Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Judge Blocks White House from Denying Asylum Claims; Ivanka Trump Used Personal E-mail Account for Government Business; Camp Fire Kills 79, Nearly 700 People Unaccounted For; Wash. Post: Trump Considers Visiting Troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired November 20, 2018 - 06:00   ET

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


ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

[05:59:24] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Tuesday, November 20, 6 a.m. here in New York. We do begin with breaking news.

A federal judge blocks the White House from denying asylum claims to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally. A U.S. district judge in San Francisco issuing a temporary restraining order and telling the Trump administration to, again, accept asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they enter the country.

Judge Jon Tigar writes, "Whatever the scope of the president's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden."

This is another legal setback for the president's executive orders as he tries to reshape America's immigration system.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Now, as all of this unfolds, CNN was the first to report that the president is expected to grant U.S. troops new authority to use force at the border. For the first time, troops will be able to use force to come to the assistance of border agents if migrants engage in violence against them.

Meanwhile, the irony meter is irreparably broken this morning, smashed to smithereens. There's an e-mail controversy in the administration. Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter, used her personal e-mail to conduct some government business all the way until September of 2017. And "The Washington Post" reports that her excuse was that she was not aware of some details of the rules.

How on earth is someone supposed to know all the rules, after all, unless they were alive in 2016? Unless they attended a single Donald Trump rally and heard the chants of "Lock her up," which continue until this day.

CAMEROTA: All right. We have a lot to talk about.

Joining us now we have Marc Short, the former White House director of legislative affairs under President Trump. We have Joe Lockhart, former White House press secretary under President Clinton; and CNN legal analyst Paul Callan. Paul, let me start with you in terms of what happened here. So

President Trump was trying to deny asylum seekers who didn't come through a port of entry.

However, in 1965, Congress passed a law saying that asylum seekers can present however they want. They can find an officer, a border officer, and present their asylum claims to that officer, however they want.

So a judge wrote this: "The rule barring asylum for immigrants who enter the country outside a board of entry irreconcilably conflicts with the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the express intent of Congress. Whatever the scope of the president's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden." Now what?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Federal Judge Tigar is focusing on an important issue here, and that's the dispute between Congress and the president about how we run immigration policy in the United States.

There's always been a sacred sort of aspect of that policy, maybe the most sacred, that we provide asylum for those who have legitimate claims. Now, people say what's asylum? Well, you may be, for instance, a political prisoner in a country. You have escaped, and you've come to the United States.

CAMEROTA: That one is easy. What people object to, what lots of the president's supporters object to is if you have economic troubles at home, is that -- can you seek asylum here? That's what they say a lot of these migrants are experiencing.

CALLAN: No, that will not generate a legitimate asylum claim. However, how do you test to see whether the person is coming here for that reason or they have a legitimate claim?

Now remember, cartels are very powerful in many of these countries that these people are coming from; and those cartels can cause political problems, the problem of being assassinated or killed if they don't get out of the country. So there are a lot of people with legitimate claims here.

BERMAN: As far as I can tell, though, the judge isn't even wading into that discussion. The judge is merely saying that the executive order infringes on a law passed by Congress.

And Marc Short, you weigh in here. The law states or allows for people who cross the border wherever to seek asylum, and the president unilaterally, by executive order, was trying to restrict it to ports of entry.

I guess my question to you politically, Marc, is does the White House care that the judge got in the way here? Was this really just a political statement by the president?

MARC SHORT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, John, I think we -- the White House cares. I think the reality is if you look at the asylum claims ten years ago, there were 5,000 asylum claims at the southern border. This year there will be over 100,000.

So what's happened in the intervening decade is that human traffickers know, and they encourage people to go across, claim asylum. They'll go in the judicial system and be stuck here for years to come.

The White House was saying, again, you can go through sports of entry and claim asylum, but you can't come across the border illegally and present asylum to Customs and Border Patrol.

