystery.

But 84 Lumber put out unedited, original ad that you are seeing here partly as, let's be honest, a way to get more publicity for it. You know, this is what they do, sometimes, Victor and Christi, these companies try to get the most bang for their buck by creating controversial ads and by releasing them ahead of time to get everybody talking. But, you know, because this got ads gotten attention in recent days, I think it will stand out when it airs during the Super Bowl.

BLACKWELL: Is there any lumber in the commercial? What are you selling here?


STELTER: I didn't see any lumber.

BLACKWELL: OK. All right.

STELTER: I saw a URL trying to get you to go to their website. That's for sure.

BLACKWELL: All right.

PAUL: Anything else you are watching for tonight?

STELTER: Well, another ad that's getting a lot of attention ahead of time is by Budweiser. It features the creator of Bud, an immigrant, and his story about coming to the United States more than 100 years ago. So, you see his travels. And that's another example of an that, you know, Budweiser says it was a coincidence, and they made the ad many months ago, that it has nothing to do with the Trump presidency.

But, again, I think it will get peoples' attention during the game because of its connection to the current politics. [07:35:01] By the way, you know, there are some ads that have nothing

to do with politics, thankfully. Sneakers, it's going to do an entirely live ad during the game. Meaning we have no idea what it's going to be. It's going to be produced live during the commercial break, which will be kind of interesting. You are playing those Bill O'Reilly and Trump clips.

Every year, ever since Obama took office eight years ago, there's been this tradition of a Super Bowl interview. So, this year, as you saw Trump pretapes the interview with Bill O'Reilly, and we've also seen a couple clips so far. So, I'm really curious to see what else we're going to learn in that interview later today.

PAUL: No doubt about it. A lot of people, especially with what we have already seen, you have to wonder what comes right after that comment, you know?

STELTER: Exactly, FOX cuts those very carefully as teases related to this.

PAUL: Yes. That's very clever.

Brian Stelter, always good to see you. Thank you so much.

STELTER: Thank you.

PAUL: And you can see more of him on "RELIABLE SOURCES" with Brian Stelter, today at 11:00 a.m. Eastern.

BLACKWELL: All right. Next, the Senate votes to advance the president's pick for education secretary, but this has not been an easy road for Betsy DeVos. She's received a flood of criticism from both sides of the aisle. We'll have details, next.


BLACKWELL: Well, the Senate has voted to advance Betsy DeVos' nomination to serve as secretary of education to a final confirmation vote. That vote is expected to happen on Tuesday.

Now, yesterday, I spoke with Lieutenant Governor of Michigan, Brian Calley, and the president of the National Education Association, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, about the mounting criticism of Ms. DeVos that she's received from Democrats over her qualifications.


BLACKWELL: Lieutenant Governor, let me ask you, during the hearing, we learned that Ms. DeVos did not attend to any public schools, her children had never attended public schools, she's never taught in public schools.

[07:40:10] I mean, to what degree is that familiarity or in this case lack thereof important to the job of the secretary of education?

LT. GOV. BRIAN CALLEY (R), MICHIGAN: She has worked in public education policy development for literally decades. By the way, charter schools are public schools. And she even -- the highest performing or among the highest performing schools you'll find anywhere in Michigan, she started. So, when it comes to experience and education, I don't think there can be any question she has experience in education.

When it comes to the IDEA, the idea that we have -- there's not a lot of accountability, under the Obama administration, there certainly was not a lot of accountability from the federal government on appropriate implementation of the IDEA across the country. And so, with Betsy DeVos, this is the type of person who expects accountability.

And when I looked at her written responses to the IDEA, I know she is supportive and behind it. I talked to her personally many times when it comes to issues with respect to kids that need extra attention, and I am very confident that the same level of accountability for kids that are left behind because of tough social economic conditions will -- that she will focus on and help kids with disabilities as well.

LILY ESKELSEN GARCIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION: I'm going to explode. I'm going to just explode. So, we're not going to be dealing with alternative facts here hopefully. Not having any experience with a public school on any level is bad, but that's not the worst. I think what makes it --


CALLEY: But that's not even true. She does have experience. She started a public school.

GARCIA: What we saw under Betsy DeVos and Michigan is seen as the worst of the worst players in profitizing and privatizing. I started teaching about 25 years ago when they started this, let's have innovative charter schools. I loved that idea. I have some friends that started charter schools.

