Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Judge Blocks Rule on Asylum Seekers; Poll on Caravan Threat; Border Wall Debate; Stocks Wipe out Gains; Ivanka Trump's E-mails; Challenging Pelosi for Speaker. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired November 20, 2018 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:22] JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS. I'm John King. Thank you for sharing your day with us.

Another court setback for the president. A judge says his new asylum policy runs afoul of laws already on the books.

Plus, Nancy Pelosi's critics say voters who helped the Democrats to their big wins this year want change at the top. But one of those critics got an earful when he tried to make that case at a town hall back home.

And Ivanka Trump gets busted using personal e-mail for government work, and her explanation sounds, well, Clintonian.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Certainly I think it's hypocritical. I think even Ivanka, if she was, you know, interviewed about it, she'd have to say that it was a mistake. You can't -- you can't do that in that -- in that position. There's -- there's irony, hypocrisy and I think this is one of the main reasons why the American people are so fed up with Washington. In general, the American people have a very low approval rating of Washington because they don't feel that these people are in touch with them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Back to that story in a moment.

But up first today, the Trump administration complaining about another legal hurdle to the president's signature agenda item, immigration. In a joint statement, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Secretary taking issue with a Monday ruling by a federal judge who says the president's new directive to deny asylum for immigrants who cross the southern border illegally is unconstitutional. The judge, John Tigar, issued a restraining order, effectively pausing the policy and said this in his ruling, whatever the scope of the president's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden. The legal setback comes at an interesting moment. Now that the

election is over, gone are the constant warnings from the president about that migrant caravan winding through Mexico. But Customs and Border Protection officials yesterday did suspend north-bound traffic at a key crossing point, adding control measures, funneling vehicles into fewer lanes. They said they did that because they had information some in the caravan planned to rush the border.

Today, the Pentagon says its mission on the southern border has no specific timeline. Troops have already spent weeks there laying down barbed wire, among other things, but now defense officials telling CNN the president expected, soon, to grant troops stationed there some new authority, that being to protect government personnel from migrants if -- if they engaged in violence.

With me this day to share their reporting and their insights, Eliana Johnson of "Politico," "Bloomberg's" Sahil Kapur, Olivier Knox with Sirius XM, and Seung Min Kim with "The Washington Post."

It's the judge in San Francisco. The administration has the right to appeal, which would go back to one of the president's favorite places, the Ninth Circuit. But this is another setback for the administration, which says, we will use executive power to impose our will to change immigration policy and a court saying, can't do that.

SEUNG MIN KIM, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": We have -- we have repeatedly seen this throughout the Trump administration, particularly as it pertains to immigration. We've seen that the courts have been this kind of bulwark against these executive actions, whether it's this latest asylum directive, the multiple iterations of the travel ban, the last version of which did actually get upheld by the Supreme Court, sanctuary cities, also DACA. And we knew, once the -- once the asylum directive was drafted that it would get challenged in the courts. Now the temporary restraining order is only through December 19th, so it's a question to see whether the administration kind of goes back and reworks their directive to see -- to see whether they could write it in a way that does get upheld by the courts, but clearly a setback for the administration here.

ELIANA JOHNSON, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, "POLITICO": Yes, and, you know, the reason that we've seen the president and the administration use executive orders is that nothing happened -- has happened in Congress on immigration. So the president has been frustrated with that. He wants to flex his muscles on immigration. And he's said, I want to draft executive orders and let them sue me. And that's precisely what's happened essentially.

At -- but right now we're getting mixed signals on what the administration's strategy is going to be. We have had the president tell troops on the border he's giving them more authority to do what they want. But my "Politico" colleague, Wesley Morgan, also reported yesterday that the Pentagon is going to start pulling troops away from the southern border. And we've also seen a shift in the president's focus away from, you know, saber rattling, immigration rhetoric, and more towards bipartisanship. So I don't think it's at all clear what strategy the immigration -- or the administration will pursue legally going forward here.

