Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

A Federal Judge Tonight Temporarily Halts President Donald Trump's Travel Ban Nationwide; New Details Emerging Tonight About President Trump's Business Empire; President Trump's Nominee For Secretary Of The Army, Businessman Vincent Viola Is Withdrawing. Aired 11:00-12:00mn ET

Aired February 03, 2017 - 23:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:00:34] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Top of the hour now. Breaking news here on CNN.

Showdown over the president's travel ban.

This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

A federal judge tonight temporarily halting President Donald Trump's travel ban nationwide. The surprise ruling coming in Washington state attorney general Bob Ferguson saying quote "no one is above the law, not even the president."

That follows a week of protests at airports and across the country. But tonight's ruling throws the nation's immigration system into chaos once again. So what will happen now? Got to figure it out for you.

Let's discuss now with CNN correspondent Rene Marsh, our justice reporter Laura Jarrett and also correspondent Jessica Schneider in Palm Beach Florida near the president's Mar-a-Lago state. Alan Dershowitz is here as well, defense attorney and also presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.

Thank you all for joining us. Good evening.

Alan, you first. What exactly is in the judge's order and what does it mean?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The judge's order is a national order. He says that you need to have to have uniformity in the way in which immigration laws apply. So it will apply equally to the west coast and the east coast. The Kennedy airport to LAX.

And it is very, very broad. It goes through specific provisions of the executive order. And it says I'm staying this and I'm staying that. In my view, I think it is a bit overbroad. It concludes at least that there is a plausible argument of unconstitutionality in relation, not only to people who are in the country, not only to people who already have visas, but perhaps, as well, to people have haven't yet gotten visas from Syria and other countries. And my prediction is that the ninth circuit will limit this ruling, perhaps overrule it. But I don't believe that the ruling as written, will be sustained on appeal.

Now, we have also a Massachusetts court which has a very thorough opinion. It comes to exactly the opposite conclusion in many respects. And it says that no, this isn't a Muslim ban. It doesn't involve violation of religious rights. So we have a conflict in two different federal district courts. They will both be appealed probably to the United States court of appeals. And then, eventually, to the Supreme Court, where it may be a 4-4 decision.

So imagine the following situation. The ninth circuit, hypothetically, upholds this ruling. The first circle hypothetically upholds the ruling, the opposite way. And the Supreme Court affirms both rulings, 4-4, we have no decision. We have conflict. We have chaos. That could happen.

LEMON: OK. So we heard what the attorney general said. Now, let's hear what the White House is saying because they issued a statement, Jessica. So what are they going to do?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Don, what a week of legal wrangling for the White House. The White House tonight, press secretary Sean Spicer issuing a very lengthy statement. In part saying that the department of justice would file an emergency stay of this order. We understand, though, that the DOJ will not be filing that appeal immediately. We probably won't see it tonight. Perhaps tomorrow.

But in addition, Sean Spicer's statement went on to say, that the president has broad authority in the White House's view to enact this sort of executive order. Of course, this is exactly the type of statement and the steadfast response we have seen from the White House throughout the past week. This has been a week that had been where this executive order has been caught up in the courts. We saw federal judges all over the country weighing in on all of this, not just tonight but also immediately after this executive order with issued on Friday.

So we have seen a lot of this. And throughout this, the White House has remained steadfast in saying, this is legal. The office of legal counsel saying it's legal. We even saw that press conference, with homeland security secretary John Kelly saying that they had done everything right in laying this out. Saying that he had actually helped draft this order. So the White House remaining steadfast about this, saying that this is legal.

However, on the other side of things, tonight, we are also hearing from the Democrats on this. We heard from Senate minority leader, Charles Schumer. He put out a statement, as well. The senator saying that this order, by the federal judge in Washington, is a victory for the constitution. But the White House not remaining quiet on this, issuing a very lengthy statement saying that the department of justice will, in fact, file that emergency stay of the order. Just waiting to see when that will happen -- Don.

LEMON: Jessica, all right.

To Rene Marsh now. Rene, let's talk about the 100,000 people who have had their visas rescinded since this ban. Will those visas now be reinstated?

[23:05:09] RENE MARSH, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: So Don, at this point, you know, we still have not heard any official word from the White House, from DHS. We know that CVP custom and border protection spoke with the airlines, but they have not released an official statement.

