Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

President Trump Defends Immigration And Travel Orders; Supreme Court Justice Nominee Announcement; Lawsuit Filed Against Travel Ban; Diplomats Oppose Travel Ban; Conway Defends Ban; Bannon to Attend National Security Council Meetings. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 30, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Right now, we're keeping an eye on two events during this hour. The first is over at the White House. The daily White House press briefing. You're looking at live pictures coming in. The left part of your screen.

The White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, will be answering reporters' questions about the temporary travel ban involving seven Muslim majority countries and the indefinite ban on the United States taking in Syrian refugees.

We're also watching for an announcement from the Council on American Islamic Relations, CAIR, as it's called, which is planning to file a lawsuit to stop President Trump's immigration orders. We're going to bring you both of those events once they happen.

This morning during a meeting with small business leaders, President Trump gave his impression of the implementation of the immigration orders so far.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We had -- actually had a very good day yesterday, in terms of homeland security. And some day we had to make the move and we decided to make the move.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The White House also changing the conversation by moving up the announcement of the president's Supreme Court nominee.

Today, the president tweeted, "I have made my decision on who I will nominate for the United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 p.m." That would be 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

Originally, President Trump said the pick would be revealed on Thursday. He moved it up two days.

Let's get some more now on the fall-out from those executive orders on immigration and travel to the United States. Over at the White House, CNN's Jeff Zeleny, our Senior White House Correspondent, is standing by. And our Phil Mattingly is up on Capitol Hill.

Jeff, we're going to hear shortly from the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer. Lots of questions coming up. We're looking at live pictures from the briefing room right now. Do we know largely what his defense will be, the reaction to all those protests at airports around the country?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, certainly so many questions for press secretary Sean Spicer.

But the mood and the posture of this White House is exactly what you heard the president saying this morning. They're not apologizing for the roll-out. They're not apologizing for the substance.

Even amid deep and serious questions across Washington, if other representatives were informed of this order. If the Department of Homeland Security was informed, if the joint chiefs were informed.

And, Wolf, our reporting is suggesting that they simply were not. This was a very closely held White House document here. So, Sean Spicer is going to be asked many questions here.

But the White House is not apologizing. Is moving forward with this, saying that it's a review that's absolutely unnecessary. And they're simply not addressing these protests in the street here.

But, Wolf, that is something that we are definitely keeping an eye on. And it cannot be something the president enjoys seeing during his first week of office.

BLITZER: I'm sure you're right. Stand by.

Phil, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, they've been very critical of the order.

So, what can they do, at this point, if anything? Could they actually block the actions?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They certainly have the power on Capitol Hill to do it.

What they don't have, according to really aides in both parties, Wolf, is kind of the willingness to do just that.

This is a Republican controlled Congress. House and Senate. And while certainly they've been frustrated over the course of the weekend, they're more, kind of, broadly supportive of the idea of what the White House ended up doing.

Now, Democrats, Wolf, are going to try up -- try and throw up roadblocks, kind of, every step of the way. They are going to try and get a floor vote tonight on a bill to rescind the executive order. Very unlikely, almost impossible that will move forward.

And they're also going to attack President Trump's nominees, both cabinet officials and his likely Supreme Court nominee coming tomorrow night, on this issue specifically, trying to pin them down on it.

Republicans, though, really likely to go along with the White House. But, Wolf, I think you made a very crucial point. There's a lot of frustration about how this rolled out. A lot of frustration that leaders, relevant committees, both staff and members were simply not in the loop on this.

One of the reasons why, given this morning by White House advisors, Wolf, was because they needed to move quickly and not loop these people in for national security reasons.

I want to quickly read an e-mail I got unsolicited from a well-placed Republican source when that was said. It said, quote, "That's an absurd half-baked excuse and it clearly shows these guys are just winging it."

So, while they might not take any action to stop the executive order, there is clearly a lot of frustration on the Republican side, Wolf. And that could have wide-ranging repercussions going forward on Capitol Hill.

BLITZER: Stand by. I want to get back to Jeff for a moment.

Jeff, a lot of discussion of the role of Steve Bannon. He's the chief White House strategist, special counsellor to the president. We know he also has a new very detailed role on the national security council. Clearly, he has a lot of influence.

ZELENY: Wolf, he has more influence than virtually anyone else inside the White House, inside this west wing. And this news came out over the weekend, in a presidential memorandum on Saturday, that the president was, sort of, clarifying who was going to be on the Principals Committee of the National Security Council.

[13:05:08] And Steven Bannon, his chief strategist, who, of course, worked with him the last six months or so on the campaign, is a member of that Principals Committee.