And what happened after a few years as it began to be corrupted by a for-profit industry. Betsy DeVos uses the term education industry, and some of the worse -- worst charter frauds and mismanagements you will find in Michigan, and she supported those schools. More than half of the -- well, 80 percent of the charter schools in Michigan are for-profit businesses and half of them are on the worse performing list.

BLACKWELL: Let me ask you, finally, Lieutenant Governor, the question that Bernie Sanders asked during the hearing if she would be in this position, and if she and her family had not donated so much money to Republicans in the House and in the Senate, which is germane to her confirmation, would she be the nominee of the secretary of education, and what role does that financial support play here?

CALLEY: Well, she never made a contribution to me.

But when it comes to -- when it comes to the decision that was made with respect to -- with respect to Donald Trump -- I don't believe that this guy makes decisions based on who makes contributions. He's a billionaire himself. He hasn't had -- he has not been in a position where that's been a concern, who contributes what.

So, it's hard for me to believe that a person who has been as successful as he has been overnight would use that as a decision factor or decision criteria in his process.

BLACKWELL: Fifteen seconds, Lily, on that that point?

GARCIA: I don't -- you know, a billion here, a billion there, to me, look at the other billionaire that weighed in this week. So, you had Eli Broad, who certainly not in the pocket of the National Education Association, we've had a lot of issues with him, he is saying reject Betsy DeVos. Why? Because he said obviously what she has done in Michigan is give charters a bad name because she hasn't support accountability for charter, she would not answer that straight question when asked.

BLACKWELL: We've got to wrap it there.

Lily Eskelsen Garcia and Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley of Michigan -- thank you both.


PAUL: And do stay with us.

"SNL" spoofing Donald Trump again, and somebody on his team.


ALEC BALDWIN AS DONALD TRUMP: Let's call Mexico. I'll figure out a smart, diplomatic way to get them to pay for this wall.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ola, Presidente Nieto.

BALDWIN: The guy who's going to pay for the wall says what?



[07:46:27] PAUL: What does dating tell us about our health? A relationship coach shares her insights in this week's "Staying Well."


TRACI PORTERFIELD, DATING COACH: Three pieces of advice I give clients to be successful in the dating world.

Number one, be open. Be open to new people in the dating world. Height, hair color, age, those things do not matter. That is not the person, and certainly don't turn your date into a job interview. So, keep it light.

Number two, internal dialogue. Watch your internal dialogue. Watch what you tell yourself about yourself because that's what you are projecting to your date and to the world.

And you're not fat. You're not uninteresting. Those things won't serve you in the dating word. When you are consciously aware of what your thoughts are and you turn those around, you're going to be more successful.

DSD, what does that mean? Do something different. If you want something different in the dating world, you have to do something different.

It could be as simple as driving a new way to work. It can be stopping at a new coffee shop, going to a new restaurant. When you put yourself in these new spaces, you have a better chance of meeting new people, feeling different, and finding your happily ever after.



BLACKWELL: This morning, we're following breaking news. No travel ban for now. Overnight, an appeals court denied the Justice Department's request to immediately restore the president's travel ban.

[07:50:03] PAUL: So, what does this mean for the new Trump administration is a question?

Jake Tapper, host of CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION" with us.

I know that in terms of the legal -- from a legal standpoint, this looks like it may be a setback. But, politically, Jake, what does it mean for him?

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, "STATE OF THE UNION": Well, first of all, legally, it's still just in motion. The Ninth Circuit Court of Repeals rejected the Trump Justice Department's request for the stay on the ban, meaning the halt to the ban. The Justice Department asked that it'd be immediately lifted, the Ninth Circuit said no, but they did also ask both the Justice Department and the other side, the Washington state attorney general and others to file legal briefs. So, the Ninth Circuit has not made any sort of permanent decision.

Ultimately, whichever side they come down on, I do expect this to end up before, at least an attempt to bring it before the U.S. Supreme Court. That's where we are in a legal point of view. In terms of politics, we've already seen, according to polls, a majority of voters do not support this travel ban. I don't know what kind of impact this going to have, because it's a narrow majority, similar to the narrow plurality that Hillary Clinton won on Election Day. So, I don't expect President Trump to back off.

BLACKWELL: All right. You've got two big guests on the show today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Bernie Sanders. What should we expect?

TAPPER: Well, I expect Senator McConnell, the Senate majority leader, to be pushing hard for Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court nominee that President Trump is pushing forward. We're also going to ask him to weigh in on the events of this weekend. Plus, some of the remarks that President Trump made in his FOX interview with Bill O'Reilly in which he seemed to suggest a moral equivalence between the United States government and Putin's government in Russia. So, we'll ask about that.