All that being said, we know that about two hours ago, the customs and border protection spoke with all of the U.S. major airlines. And essentially told them that things are going back to the way they were, prior to this executive order going into place. On that call, I'm told by a source who was on that call, customs and border protection also said that that government was starting the process of reinstating those visas.

How long will it be? How long will it be before people can show those visas to board planes? That part is unclear. But that is the word given to all of the major U.S. carriers that the government was starting this process of reinstating those visas that were revoked -- Don.

LEMON: Laura, so, this is something that I haven't thought about. But what happens when the new attorney general, if Jeff Sessions, becomes the attorney general, when and if, what happens?

LAURA JARRETT, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, it sounds like Jeff Sessions would do exactly what Dana Boente, the acting attorney general has said. And he has pledge that he is going to in force this order. As you remember just a few nights ago, the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, was fired, because she told her lawyers that she wasn't certain that the order was constitutional. But then as soon as Dana Boente was installed later that evening, he came out and said it is constitutional. OLC has signed off on it. We are good to go.

So you can expect the new attorney general, if confirmed, Jeff Sessions would do the same.

LEMON: Was that you, Alan? No? Was that Douglas. Douglas, yes. The American system, Douglas, is constructed with checks and balances. Is this what we are seeing and we are witnessing right now, in this epic battle between the branches of government?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Yes, absolutely. I thought Alan Dershowitz just gave us a great scenario of how this might unfold.

Yes, if you want to look for the silver lining here, the checks and balances are coming into place. But the bigger problem is, what I mainly have my beef about, is that the language and the way Donald Trump has been behaving the last week.

Last weekend, he used the word ban. And then, he said, no, White House, well, it's not really a ban. And yes, it is a ban. And tonight, the White House statement, they had only a few lines they had to put out on a statement tonight. And the first one said, outrageous and what the decision made in Washington State. And then minutes later, the word outrageous is erased.

This tells you that this White House has a lot of contusion. It's keystone kops time out there. This is the big league. It is not the campaign. And the world is watching us right now. And I think that they really have to do a corrective on their language and slow things down a little I think at the Trump White House until they get their personnel in place.

DERSHOWITZ: You know, that all is true. But look at the bright side, too. The president could easily have taken a position, and if there's a Massachusetts federal court order, that he will follow. And he could have said I'm going to ignore the Washington state order. He did not do that. He said we are going to appeal it.

LEMON: Why do you think he didn't do that, Alan? I'm sure --?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, I think his lawyers have told him, look. You don't want to start out your presidency by being held in contempt by a federal district court judge. And I think he is much better off appealing it. He can use whatever language he wants. But in the end, he is not going to defy a court order. And that's a very, very positive and important development.

LEMON: Now, the concern is, at least the supporters of the ban and probably the authors of it, will say these bad dudes can now come into the country and we don't know for how long. Is that a fair assessment to say that, Alan?

DERSHOWITZ: No. I think first of all, the order will not apply to people who have not yet gotten visas. I think that the ninth circuit will not give a new right. Nobody has ever before granted a right to a family in Yemen, who wants to apply for a visa who has no contact with the United States. There's no due process right. There is no property right. That is a very different situation from somebody who already has a visa. Somebody who has a green card. Somebody who is in the United States of America.

So, what's needed here is a nuanced, calibrated, constitutional analysis, distinguishing those cases that are unconstitutional from those cases that might be constitutional. We haven't gotten that yet. And I think that will come in the weeks to come but not in the hours to come.

[23:10:07] LEMON: OK, Rene, listen. I have asked you this question in 14 different ways, right? But the people who were previously barred, and who board a plane, and it is confusing from the beginning, but can they come into the US? Can they now come back into the U.S. or is that just not certain right now?

MARSH: So here is why I can never jut tell you straight like you want me to only because we haven't receive an official --. LEMON: No, I don't think it's your fault. I'm just saying, there's

confusion about it. Because I'm sure people are saying, can I stay? Can I go? What should I do? I'm sure they are consulting with their immigration attorneys right now.

MARSH: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. I do not disagree. I think that people, if you're a passenger who falls into this category, of course. You are watching this and you have no idea what this means for you.