I do think that there's an irony that, you know, we talk about the Ninth Circuit, continually these cases have gone there. I think ultimately it will go to the Supreme Court. But at the Ninth Circuit they've also upheld and said that President Obama creating the DACA program out of thin air and not going through Congress is OK, but this administration taking the act that it's trying to do is not OK. So again, I think this is one that will end up at the Supreme Court.

CAMEROTA: So, Joe, here is what the judge said about what the motivation was for why he leaned towards the asylum seekers. "Asylum seekers will be put at increased risk of violence and other harms at the border, and many will be deprived of meritorious asylum claims. The government offers nothing in support of the new rule that outweighs the need to avoid these harms."

And I think that gets to John's question of President Trump signs these executive orders. Clearly, he has a staff around him -- and we'll get back to Marc at some point to answer this -- about why do they let him put things where they offer nothing in support of their claims? Why is this -- why can it even make it to an executive order if they know it's going to be shot down?

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Because I think there is at this point, it's clear there's very little respect for the rule of law. This is about the third or fourth time a federal judge has stepped in and said, "You can't do that."

[06:05:08] Look at the immigration policy. It's all built around this idea we're going to build a ball. There's no wall; there never will be a wall.

Look at what's happening at the southern border. The president in the three weeks leading up to the election couldn't stop talking about this invasion and deploying 15,000 troops. Yesterday, we learned that the invasion is still hundreds of miles away. Those troops are being drawn down.

CAMEROTA: But people are presenting already at the border. There are people in Mexicali. There are people in Tijuana now, the so-called caravan.

LOCKHART: And there are plenty of people there in ICE and the Border Patrol to deal with those. This is all about the president appealing to his base, throwing red meat out there, providing alternative facts. And there are -- thank God we have a judicial branch that's willing to, because Congress won't.

BERMAN: I will note that ONE OF THE -- the judicial branch on the travel ban ultimately, when it got to the Supreme Court ruled with the president.

LOCKHART: On the third try.

BERMAN: I understand that. But that's where it goes ultimately. And if the administration wants to push it, Paul Callan, is there any reason to believe that, if this ends up at the Supreme Court, the administration won't get a favorable ruling?

CALLAN: Well, I think the administration has been a lot more careful in what they did. I mean, that first ban, the Muslim -- so-called Muslim ban, was just drafted with no thought and kind of thrown at the courts eventually, and that's why the lower courts threw it out.

This particular proclamation by the president, issued I think, on November 9, is a very lengthy and detailed one in which, by the way, he throws out these allegations about criminals being part of the migrants heading toward the U.S. border. And he's invoking his powers as commander in chief to protect the United States, essentially, from a dire threat.

And he's saying that we're only doing this for 90 days. We want to slightly change the rule so that you have to go to a designated port of entry while we negotiate with Mexico to see if Mexico will set up an out-of-country place where we can evaluate these claims.

Now, I happen to agree with Joe. I still think that it's likely that the courts will throw this out, John, because Congress when it passed this particular immigration law, said someone with a claim can go to any port of entry.

BERMAN: Or across anywhere.

CALLAN: That's right. Because this is sort of a sacred thing under U.S. law that we will look at anybody's claim for asylum. And this is an arbitrary change of a congressional law dealing specifically with the subject.

CAMEROTA: So, Marc, back to my question to Joe about how the judge said that the government has offered nothing in support of the new rule. Explain how it works in the White House.

When the president key decides he wants to issue one of these executive orders, what happens? Isn't there a team around him that says, "You can't do a sweeping order like this," that gives him better legal advice so it's not shot down?

SHORT: Sure, the White House Counsel Office usually works with Department of Justice in working through how to craft this and to submit it to the courts.

I think that the previous analysis was -- was well-explained. I still think that there's been a significant change. The administration, again, is not saying that we're not going to grant asylum. It's saying if you go to a port of entry and claim asylum, you'll be protected. But that's not the function of Customs and Border Patrol. If you're crossing illegally, where there are human traffickers encouraging that sort of activity, because they know that the rules of laws in the United States are broken. And the president does have a responsibility in the executive branch to help protect our country and protect the border.