SAHIL KAPUR, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "BLOOMBERG": But part of all of this, it's important to remember, that there's a mismatch between the mandate coming from Congress and the resources that the administration has to carry out that mandate. So President Obama looked and said, I am required by law to deport all 11 million people here illegally, but DHS only has the authority to deport about 400,000. He decided I'm going to protect maybe four million people from that deportation. The courts shot him down.

[12:05:01] Now, President Trump looks and says, there's a massive backlog. The immigration courts are jammed up, so I'll create a new category. Now, what the courts are saying is that there are only two categories by which the, you know, the government can exclude people on asylum. One is, you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution to get in, and you have to make sure the person is not a danger to the U.S. The judge is saying that the administration is creating a third category by saying you have to enter in a certain place.

Now, the AG has discretion at the end of the day in spite of all the categories, which is what the DHS argument is.

KING: Right. And to Eliana's point about, where's the president going to go on this. During the campaign it was the invaders, they're coming. There are unknown Middle Eastern people there. They're bad guys. This is a threat. We have to do something about it.

Does he change his tone after the election is one interesting thing, or does he now take out, because he gets mad at this judge, start yelling at Congress, where's my border wall funding?

I just want to put -- Monmouth asked the question about the caravan. The president talked about it repeatedly. Some Republicans put it in their campaign ads late in the campaign. Do you think the migrant caravan poses a major threat, minor threat, or no real threat to the United States? Major threat, three in 10 Americans, minor threat, 24 percent, no real threat, four in 10. So there's a divide, I guess, essentially on -- I'm guessing that breaks down on pretty partisan lines.

OLIVIER KNOX, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, SIRIUS XM: If you remember that sort of contentious November 7th press conference, there were a lot of different variations, a lot of different and answers to your questions about which direction the president goes in. Is he conciliatory? Does he threaten? Does he -- does he bluster? Does he get angry? Does he say, I don't want to talk about a shutdown right now? Does he say, I'd be perfectly happy to have a shutdown?

This is something that's been echoing across the president's public appearances since the election. And I don't think we have a real answer. But I would suggest that the last, I don't know, three years of people saying, ah-hah, Donald Trump will now pivot and change his ways might be instructive here. I don't -- I don't -- I don't think that they're going to -- they're going to blow away, they're going to shy away from these fights. I think quite the contrary. I think they're going to be -- they're going to be seeking him out. KIM: And remember to that, the campaign season isn't quite over yet.

The president does have campaigns coming up in Mississippi for the run-off election there. I would not be surprised if this resurfaces as a theme in those rallies.

KING: Without --

KAPUR: As a pure electoral strategy. I mean the talk of the caravan arguably helped Republicans in deep red areas, in states like Missouri and Indiana and North Dakota. The exit polls found that Republicans who cited -- or, sorry, voters overall who cited immigration as their top issue voted for Republicans by 52 points. That's an enormous margin.

KING: Enormous margin where it helps. And it does help in red areas. You could talk to soon to be former Congressman Carlos Curbelo of southern Florida and he would tell you he got hurt in the -- he got hurt --

JOHNSON: He didn't want the embrace.

KING: In his district. He did not want the embrace.

But to your point about the, you know, don't expect the president to change. Maybe for a day or two, but the president -- this -- on this issue in particular, immigration and trade, the president's fairly consistent about what he wants to do.

He tweeted this out yesterday. And the border wall funding is a big issue. Congress has to pass a year-end spending bill. The president tweets out, the fake news is showing old footage of people climbing over our ocean area fence. This is what it really looks like. No climbers anymore under our administration.

Now, you would expect criticism from the left on that. But how about this from Ann Coulter, who is -- thinks the president has dropped the ball here. Today's border wall construction update, miles completed yesterday, zero. Miles completed since inauguration, zero. Next update tomorrow.

So on the -- he -- on the right there's a lot of disappointment that, you know, the president hasn't fought harder for this money and a lot of disappointment that when the president says we're building the wall, they know that's simply not true.