All that being said, based on all of the information about what was discussed on that conference call tonight, between customs and border protection and airlines, I would say that would mean at some point, once the visas are reinstated, yes. They can come to the United States. Again, that is based on the information that I have from that source, the guidance that CBP has given airlines. Looking at that on its face. What CBP told airlines tonight, that yes, you would interpret that guidance, that yes, an individual would be able to come to the United States. But they still need that visa reinstated.

LEMON: Alan, I need you to hold that thought. Alan, I need you to hold that thought. I have to get to the break. You will get the first word on the other side.

Again, this is our breaking news. Stick around, everyone.

When we come right back. More on our breaking news, the surprise ruling by a federal judge, a temporary shuts down President Trump's travel ban.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:32] LEMON: All right, back with me now, Rene Marsh, Laura Jarrett, Jessica Schneider, Alan Dershowitz, and Douglas Brinkley.

So we are trying to come to some consensus, as much as we could, Alan Dershowitz, about people who could not come back into the country. And you wanted to say? Alan?

I think we -- Alan can't hear me. OK.

So, Rene -- Douglas, let's move on to Douglas. President Trump fired the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, after -- when she refused to defend this ban. She didn't think it was legal. Is part of the problem that the order was rushed? That it was not properly vetted?

BRINKLEY: I think that's where the nut of this problem is. That's why you have over 900 people in the state department complaining about it. It was done, almost, you know, in just a way lightning-quick fashion, while so much was going on and it blindsided people. And that's why you try not to do that.

Now, this doesn't mean that Donald Trump is not going to recover. He could win this. It goes to appeals court, Supreme Court, you know, 4- 4. And then it gets decided in his favor, and he can claim this as a victory. But it's putting us in a chaotic situation, in our country, and around the world right now. And you are starting to find the Democrats finding their voice and opposition to Trump.

I thought on Anderson cooper tonight, Governor Jay Inslee was so articulate. And he is starting to become a voice of a Democratic party, the new voice people are talking about. Not Chuck Schumer. Not Nancy Pelosi. But a governor from the state of Washington. That is the state of Microsoft and Boeing and Amazon and all of the successful 21st century companies, saying globalization matters. We cannot start messing with free trade around the world.

And so, Donald Trump is taking on a lot of forces here. And it is not just the red, blue, divide and a divided nation. By going so quickly, he is causing himself self-inflicted wounds. If he would have slowed this down a little, vetted things differently, we may not be in crisis mode for the last week on this issue.

LEMON: And the governor was on the show, said the same thing. Just a while ago. And, Alan Dershowitz has actually got a chance to ask him or to speak with him, as well.

Alan, let's talk about what the governor says. The governor says, and you were there for the interview when I interviewed him, that the president is bound by the order from this judge right now. That's what he believes. And he intended to fight this as a governor, as well.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, he is bound by the order. But he may also be bound by the order of the federal district court.

So let's play this out for a second. Let's assume that tomorrow, people get their visas back. And then, on Monday or Tuesday, the ninth circuit reverses that. Remember the ninth circuit has 29 active judges. I have argued several cases in front of the ninth circuit. They have the most liberal judges and among the most conservative judges. Who you pick is a question of the roulette wheel of justice. Nobody can tell you how the ninth circuit is going to come down.

And so, we have a situation where people may come into the country based on the judge's order, if the airlines let them in, and then would have to leave the country on Monday or Tuesday, if the order is reversed by the ninth circuit.

So, we really have a situation of chaos. That's why this case has to be resolved quickly and definitively. And I think it will be resolved ultimately by the Supreme Court of the United States.

LEMON: Before I move on to Laura and Jessica, I want to ask you, Alan, does this mean in any way that this executive order is unconstitutional? Or is it just flawed? Legally?

DERSHOWITZ: In my view, part of it is unconstitutional. And part of it is constitutional. And I don't think we have seen a nuanced, calibrated constitutional analysis yet.

LEMON: What does that mean? What does that mean, Alan?

DERSHOWITZ: Let me explain. If you have a family in Yemen who wants to come over and visit, and they are denied a visa, they have no standing. They have no connection. They have no property right. They have no due process right. So it's constitutional as it relates to them. If you have somebody who is in the country who has a visa, and the visa is taken away on the basis of religious discrimination, that person may have standing.