BERMAN: All right. Joe Lockhart, in the midst of all this discussion about immigration, a huge development overnight at the White House. we learned that Ivanka Trump was using her personal e-mail for government business, all the way until September 2017.

I say a major development, you know, it's interesting, right? Because obviously, we spent a long time --

LOCKHART: Sure.

BERMAN: -- more than a year of our lives, talking about Hillary Clinton's e-mails. You would think that that would be enough to warn any administration official that they need to be careful. Yet she claims, according to "The Washington Post," she wasn't aware of some of the details of the rules.

LOCKHART: Right. Well, it's -- I really don't even know what to say. The Hillary e-mail story was something that it was a mistake to do the way she did it, but it was way overblown. And the demagoguery around that from President Trump, from his family, from Republicans, from the media, was -- was way overblown. So there's no chance, there's none, that she didn't know what the rules were.

Now, we're going to have to see what's in these e-mails. They say there's nothing in there that shouldn't be in there. We'll find out. But if there is 1 percent of the oversight devoted to this that was devoted to Hillary, you know, we'll find out.

CAMEROTA: Marc, at Trump rallies they chant, "Lock her up, lock her up." Who are they referring to? Hillary or Ivanka? I mean, are you -- just when you read that Ivanka had been using personal e-mail through 2017, what were your thoughts?

SHORT: Well, look, Alisyn, it's hypocritical and certainly, it looks bad; and I'm sure that the media will have a field day with it today.

I do think there are a couple of important distinctions to make. One is that Hillary Clinton did delete over 30,000 e-mails. She had I.T. specialists come put a server in her home, and there's classified information as secretary of state that she put on there.

[06:10:11] CAMEROTA: Retroactively. I mean, she found out retroactively. So now they'll look at Ivanka's e-mails and see if there was anything classified in there.

SHORT: And what Ivanka and what her lawyers have said is there is no classified information.

CAMEROTA: So did Hillary's lawyers.

SHORT: All of the e-mails have been handed back over to the federal government. They were put in for the Federal Records Act. So I think there are important distinctions, but, yes, look, it appears hypocritical and it -- it looks bad, for sure.

BERMAN: Paul Callan, legally speaking, you know, what happens? I'm not even sure there is a legal question here. Ultimately, the House Oversight Committee, which will be in Democratic control, if they want to talk about this, if they want to have a hearing on it, they can.

CALLAN: Well, they certainly can, and they can call Ivanka to come in and testify about what her practices have been.

I mean, there's -- obviously, there's a deep irony here because of the level of criticism that the Trump campaign threw at Hillary Clinton and now for Ivanka to be doing, allegedly, the same thing. But I think in the end, it's all going to come down to whether there were classified e-mails that were being sent on a personal e-mail account, again, which would create a huge problem. And as Alisyn said, until we look at all of the e-mails, we don't know whether she has violated classified --

CAMEROTA: She says it was just about scheduling for her children.

BERMAN: Some of them. There were at least 100 that had to do with actual business when she was exchanging information with the likes of Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce.

CAMEROTA: And you're right. And they were e-mailing it to her to her personal e-mail. So we'll find out. But I think that it's, yes, of course, it will come down to whether or not any classified information was spilled, but that -- that is retroactive. Is the act wrong? Should you know that the original act is wrong?

LOCKHART: Well, I think it shows deep hubris on the part of Ivanka and the family.

First of all, your daughter shouldn't be in a senior position in the White House. Start there. But there's a -- there's a much bigger, you know, scandal here, which is the president uses an unsecured phone. And he does national security business on that unsecured phone. And the Russians and the Chinese listen to those calls.

And he screamed "Lock her up," and he screamed, you know, she was putting national security at risk. He does it every single day, and we all turn a blind eye to it.

CAMEROTA: Marc, does the president still use an unsecured phone?

SHORT: I don't know honestly, Alisyn. I think that -- I think that there have been people who have looked into the use of that phone. But, you know, look, I accept that today's story is an ironic one and shows hypocrisy and is a mistake; and the administration shouldn't have had private e-mails going to -- or government e-mails going to private e-mail servers. BERMAN: Marc, were you aware of the rules when you went into work in

the administration?