Now, Wolf, a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill and beyond are raising questions about this, particularly because two people were taken off the so-called Principals Committee. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of National Intelligence.

So, this is something that is going to be one more controversy, if you will, that is happening here at the White House.

But Steven Bannon, without a question, one of the most influential important voices. Six months ago, he was leading the Breitbart News conservative Web site. Now, he is at the heart of every decision that is being made here inside the White House -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Jeff Zeleny, thanks very much. Phil Mattingly up on Capitol Hill, thanks to you as well.

President Trump is brushing off the criticism of his executive orders. And he blames the chaos, the confusion, in part, on the Senate's top Democrat. This is what he said about Senator Chuck Schumer's emotional criticism of the executive orders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I noticed Chuck Schumer yesterday with fake tears. I'm going to ask him who is his acting coach because I know him very well. I don't see him as a crier. If he is, he's a different man. There's about a 5 percent chance that it was real, but I think they were fake tears.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, let's discuss that and more. Our Justice Correspondent Pamela Brown is with us, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, and our Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

What do you make, Gloria, that the strong statement, five percent chance those tears were real, on the part of the Democratic leader in the Senate. He did get emotional. We all saw that.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: He did and I don't know how you can make that charge. It's kind of ridiculous, and we should sort of move on from it. Chuck Schumer did what he did, and I think it was heart felt.

And, you know, the president also said that the confusion was not only because of Chuck Schumer and the misinformation coming out of the Democrats and the fake tears, but it was also because Delta Airlines had an outage.

And let me just point this out that the executive order was Friday night. Delta Airlines' outage was Sunday night. So, the two things have nothing to do with each other. There was a huge public outcry which, clearly, the president didn't want to address as either relevant or real in his little press appearance today.

BLITZER: Yes, Delta has had a computer outage. That was Sunday night. And a lot of those problems were already well, well --

BORGER: Exactly.

BLITZER: -- underway.

Jonathan, you've taken a look at the law very closely on this. CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations is about to issue a law suit. There have been judge's rulings already, federal judges' rulings in New York, Boston, Washington state. How strong of a legal case does the president have right now?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: I think he has a very strong case. I think people are kidding themselves when they call this a Muslim ban. It's one thing to deal with that as a rhetorical issue. Another to deal with it as a legal issue.

I don't see how a federal judge could view this as a Muslim ban. It's technically not a Muslim ban because most Muslim countries are not covered.

But, more importantly, you have to keep in mind what you are asking a judge to do. You're asking a judge to, affectively, set aside a national security determination by the president. And so, she's going to ask, what's my basis for doing that? How am I to tell the president this isn't valid when I don't have that information?

Historically, the courts have given great deference. The president's authority at our borders said it's (INAUDIBLE.)

And so, the reason I say this -- I don't like this executive order. I think it's a mistake. But people are talking about something that's not what's going to be the thing under review in court.

That judge has a very specific task to do. And she's not going to be looking at this as a Muslim ban. And she's not going to substitute her judgment for the president.

There may still be grounds, but he has the advantage, historically.

BLITZER: You know, Pamela, there's been a lot of confusion, chaos, in the way the orders were implemented, excuse me, over the weekend.

Rob Portman told CNN, this was an extreme vetting program that wasn't properly vetted. What happened?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE AND SUPREME COURT CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're being told by our sources that this was so tightly held that those in charge of the implementation of this executive order, including the new Homeland Security secretary, were not involved with this or even briefed on the final details until Friday, until the president was signing this executive order.

And then, at that point, some of these officials, within CBP who were in charge of enforcing it, scrambled to figure out, first of all, what the executive order meant. How it would impact those newly banned passengers on U.S.-bound planes on the way to the U.S. How it would affect green cardholders in those seven countries.

[13:10:01] And there was a lot of confusion over the weekend without very much clarity, frankly. And I just spoke to the former chief of the CBP who I believe will be on your show later. And he said --

BLITZER: That's Customs and Border Protection.

BROWN: Yes, Customs and Border Protection. And he said he said he left office January 20th. No one ever said anything to him. His staff did meet with the transition team. It was never mentioned.

He said, for something like this, for an executive order like this, at this scale, it would take weeks, normally, of organizing, letting boots on the ground, prepare it and so forth.

BLITZER: All right. I want to go to the CAIR news conference right now. The Council on American Islamic Relations. They're announcing details on their lawsuit. NIHAD AWAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAIR (live): First, let me make a few

remarks on an incident that happened yesterday in Quebec, Canada. We have been receiving a lot of requests, worries from the community in the U.S. and in Canada. We offer our thoughts and prayers to those that were killed and those who were injured in Quebec mosque.