Tom complicate it, the governor of the state and the attorney general of the state of Washington no claimed they have standing on behalf of Microsoft, in behalf of the University of Washington. This is an extraordinarily complicated case. I could teach a seminar at Harvard law school about this case.

[23:20:06] LEMON: So let me ask you then. As a layperson, wouldn't whoever is looking at this and reviewing it, would they look at the entire, the totality of this executive order and say, you know, maybe they will look at it and say, this wasn't put together properly. There are too many elements as you say. Can they pull some element out and keep part of the legislation?

DERSHOWITZ: That's what I think the ninth circuit is going to do. They are going to say this is a devisable order. Some parts are probably constitutional. Some parts that are probably not. And then remember, the burden of proof is heavily on the party seeking a stay. Now, the court of Washington said that was satisfied. The court in Massachusetts said that burden wasn't satisfied. And so, we have conflicting opinions and chaos. That's why I think the ultimate decision made by the Supreme Court, which is now a 4-4, divided Supreme Court. So, you know, this is fascinating and troubling and difficult. But the key is, our system of checks and balances is working. The president doesn't get to do what he wants without there being judicial review. That's a great thing.

LEMON: So Laura, I don't know if you can answer this about how long this will take. I asked Alan and the other attorney earlier to explain the process here. We know that the White House say that they are going to appeal this. So how long will it take for an appeal? Do you have any idea?

JARRETT: Well, it's hard to say. The White House is saying that they are going to go, you know, as soon as possible to try to get an emergency stay of the order. But the justice department is saying tonight not to expect an appeal or a stay tonight or overnight. And so, at the earliest, maybe tomorrow they could go into court and try to get one. But the appeal itself could take a while. And we will have to see exactly on what grounds the justice department tries to challenge this order.

LEMON: So, Jessica, the president is at Mar-a-Lago. And the question is, does he have his advisers around him? Who is there with him, advising him now? I'm sure that many of them, if not all of them, are watching right now.

SCHNEIDER: Right. Well, you know, Don, this has been a legal and political hot potato all week long. It was one week ago, that President Donald Trump signed this executive order. And almost immediately protests started throughout the country. We saw the legal wrangling pop up in federal carts across the country.

So tonight, Donald Trump is here at Mar-a-Lago. He arrived about 5:00 tonight. Joining him, his chief strategist, Steve Bannon as well as his top advisor, senior advisor Jared Kushner, also his chief of staff Reince Priebus so we know that they are all here at Mar-a-Lago.

You know, this is actually supposed to be somewhat of a low-key weekend if that is possible in the first two weeks of the presidency. Donald Trump is going to be here at the winter White House, as they like to call it, over the weekend. He had plans to have meets and phone calls with his aides and his staffers.

But in addition he was supposed to and probably will still attend the international Red Cross ball. It's a gala that's held every year. This is the 60th anniversary of it. Most years it is held at Mar-a- Lago. It is a tradition that was started back in the 1950s.

So yes, we waited until we heard from the White House. We got a statement from press secretary Sean Spicer tonight. A lengthy statement talking about the DOJ's plans to file that emergency stay. And also, reiterating that the White House believes they are on firm legal footing with this. That the president has the power to enact this sort of executive order. So they -- that is the line that they have remained with throughout this past week. And it's the line they are sticking to tonight. It will be interesting to see as this weekend unfolds, how this might derail some of the other plans, the other phone calls, the other meetings, that the president planned to have. But yes, he does have all of his top advisers with him here at Mar-a-Lago for the entire weekend.

LEMON: So Rene, let me ask you this question. You know, we talked about confusion for people who may be traveling, trying to get into the country and some people are wondering probably if they should leave, if they are going to be able to get back in in because they don't know what happened. But should customs and border protection agents, should they be confused right now? Or do they have the marching orders to let people in for clarity?

LEMON: Well, for clarity, what we are being told, is that some guidance has already been put out tonight. And so, airlines --

LEMON: Can you imagine being one of the agents? What do you do? What don't you do?