JOHNSON: Yes. I mean it's not just on the right. The president himself is frustrated that he has not gotten the funding for a border wall. He's acutely aware of it. And I would refer back to the last fight for funding over the border wall where the president agreed to an omnibus spending bill that greatly increased domestic spending, rare under a Republican president who has talked the way he has. And then saw the criticism on Fox News he -- that was in public and said he regretted signing that spending bill. And I wonder the extent to which that experience will weigh in his mind as he approaches another -- signing another government spending bill and thinks he doesn't want to make the same mistake again. KAPUR: And this is his last shot. Democrats are going to take control

of the House in January and they're going to impose a very different set of demands than Republicans have so far in what he's going to get for his border wall and what he has to give up for it.

The thing that President Trump has wanted in all of these deals is cuts to legal immigration, cuts to family sponsorship and things like that. Democrats are not going to back down on that. They will give him his wall for some sort of a DACA deal, as far as my reporting suggests, but not the legal immigration cuts. And that's only going to get worse for the president.

KING: That's an interesting couple of weeks ahead.

A quick break here because we want to bring you the latest on a developing story we've been following all morning. Wall Street taking another beating. The Dow falling nearly 600 points a little while ago before recovering somewhat. You see the numbers there, down nearly 400.

CNN business correspondent Alison Kosik with us from the stock exchange.

Hey, Alison, this is -- gone are the entire gains for the year. What's driving this?

ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, first of all, you have to really think about that, all of the gains that the Dow, the Nasdaq and the S&P 500 made this year are wiped out. So that in itself, John, is undercutting any confidence here that's in the market.

Secondly, we've got tech shares really leading the charge and dragging down the broader market. The irony here is that it was those tech shares that powered the market higher over the past few years, sending the indices to their record highs. So yesterday's darlings are today's dogs.

[12:10:06] And, interestingly enough, investors can't run fast enough away from these tech shares because we're hearing about the possibility of regulation entering the picture. A crackdown on these companies that could really change the way they do business and raise costs for these businesses as well.

I haven't even mentioned what else is simmering in the background, trade tensions. Trade talks broke down over the weekend between China and the U.S. And that is just before President Xi of China and President Trump are expected to meet at the G-20. So things are not looking good as far as finding that resolution for trade.

And then, of course, we've got the Fed. The Fed looking to continue to tighten, to raise interest rates. And, John, what that does is slow down the economy. The timing of that, not good say investors because we are seeing the global economy slow down and the worry is we could see the U.S. economy slow down as well.

John.

KING: Alison Kosik for us on the floor. A volatile day. Hang in there.

Up next for us here, Ivanka Trump has her own private e-mail problem. Her explanation may sound strangely familiar.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:13] KING: Now to a case of the Trump family getting a taste of its own medicine. The president's daughter and senior adviser under fire today after it was revealed she used a private e-mail account for a number of months as she transitioned into her White House role back in 2017, that Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, sometimes used private e-mail for government business was first reported last year, but "The Washington Post" today has new details on the scope, reporting that White House officials were alarmed at the practice and asked Ivanka Trump's personal attorney to review the e-mails and determined which are covered by federal records laws. "The Post" says that review found hundreds of e-mails about her White House schedule and its impact on her family commitments and that she used personal e- mail fewer than 100 times to discuss official business with administration officials.

Now, a source close to the president's daughter telling CNN's Poppy Harlow, quote, this is a 14 month old story. There was nothing there then. There is nothing there now. There was no intent to avoid governments servers. All of it has been preserved. Explaining that if Ivanka Trump sent an e-mail from her personal e-mail to a government employee, then it hits the government server.

Go back in time. Use the Internet. That sounds a lot like what Hillary Clinton said when her use of private e-mails surfaced. Remember Hillary Clinton's explanation. It didn't really sit well with Ivanka's father.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thirty-three thousand missing e-mails. Think of it, 33,000.