As to Bernie Sanders, a big question for Democrats is where do they go from here, what can they do after having lost not only the White House, but the House and the Senate. So many governorships, so many state legislative seats, Democrats are really in the wilderness. So, Berne Sanders, we'll ask him, where do the Democrats go from here?

PAUL: All righty. Jake Tapper, looking forward to it. Thank you so much.

TAPPER: Thank you.

PAUL: He will be on "STATE OF THE UNION" today with Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator Bernie Sanders, as you heard, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.

BLACKWELL: And it is the biggest stage in sports, the Super Bowl. Andy Scholes takes a look at the stakes in Houston.

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: We're now just hours away from Super Bowl 51. Will New England fans get their revenge for deflate-gate? We'll get the pulse of the Patriots Nation coming up in this morning's "Bleacher Report".


[07:56:10] BLACKWELL: We're talking hours, folks, just hours before the kick off for Super Bowl 51.

PAUL: Food and the drinking.

Andy Scholes is here with this morning's "Bleacher Report".


ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Christi and Victor, this year for the Patriots has been dubbed the Tom Brady revenge tour. Now, you won't hear Brady talk about it really at all. But for Patriots Nation, it's really become their rallying cry. But I went to radio row this week here at the Super Bowl where you could really feel the passion from New England Fans all the way down here in Houston.


MICHAEL HOLLEY, WEEI SPORTS TALK HOST: Brady won't say it, Belichick won't say it, but to New England, it's about revenge.


HOLLEY: They always think it's us against the world, but more so now than ever.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Patriots fans just think that Roger Goodell tried to take the franchise out at the knees and try to railroad Tom Brady.

DAN SHAUGHNESSY, BOSTON GLOBE COLUMNIST: You hear his father go off on Roger Goodell last week and I think that represents the feeling of the family.

TOM BRADY SR.: He went on a witch hunt and got in way over his head and had to lie his weight out numerous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's good to hear his family kind of share some of the feelings that he has and he'll never let on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just because we hate him and New England hates him --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And they used the word.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We absolutely do, and rightfully so.

HOLLEY: I would call it a pure 100 percent hatred.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Conceited, shallow, cowardly.

SHAUGHNESSY: I've really never seen anything like it. He is the all- time target, worse than any villain on a team. It's across the board, he's become the devil.

REPORTER: You have not been in Foxboro in the two years since the deflategate investigation. It feels like there's still a war between the Patriots, their fans and you.

ROGER GOODELL, NFL COMMISSIONER: I would tell do you is not awkward at all for me. I have no doubt that if I wanted to come up to a Patriots game and I ask Mr. Kraft, he would welcome me back.

SCHOLES: Do you think Roger Goodell is intentionally avoiding going to games?

HOLLEY: God, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is it a problem? Are you scared? Yes, I know.

HOLLEY: He is afraid of the reaction he would get if he stepped in Gillette Stadium.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is a cry baby, he is scared.

SCHOLES: If the Patriots win on Sunday, do you think it's going to be awkward on that stage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think Goodell wants them to win. So, it would be very awkward for him.

SHAUGHNESSY: It's a big ball of awkward any way you slice it.

SCHOLES: If the patriots win later today, guys, all eyes will be on that post-game podium where Roger Goodell is going to have to hand off the Lombardi trophy and the MVP trophy. Will it be awkward? I would expect Tom Brady to take the high road. We'll have to wait and see.


PAUL: All right. Have fun out there. Thank you so much.

Listen, Alec Baldwin, speaking of maybe a little awkward for some people, reprising his role as President Trump on last night's "Saturday Night Live", picking off the show with (INAUDIBLE).

BLACKWELL: Steve Bannon, White House chief strategist, portrayed here as a Grim Reaper by the president's side. But it was actress Melissa McCarthy's appearance that drew the most laughs. She played Press Secretary Sean Spicer, appearing to lose his mind with members of the press. Here's a bit of that sketch.


MELISSA MCCARTHY AS SEAN SPICER: Before we begin I know that myself and the press have gotten off to a rocky start. All right, all right, all right. In the sense that when I say rocky start, I mean in the sense of "Rocky" the movie because I came out here to punch you in the face and also I don't talk so good.

I'll let you begin today by apologizing on behalf of you to me. For how you have treated me these last two weeks. And that apology is not accepted.


PAUL: Is there anything she can't do? I just don't think so.

BLACKWELL: She is so good.

PAUL: I know.

I hope that gave you a smile there for your day and thank you so much for sharing your time with us. Make great memories today.