MARSH: Right. So, the guidance that was put out tonight, I know, in speaking to several people within several different airlines, that their position is, we are going to follow what we were told at 9:00 tonight, unless we are told otherwise. So, to answer your question, Don, I believe that the guidance they got at 9:00 p.m. is going to be the rule until someone says it's not the rule. So, that's the way at least the airlines are looking at all of this.

[23:25:00] DERSHOWITZ: It's the sensible way - there is a sensible way, resolving this. Just maintain the status quo. Don't throw anybody out. Don't give anybody new visas. Let's keep the thing in status quo. Let's not have anybody do anything dramatic. Everybody take a deep breath and wait for the courts to decide. But I think it would be a big mistake now to start letting people in when they may have to be thrown out or throwing them out when they have to come back in. Status quo seems to be the right approach.

LEMON: Easy for you to say, Alan. But I don't think it's going to work out that way, given what we have witnessed in the last week. We are all on here talking about this ban in a different way. And here we are tonight.

Thank you. I appreciate it, panel.

More on the breaking news right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:29:21] LEMON: More breaking news, now. New details emerging tonight about President Trump's business empire and the trust he set up before he took the oath of office.

Joining me now on the phone is Eric Lipton. Eric is an investigative reporter for "the New York Times" who is based in Washington. He is one of the reporters who broke the story.

Eric, thank you so much. This is fascinating. "The New York Times" and "Propublica" got a hold of records pertaining to the president's trust. What do they show?

ERIC LIPTON, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES (on the phone): January 11th, the president-elect announced that he would put his

businesses into a trust that would separate them from the operation of the company. But he didn't say what kind of trust it would be. Who would the beneficiary, pretty revoke the trust and then parts that he wanted to? And who owns the trust?

And we had to wait for these documents who eventually surfaced and then we got to copies of them in part through they were approved. And what we learned is that at any point that Donald Trump wants to, he can revoke this trust and take back control of these businesses, while he's president. That he is the full beneficiary. And that it is one of his sons and the chief financial officer of his company that are the two trustees. So while he no longer is the legal owner of the title to the businesses, he is what the lawyer -- the beneficial owner. So they don't -- this is a very substantive change in his financial relationship with the assets that he previously owned.

[23:30:50] LEMON: OK. So you are saying that this trust can be revoke at any time. What is the significance of that? What does that mean?

LIPTON: Well, there is a bit of trust people creator, the in- revocable and a revocable trust. It just means that he basically still controls this trust and the businesses because the trustees are at his will. And so, it's not -- there's not a great deal of separation between him, as the sole beneficiary of this revocable trust, and the way it's set up, does not have a clear separation from him, there is not what we are reporting.

LEMON: I don't want to put words in your mouth. But do these -- the information in the documents you got, does it show that this is somewhat of a smokescreen? That his just that his children are just figure heads at this point?

LIPTON: I mean, he still owns the assets. He is the sole beneficiary of it. It is still on his tax return. And so, and his children are acting under his orders because they are the trustees to a revocable trust that he created. So the lawyers who looked at it said that this is very little difference from the operation that he said before, legally speaking.

LEMON: So does this -- does the trust, Eric, do anything to prevent conflicts of interest?

LIPTON: It's the most important topic is has faced with is the fact that he is a tenet, in the federal building called the old post office building, where the Trump international hotel is. There's a provision in the lease there that seems to suggest that a federally-elected official cannot hold a lease to that building. And this trust does not resolve that apparent breach in the lease.

LEMON: The president said, I am sure you heard him say this, Eric, said that by law, that he can't have conflicts of interest. Is he correct? Legally, he does not have a conflict of interest. But he still can have the appearance of a conflict of interest because he can take an act that appears to benefit his finances. And if his children are running his business, and he controls the trust that can be revoked, then there's not much of a division between his businesses and the actions he takes as president. That's the concern. It's not a blind trust. It's not an irrevocable trust. It's a revocable trust that he is the sole beneficiary. It sounds complicated and legal. But to the lawyers that we spoke with, this is more of an artificial separation than a significant barrier between him and the countries that he used to run.

LIPTON: And you articulated it better than I can run and said this is a (INAUDIBLE). His children are just figured-head. It's an artificial separation. Basically, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

LIPTON: I mean, he is no longer legally the title holder of the businesses that he once controlled. But he is the beneficial owner of those businesses today. And so, therefore, for that purpose, for that reason, the lawyers that we spoke with said they did not see a significant difference.