SHORT: John, I think, look, anyone who was part of the 2016 campaign would be -- would be familiar with the rules.

BERMAN: And I guess my follow-up to that is, then, is it fair to ask whether Ivanka Trump, who is an assistant to the president, feels like she lives under a different set of rules than everyone else in the administration?

SHORT: It's fair to ask that, but everything I witnessed from Ivanka, she never felt like she was living under a different set of rules. She applied -- she abided by the rules that I witnessed her abide by. She was somebody who was very deferential to the way the White House should function.

So I don't have -- I wouldn't make that accusation against Ivanka, but I think that, again, there are important distinctions here. Her lawyers have looked through the e-mails. They've said there was nothing classified. It was a mistake. They have given all the e- mails over, where there was nothing that was deleted. So there are some important distinctions.

BERMAN: One thing I will say, though, is the argument you're making that the lawyers looked at them is -- is something that Republicans were concerned about with the Clintons. When it was the Clintons' lawyers who were doing the vetting of all the e-mails, Republicans were up in arms of it. So that, in and of itself, I'm not sure is a defense for what's in the e-mails.

SHORT: John, I have no doubt -- I have no doubt the House Democrats will look at this further as they take control of the House of Representatives.

CAMEROTA: Marc Short, we appreciate your candor. We appreciate your insight and candor and for being with us to give us a window into the White House. Thank you very much.

Paul, Joe, thank you.

BERMAN: Right now to the raging wildfires in California. A new threat is emerging as heavy rain could cause flash floods and mudslides. The state's deadliest blaze, the Camp Fire, has now killed 79 people; and nearly 700 others remain unaccounted for.

Let's go to Paul Vercammen, live in Paradise, California, for the very latest --Paul.

PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this morning we know now that 79 people have died, their remains identified, in the Camp Fire. They found another body in a structure in Paradise. They also found one outside.

We have also an update on that unaccounted for list. It has shrunk dramatically. And of course, the sheriff emphasizing that, on this unaccounted for list -- it is raw data, he says -- are people who may be on the list and don't know they're on it, people whose names have been misspelled, duplicate names. He hopes that list will shrink even further today.

A lot of structures also burned, and we get the acreage: 151,000 acres burned. It is now 70 percent contained.

[06:15:04] And we talk a lot about the humanitarian crisis. It's also a vast animal crisis. So many people in this rural county have livestock, even people who have smaller parcels may have a couple horses, et cetera. A lot of the livestock being brought to the Butte County Fairgrounds. Over 700 animals overnight.

This is a vast crisis for the animals, volunteers helping out. They need donations. They need hay. They need it all. And they were also working feverishly to put some sort of cover over the animals, because rain is coming. The Cal Fire spokesman saying the biggest concern for firefighters is roads could become ashy, muddy, impassable.

Reporting live from Paradise, I'm Paul Vercammen. Now back to you.

CAMEROTA: Paul, thank you very much.

OK. Now to this story. President Trump has not visited U.S. troops in a combat zone since becoming president or even as a candidate. So a new report this morning explains for the first time why. We discuss that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:19:41] BERMAN: Really interesting story in "The Washington Post" this morning, saying that President Trump is considering now, for the first time, visiting U.S. troops in a war zone. It also raises questions about why he hasn't done so to date; and it has a remarkable quote from a senior official who used to work in the White House. It says, "He's never been interested in going. He's afraid of the situation. He's afraid people want to kill him" is what the story says.

Back now with Joe Lockhart. Marc Short is here. We're joined by Politico's Rachael Bade.

And Rachael, it's interesting to me in the last week, the president has admitted it was a mistake not to go to Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day and now, in this "Washington Post" article, making it clear he's considering going to a war zone.

It seems to me that he is addressing what he believes to be a genuine problem now, which he is not perceived to be showing empathy or concern for U.S. troops.