She should never been allowed to run for the presidency based on what she did with e-mails.

She doesn't even remember whether or not she was instructed on how to use e-mails. Were you instructed on how to use -- I can't remember.

Hillary Clinton can't keep her e-mail safe and, you know what, folks, she sure has hell can't keep our country safe.

She deleted the e-mails. She has to go to jail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Um, there's -- there are important distinctions. Ivanka Trump did not have a personal server. Hillary Clinton had a personal server set up in her home. But she's also saying that she wasn't fully aware of the rules. Give me a break. Her name is Trump. She lived in that campaign.

JOHNSON: Yes. The are similarities and there are differences. The similarities, I think, are the arrogance and the sense that the rules apply to you but they don't apply to me because I'm above -- I glide above them. The differences, I think, are that Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state of the United States handling classified information and was running for president. Ivanka Trump has basically a (INAUDIBLE) in the White House. And so I think Democrats absolutely will investigate them. And I think it will prove a less rich target than the Hillary Clinton e-mails did for Republicans because of the importance of her position and the importance of the position she was running for.

KING: I agree on the important distinctions, but you're -- your dad ran on drain the swamp. This was one of his signature issues. The Democrats complained all along it was over hyped and over played. Of all the things that you would think you would be extra careful about joining the new Trump administration, wouldn't e-mails get pretty high on that list?

KNOX: But, John, she's -- she's not alone in this administration, right? This is -- there is a parade of senior officials in this administration who have been caught using private e-mail for official business. The former chief of staff, Reince Priebus. The former senior adviser, Steve Bannon. And several others. So I think what's really striking is, it's an overall climate. It's not just Ivanka doing this. There's this permissive attitude inside this White House after that campaign. And it's pretty remarkable.

KAPUR: Really struck by the carelessness of that. When you win a presidential election after making it largely a referendum on e-mail management and you do this, it's a striking thing.

I what to bring up one thing that Ivanka Trump's lawyers, you know, argued to distinguish the issue that she's had with Hillary Clinton, she said, Ivanka did not create a private server in her house office. I don't know why that's relevant, whether the server's in a basement in Chappaqua or it's in a corporate office somewhere with the IJKfamily.com domain, I don't see why that's relevant. The point is that it was not a government server. It could not be secured by people in the government to make sure bad people were not getting their hands on that information. This seems like a distinction without a difference here.

KIM: And going back to Eliana's point about how House Democrats will certainly investigate this. That's why this revelation comes at an especially precarious time for the administration --

JOHNSON: I agree.

KIM: Because now House Democrats have won back the majority. They get investigative power. They get subpoenas. The House Oversight Committee has already been looking into this issue in the minority, but now they become impotently more powerful with the gavel. They've already indicated this morning that this is going to be added to the list of things that they're looking into. And Senator Blumenthal, on CNN this morning, indicated that not only is the private e-mail at issue here, but it's the broader mix of kind -- the Trump family's personal interests and financial interests with government interest, which has been a very major focal point of Democrats for some time.

KING: Right. And --

[12:20:13] JOHNSON: And in addition to the e-mail, Ivanka Trump has continued to profit from the Trump Organization, the Trump Hotel, her own personal brand, while in office. So I think Seung Min is exactly right, that the e-mail is one among many things that Democrats will be investigating related to Ivanka Trump. And I think that does bear more resemblance to Hillary Clinton profiting off the Clinton Foundation and some of the things that enraged Republicans going into that 2016 election.

KING: Right. And to that point, so they, you know, try to call Ivanka Trump up to a House -- at least on the House side, to an Oversight Committee hearing. We'll see if she wants to go or not or is willing to go or not. They'll ask her questions. Once they -- once they get her in the chair, if they get her in the chair, they'll start asking her questions like that. In "The Washington Post" today, some great reporting about how Trump properties made $4.2 million during the last campaign. At least 117 candidates and committees, all Republicans, go figure, spent money at Trump properties in the lead up to the midterm. So, again, this will be -- you know, the president will say, well, my family owns a hotel business. That's where you have receptions. Whoop dido (ph). Democrats will say, come on, why are you steering the money here.