LEMON: Eric Lipton, "New York Times," investigative reporter. Thank you so much.

LIPTON: Thank you. Sorry this is so complicated.

LEMON: Yes, it is. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

When we come back, more on the surprise ruling from a federal judge temporarily shutting down President Trump's travel ban. What will be the administration's next step?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:38:12] LEMON: Even more news tonight on a busy news night, a busy news night. Breaking news, I should say. President Trump's nominee for secretary of the army, businessman Vincent Viola is withdrawing. A statement from his team said quote "Mr. Viola has informed President Trump that he will be unable to accept his nomination to serve as secretary of the army as the challenges of separating Mr. Viola from his organizations that he has built over the last 35 years have proven insurmountable." Again, that is a quote there.

According to a source there, there was tension with defense secretary Mattis over Viola's selection, which happened without secretary Mattis' input. Interesting development there.

Now I want to bring in our syndicated talk radio host John Fredericks and Bill Press, host of "the Bill Press" show.

So before we get to this ban, let's talk about this because I had gotten information on that and other issues as it concerns to the White House, from a source who is very close knowledge of this. This speaks to the power play at the White House, between Reince Priebus and Bannon, two different factions on the White House. You first Bill Press.

BILL PRESS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first of all, it is a lot of palace intrigue it seems to be behind this. Maybe more than that. But I think this is, in a sense, a very important development because I think we have seen and you have been talking about it almost all night, signs of the need for a grown-up in the White House. Somebody who is going to get things under control. Somebody is going to make sure things are done right, and not just rushed out, like I think this immigration ban was. And Reince Priebus is the grown-up and has been trying to get control. Steve Bannon so far, it looks like has had more influence on President Trump. And so, maybe this is Priebus' way of saying, you see what happens when you don't listen to me? You don't listen to a Washington insider. You get in trouble. And so, this one, I would say, would be a victory for Reince Priebus, but don't count Steve Bannon out.

[23:40:18] LEMON: What do you say, John?

JOHN FREDERICKS, SYNDICATED TASK RADIO HOST: Well, a victory for Reince Priebus is short-lived, if it is a victory at all.

But look, Don and Bill, let me just say the bottom line. There's a faction -- two factions in the White House battling in the west wing. There is the movement, Trump conservatives, the loyalists who have been there since day one that really believe and understand why Trump won. Then, there's the rinse Priebus faction. And he has brought in the

majority of his Republican national committee staff. Trump made him chief of staff to do one thing, make the trains run on time. Get his legislation through Congress. He has got the relationship with Paul Ryan and others. But this is always going to be the battle in this west wing.

The other faction which is led by Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, who by the way has become the spirit and the face of the movement, Kellyanne Conway has, this battle is going to go on for some time.

Priebus' job is to get the agenda of President Trump through Congress. The other counselors that President Trump has, Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, his daughter Ivanka, these are people that actually believe in that movement. They believe in why Trump won, they understand it. These other people --.

LEMON: But the loyalists are the ones who got him in trouble so far with the travel ban.

PRESS: Exactly.

LEMON: And the other issues they are acting too quickly were not doing their homework.

FREDERICKS: Bill, if it wasn't for the loyalists, there would be no President Trump. That's the bottom line. Reince Priebus.

(CROSSTALK)

FREDERICKS: For Rubio, Bush, it doesn't matter. Their political operative.

PRESS: Hey, John, let me slow you down. He is the president of the United States. OK? Now, it's different agenda. Not it's a matter of getting things done. And the way to get things done is not the same as campaigning. There is a big -- haven't they learned that? There's a big difference between campaigning and governing. And I think that the chaos of the last couple of weeks shows, that Bannon and Kellyanne Conway ought to step back and let somebody else run the show.

LEMON: Because of that infighting, and I hear, you know, they will say, well, things are great. There is no infighting. But because of that, that's why it's like a leaky faucet, this White House.

FREDERICKS: Look, Bill and don, I get what you are saying. But the reason why President Trump put Reince Priebus as chief of staff and not Corey Lewandowski or the other loyalists, is for one reason. Get his agenda through Congress. He made a calculating business decision and we will see what plays out. But look, the purpose --.