RACHAEL BADE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. Try to think of the last time you have heard president Donald Trump say, "I'm sorry" or walk something back. You haven't. He just doesn't do that. So for him to come out on FOX News on Sunday to say, "Look, I made a mistake when I decided not to visit fallen soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day," that shows serious remorse, and I think that's why you're hearing him talk right now about visiting war zones that he has avoided before.

I mean, we've always seen presidents use, for example, Thanksgiving Day to show up and surprise troops. George W. Bush did this with Iraq right after the invasion in 2003.

BERMAN: Clinton did it in Kosovo.

BADE: Right. Exactly. And -- and he has avoided doing this, in part because of security fears. I mean, you can't blame him. Jim Mattis was the target of a potential rocket strike at one time, you know, a threat at least.

But, yes, it's the president's duty to visit troops, bring good will. And he's showing remorse right now by suggesting he's actually going to do that. We'll just have to see if he really does.

CAMEROTA: So Marc, his approval ratings with the military, as far as we can tell from the latest polls, not a CNN poll, though, are still high with the military, higher than they are in the general public. Is this important? Is this a symbolic gesture that President Trump, who doesn't really generally count on symbolic gestures or feels -- doesn't feel the need to follow in necessarily what has been presidential precedent.

Is it important for him to go to a war zone?

SHORT: Yes, it is important, and he should do it, Alisyn. But I think his approval rating is high for lots of reasons.

I think that there's support for his -- his renewing faith in the American military, his fighting to make sure they get the most funding increase since the Reagan era, fighting to make sure they have the highest pay increase in ten years, fighting to provide passage of the V.A. Accountability Act that provides assurances that veterans will get treated better than they have been in veterans services.

I think the notion that he's afraid to go there, it's absurd. I never heard the president express that ever. And I recall during the campaign there was a -- there was a potential Secret Service came and whisked him off the stage because of a potential threat in the audience. He came back out and spoke to the crowds. So I think that's kind of an absurd claim. But yes, he should go to one of these war zones, and it probably should have been before now.

BERMAN: I don't know whether he is afraid or not. And you say he should go. Should he have gone already, Marc?

SHORT: Yes, I think -- I think so. I think that there's probably a lot of things we should have done differently, and that's a scheduling mistake. But -- but I think that you'll see him go.

And, again, I think the reason he enjoys the widespread support for the military is because of what he's done for them.

BERMAN: Joe, there's always a threat. Any president travels anywhere there is a threat. Is that reason not to do it?

LOCKHART: No. And again, I don't know that he's physically afraid. I don't know who said that. Maybe he is; maybe he's not.

But I think he just doesn't think it's important to do some of the symbolic things. I mean, remember throwing paper towels to people in Puerto Rico. You know, making comments like out in California about raking in Finland. He's just -- he just doesn't seem to think those things are important.

And I think he was -- from my vantage point, I think he looks at all of these things as sort of like players in his own, you know, reality show; and going to see the troops just doesn't, you know, fit. I mean, the idea that he didn't have time to go to Arlington Cemetery and then lied about going the year before when --

CAMEROTA: He did go on Memorial Day. So maybe he mistook --

LOCKHART: Maybe he mistook. Let's give him credit. But this is a president who I think -- I read yesterday that one out of four days in his presidency he's gone to one of his golf courses. So he has plenty of time to play golf. He has plenty of time to sit and watch cable TV, but he doesn't have time to go on Veterans Day to Arlington Cemetery? I just don't think it's important to him.

BADE: We should also mention, though, that another reason why, you know, according to Josh Dawsey's reporting in "The Post" that he hasn't gone overseas is that he doesn't want to be associated with these wars. You know, he ran on sort of this platform of getting the U.S. out of Middle Eastern countries that he felt, you know, we weren't doing much. And he is worried about being associated with any failure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, et cetera. And that's obviously a key reason why --

LOCKHART: But he is the president of the United States.

BADE: Right. That's very true.

LOCKHART: Who leads -- is supposed to lead all of us. And the fact that he's worried about being associated with failure tells you a lot about him.