To the Ivanka issue, for anyone watching at home who says there goes the media beating up on the Trumps again, listen here, two former Trump administration officials saying, really bad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It appears hypocritical and it looks bad for sure.

MARC SHORT, FORMER DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS: I think, look, anyone who was part of the 2016 campaign would be familiar with the rules.

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: There's irony, hypocrisy and I think this is one of the main reasons why the American people are so fed up with Washington in general.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: What do you -- what do you call that, jury of her friends, is that fair?

KAPUR: I mean a fair criticism of the Clintons was that they always thought they were above the rules, as Seung Min and Eliana were talking about. Now, you know, the Trumps are arguably taking this to another level. They haven't released -- the president has not released his tax returns. The first president since the 1970s not to do that. First major party candidate since the 1970s not to do that. He has not divested himself from his businesses while he's making foreign policy decisions where that sprawling business empire exists.

You know, Jimmy Carter had a peanut farm and went to great lengths to divest himself from that peanut farm so nobody would think he had nefarious peanut biases in making his decisions. This is a sprawling real estate empire. So it's just a very different thing. And of course people are going to have questions as to whether the decisions being made are some -- on some level affected by that.

KING: We live in a different world in just a few weeks, January.

Up next for us, a small group of Democrats make their gamble and take a public vow against Nancy Pelosi.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:27:19] KING: Welcome back.

Nancy Pelosi getting her first official on the record shot across the bow from 16 members of her own Democratic family. Sixteen Democrats finally and officially revealing their names, signing onto a letter, demanding Pelosi step aside in her run to be the next House speaker. Quoting from the letter, quote, we are thankful to Leader Pelosi for her years of service to our country and to our caucus. However, we also recognize that in this recent election, Democrats ran on and won on a message of change. We promised to change the status quo and we intend to deliver on that promise. Now, signing on to this type of letter comes with some risks. Here's one congressman, Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, hearing from constituents last night after he signed up for the never Nancy club.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't want to do what the Republicans did with their Tea Party people and splitting our party. And I deeply am concerned that that's what your -- you and your buddies are doing in the way you're challenging Pelosi.

REP. SETH MOULTON (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The majority of Americans want this change. The majority of the Democrats want this change.

CROWD: No!

MOULTON: Yes, we do. We want -- this is a time --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: I give him credit for holding town halls. A lot of members don't do that these days. So let's give him credit there. This is an interesting one for Seth Moulton, among the Democrats, who have stepped out. The issue is, you've got to sell it at home, too. KIM: Yes. And, again, if you're a betting person, it's hard to bet

against Nancy Pelosi when it involves her counting the votes within her caucus. She is the best voter counter on The Hill. She knows intimately what her members want, whether it's on policy or in leadership races like this.

But what the 16 people who have signed onto that anti-Pelosi letter, and that doesn't even count the people who have publically pledged, you know, without a doubt that they would vote against her on the floor. People like Abigail Spanberger and Conor Lamb, that gives her a perilously close margin, if not a difficult to overcome margin. And I think it will be really interesting to see what she promises in terms of committee assignments, you know, rules in crafting legislation that she could get -- she could do to get those votes across the finish line.

KING: And to that point, that's why it is -- for these -- those who have signed on, if she wins, I mean, she talks about being a transitional leader, I'll move on at some point. Guess what, she's doing to do everything in her power to make sure it's not them. You know when -- if and when there is a transition, it's not them.

JOHNSON: Yes, it -- it's a big risk for some younger members of the Democratic caucus who have profiles. Seth Moulton has been talked about as a potential presidential candidate. Abby Spanberger, one of the most high-profile Congresswomen-elect who just won. And this is something that could potentially hurt them until Pelosi chooses to lay down the gavel, if she does win.

[12:30:01] So this is a risky gambit for them.