LEMON: He hasn't gotten anything through Congress yet, John. He has done executive orders.

FREDERICKS: But that's why he is there. But the influence of policy, the influence of policy is dominated by Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon.

LEMON: Hold on, Bill. Hold on. Quickly.

PRESS: Go ahead.

LEMON: So the people who have influence who has the president's ear, right? They -- the people who don't, and who are -- maybe they are more traditional in their politics, they feel that they cannot get their message to the president unless they do it through a news program. And so, that's where the leaks are coming from because the only way the president will hear them, is through watching this show, or watching Wolf Blitzer or watching Anderson Cooper. And so, that's where the leaks are coming from. What does that say about a White House that people who are there who helped him and who want to help him, can't even -- the president can't hear them. Doesn't even hear them.

PRESS: Well, I think it's a White House that is in total chaos and total confusion. But I want to pick up that point. I mean, let's say, OK, the true believers say we promised a ban on Muslims. We are going to damn it, we are going to deliver, we are going to deliver in the first week. OK. But then, you need somebody to say now, here is how you have to do it. You have to listen to them. You have to talk to the right people. You got to make sure that an executive order on extreme vetting is itself properly vetted. You don't just rush it out.

LEMON: Extremely vetted.

PRESS: Exactly. And they didn't do so. So what did they accomplish? All they accomplish is, they have got one hell of a mess on their hands. It's embarrassing. It's chaos. It's confusion. It's unnecessary. They should have listened to Reince Priebus. Here I am, defending Reince Priebus. Jesus.

[23:45:03] LEMON: Go ahead, John.

FREDERICKS: Well, you know what, Bill? That's a start. But look, here is the bottom line. This is a political revolution. You guys don't understand why Trump won. So it's amazing. Reince Priebus --

LEMON: No, I think we understand why he won. That's not fair.

PRESS: Yes, I think we do.

FREDERICKS: Look. Half of staff in the west wing that Donald Trump brought in, President Trump brought in, in order to get his legislation through Congress and get things done, have no earthly idea how he won, what the base is, what the movement is. They have no idea. Any of these people should be working.

LEMON: That's not fair.

FREDERICKS: Let me finish. Any of these people could be working for Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, it didn't matter. They are political operatives. They are hired guns. It is the movement people in Trump's influence -- Kushner, Kellyanne Conway, the face and the spirit of the movement, Steve Bannon. These are the people that have the influence --

LEMON: John, we are going in circles here.

So John, let me ask you this -- maybe those people -- maybe those people know how to not --

FREDERICKS: I'm giving the reality of what is going on. This is a political revolution.

LEMON: No. Will you listen to me? Maybe those people you are talking about know how to not have a travel ban be halted.

FREDERICKS: Well, the travel ban has nothing to do with it.

PRESS: Yes, it does.

FREDERICKS: We have one judge in Seattle that makes a decision --

LEMON: I have to take a break. That's all we're talking about, John. That's all we're talking about. That's the breaking news.

Stand by. Stand by. We have to take a break. We will talk on the other side of the break. Stand by. Stand by. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:27] LEMON: Back with me are John Frederickson and Bill Press. And we are talking about competing factions in the White House palace intrigue.

And so, you said that, you know, his core believers, the president's core believers are the ones who were there in Iran. I have to say, John, that you are wrong because none of the people who believed in him are in the White House right now. The only person if you can say is a true believer is Corey Lewandowski. He is not in the White House right now. Kellyanne Conway ran a super PAC for another candidate. She was not there. She was brought in maybe, you know, two or three months before the election, same thing with Steve Bannon after Manafort team and Manafort (INAUDIBLE) at the same time. So it is not those are not true believer who were at the White House with him.

FREDERICKS: Well, look. Kellyanne Conway although she was with the Ted Cruz pack has been there in spirit with us from beginning. She believes in the same thing and so does Steve Bannon. But the point of the matter is Jared Kushner has been there from day one, right. That's the linchpin. This is probably the most important, most significant counsellor that President Trump has. For those that believe in his movement, his son in law, Jared Kushner had being there.

The bottom line is a lot of these people, Don and Bill, that have come in. They have come in. They are Republican political operatives. They have come in to make the trains run on time. We will see how it plays out. If they are successful, they will stay. If they are not, they aren't. That's the bottom line.