CAMEROTA: What about that, Marc? Do you agree that he just doesn't like those wars, he doesn't want to be associated with them? He ran on distancing himself from them.

SHORT: I think it's factually true that he did run a campaign to say that those wars are a mistake. I don't -- I think he wants to bring those troops home as soon as possible.

[06:25:15] I don't think that's the reason he hasn't gone. So I think you will see him go. As I said, I think it's a scheduling error that the staff should have probably made sure that he went. I think you will see him go, but -- but I think probably drawing those two comparisons is a stretch too far.

BERMAN: Just -- is it just a scheduling error, though, Marc? If he --

SHORT: No, it's more than that, John.

BERMAN: At any point if he had said, "I want to go to a war zone," no one's going to say, "I can't fit it in."

SHORT: Yes, yes. Yes, I accept that, John. I said from the start that it's something that should have happened before now and he will go. But, you know, we as well have a role to make sure that those considerations are brought and made sure that they're presented to him in the right way.

And yes, he should have gone before now. I think you'll see him go. But I think overall, the reasons that the troops have widespread support for the president is because he's done a lot for them, and he continues to advocate the policies that support them, and they know that.

CAMEROTA: And he's definitely talked about them. I mean, he has definitely talked them up and talked about them and talked about how much he loves them and talked about how much support. And so I think it's interesting to see if that's enough for them, and maybe these symbolic gestures aren't as important to them in a war zone. I mean, I just don't - I actually just don't have the polling on that to know.

BERMAN: I'm not sure I need the polling. I actually think what you can look at is the last week. I think you can look at the fact that he apologized or said it was a mystic on Veterans Day. You can look at the fact that he's ow planning on going.

CAMEROTA: That his feelings have changed.

BERMAN: And I think you can look at the fact the reaction to him going after Admiral McRaven. You know, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Republicans have clearly been uncomfortable with that. I think there is a clear line here that he realizes he's crossed.

CAMEROTA: Yes, I hear you. I mean, in terms of P.R., I think that he's come around, because we've been talking about it a lot. But in terms of how the troops feel, I just need to get a little bit more information on that.

BERMAN: Rachael Bade, we have you here. You are one of the best congressional reporters on planet earth. I think that's true. I'll stand by that. I'll stand by that. You have the best words. And you've been reporting on Nancy Pelosi and where she stands, her battle to be speaker. Where is it today?

BADE: Yes. She's in trouble right now. Just look at the math. She's got a real big math problem. Democrats have taken 233 seats in the House, and she needs 218 on the House floor to be speaker. That means she can only lose 15 Democrats.

And last night, yesterday, we finally saw this group of sort of Pelosi critics put out this letter they had been talking about for three weeks. There was a lot of speculation: would they do it, would they not? And this letter says, "We will vote against you on the House floor." And there were 15 on that document. I personally know of at least three more who didn't want to be associated with this group of rebels trying to push her out but are also planning to vote against her on the floor. So she's got a big problem here.

The thing that I think is most interesting about this letter is that there's not a lot of incoming freshmen on this document, which actually speaks to the work that she has done behind the scenes, because there were literally dozens of Democratic candidates who ran on a platform promising that they were going to elect new leaders or they were going to not vote for Pelosi. And they've come to Washington this week. And she has wooed them. She has put a lot of pressure on them to get in line, and a lot of them are getting in line right now and could very well break their campaign promise, I think.

CAMEROTA: OK. But can she woo the 16 who have already publicly said they won't?

BADE: I think she's going to have a big problem with these folks. And these are incumbents, and they've been around. They've seen her pressure tactics before. And so I think it's going to be a lot harder for her to pick them off, but she's got to do it in order to get these votes.

BERMAN: Interesting six weeks ahead of us.

All right, Rachael, Joe, Marc. Thank you very much for being with us today. If we don't see you again, have a great Thanksgiving.

SHORT: Blessed Thanksgiving.

BERMAN: A huge cold blast could make this Thanksgiving the coldest in a century. Chad Myers with the potential record-breaking temperatures in the northeast, and a drum solo, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)