LEMON: Last word, Bill, because I want us to move on.

PRESS: I would just like to go back and I wish we could repeat all the things that Kellyanne Conway said about Donald Trump.

LEMON: Well, you on the show, we are not to beat up on Kellyanne Conway because I mean, that happens.

PRESS: I know. Let's not pretend she was there.

LEMON: She was on. She ran for the super PAC. She said that Donald Trump built his business on the backs of poor people. That he should release his taxes. That he didn't have a strategy. That wasn't, and I'm paraphrasing, I think she said that he wasn't fit for office or something to that effect. So she was not on board with him. And the tape speaks for itself because we have all the tapes. OK.

PRESS: Yes.

LEMON: So let's move on now. Stunning news tonight, a federal judge, John, halting the president's travel ban nationwide. What's your reaction?

FREDERICKS: Look, there are judges that are going to make decisions in lower courts all the time. The bottom line is this president, President Trump has made a decision. This is not a travel ban for Muslims. It's not a Muslim ban. What he said is 90 days or 120 days, I'm going to do exactly what I said in the campaign for 18 months. I'm going to have extreme vetting. I'm going to make sure that people who come in this country are not potential terrorists.

And the other thing he said, Don and Bill, he said I'm not going to telegraph my moves ahead of time so that the enemy or the bad actors can take advantage of the loopholes. I'm going to be - I'm going surprising people and I'm going to do it without any notice. So he has done exactly what he said he was going to do. We will let this thing play out. One judge in Massachusetts said it is fine, the other one said it isn't. It's going to end up going to the supreme -- the president has the right to determine who comes into this country.

LEMON: I want you to listen to this. Hold on, Bill. I want to you listen to this when you say that, the president has the right. Here's the governor from Washington State.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JAY INSLEE (D), WASHINGTON STATE: So I only want to talk about aliens. Let me tell you what they call aliens. They are Microsoft engineers. They are Boeing Fields men. They are cancer researchers. They are students at the University of Washington who are helping build my state economically. And this order hurts my whole state's economy besides being unconstitutional. So I'm quite glad this federal court stood up and provided what this nation needs which are checks and balances. And we expect this president to follow them. He has a right to appeal, let him do so, but I think we know that the values of this country are going to be defended in the court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: And including the people who have been affected by this as a 4-month-old little girl, Iranian girl, who needed heart surgery. She has three grandparents from Oregon. So, you know, this is what's happening now, John before Bill. Before you respond.

FREDERICKS: Well, whenever there is a child involved, that's unfortunate situation. But the driving force behind this is not this 5-year-old child or this 3-year-old child.

[23:55:03] LEMON: Four months.

FREDERICKS: Or any child.

LEMON: Yes.

PRESS: Don.

LEMON: Go ahead. Go ahead Bill.

FREDERICKS: Let me. I haven't done --.

LEMON: We are running out of time.

FREDERICKS: The driving force behind this, Don, is the international globalist slave trade.

PRESS: Stop, stop, stop, stop!

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: Stop. The driving force behind this is Donald Trump who doesn't know the law, doesn't know the constitution, is acting illegally, unconstitutional in an un-American fashion and destroying the image of the United States around the world.

Look. If he wanted to do something like this, there was a way to do it. This is not the way to do it. I just want to read very, very quickly, Don, if I can. This is the "Wall Street Journal." The "Wall Street Journal" said this thing was so poorly explained and prepared for. It has produced confusion and fear at airports and an immediate legal defeat and political fury at home and abroad. This is a disaster. It was not thought through. It just shows I think that Donald Trump and his team are not ready for prime time.

LEMON: I got to go. Thank you. I appreciate it.

PRESS: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: And we didn't even get to talk about bowling green.

FREDERICKS: Thanks, Don.

PRESS: Right. LEMON: What a tragedy.

PRESS: Next time.

LEMON: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

We have a program note for you as soon as Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz go head to head in the future of healthcare in a live CNN debate moderated by Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. It is Tuesday night at 9:00.

That's it for us. Thank you so much for watching. Our breaking news coverage of this dramatic events is going to continue in just moment with Linda Kincaid and also Michael Holmes in the CNN center in Atlanta.

Enjoy your weekend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)