And also, we are monitoring the situation surrounding the recent fire at the Islamic center of Victoria and Texas. We do not know what were the motives that caused the mosque to be destroyed.

As you can see, the Muslim community is a little bit anxious about the recent developments. Not only since Donald Trump became the president. Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, our committee has been very concerned.

And our community is not alone to be concerned about his harmful rhetoric and now his dangerous policies. Millions of Americans are very, very concerned about the direction in which he is taking our country.

Millions of people who love America. Individuals and countries are concerned and worried what this president is doing. Unconventional, we understand. Creative, maybe. But also, dangerously making policies and statements that believe -- we believe undermine our national security, our values, and our standing in the world.

But also, his policies are threatening who we are as Americans. We know that this country was founded by immigrants. The founding fathers fled religious persecution from Europe and other countries.

So, this country was built on the shoulders of African-Americans who were brought against their will, but also so many immigrants who sought freedom and freedom of expression and freedom of religion which is in the first amendment of our Constitution. To me --

BLITZER: We're going to continue to monitor this briefing by the executive director of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations. We'll update you on the specifics of the lawsuit. Stand by for that.

You know, it's not just CAIR. A lot of people are criticizing, Gloria, the actions taken by President Trump. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, both Republicans, they issued a statement jointly saying this executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. This is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.

You're hearing that a lot --

BORGER: Well --

BLITZER: -- from those involved, especially in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BORGER: -- and you're hearing it -- and, you know, this coming from John McCain who was not known as a dove on Capitol Hill. And you're hearing it from Democrats as well as Republicans.

The truth of the matter is, though, Wolf, that even though the Democrats are going to try and get a bill on the floor tonight that would rescind the executive order, which probably won't be brought up anyway because the Republicans have control of the floor, there is very little they can do about this right now other than through lawsuits. But there is very little that Congress can do about it. But you're going to hear this again and again.

And this goes to the point of consultation. If the president and his staff had reached out to people, not only within their own administration like the Department of Homeland Security, as Pamela points out. But also Republicans, if they're only talking to Republicans, with expertise on these matters before this order was issued. Perhaps there wouldn't have been the chaos and the confusion that there was at airports, about the question of green cards.

And also, the chaos and confusion that there was on Capitol Hill. You can't oppose it, and you can support it, but not to know what is in it --

BLITZER: All right.

BORGER: -- is a different matter entirely.

[13:15:00] BLITZER: President Trump said he didn't want to give, quote, "bad dudes" advanced word to rush into the United States before it was all about to be implemented.

Everybody, stand by. We have a lot more coming up, including the Iraqi parliament itself now recommending that its government act reciprocally with the United States when it comes to the travel ban. We're going live to Baghdad for details.

And take a look at this. Live pictures coming from inside the White House right now. The press secretary, Sean Spicer, he's (INAUDIBLE) to come out fairly soon, take reporters' questions, and there will be plenty of them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Remember, we're standing by. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, fairly soon will step up to the microphone there in the Briefing Room and answer reporters' questions. We'll have live coverage of that coming up.

[13:20:05] In the meantime, CNN has obtained a draft of an internal memo from State Department diplomats that criticizes President Trump's executive order temporarily banning millions of people from seven Muslim majority nations, bans them from coming to the United States. The draft says that the ban will sour relations with U.S. allies in the war on terror and, quote, "will have little practical impact improving public safety."

Let's bring in Tony Blinken. He's CNN's new global affairs analyst, the former deputy secretary of state under President Obama.

Tony, thanks very much for joining us and welcome to CNN.

TONY BLINKEN, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Good to be here. Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Good to have you here.

So, first of all, on the diplomat - these are mostly clear State Department diplomats.

BLINKEN: That's right.

BLITZER: Foreign service officers. There's been a longstanding tradition when they disagree with the policies of the administration -

BLINKEN: That's right.

BLITZER: They have a way to express that disagreement. Is this appropriate?

BLINKEN: It is. We've had a longstanding descent channel in the State Department. It's been used under every administration.

BLITZER: Was it used against the Obama administration?

BLINKEN: It was used - absolutely.

BLITZER: On what issue, if you remember?

BLINKEN: There were a number of issues that came up over the course of the administration where people used that channel. So it's entirely appropriate. But I think there's a - a new level of concern, consternation, particularly because on this issue, the immigration executive order, apparently the State Department played no role. Its advise was not sought. Its expertise was not engaged. And a lot of the repercussions that we should be concerned about State could have warned about had it been part of the process.

BLITZER: And when the president, President Trump says, you know, we had to keep it small because we didn't want, quote, "bad dudes" to get advanced word. There would have been leaks. They could have then rushed into the United States and done harm to the American people. You heard that explanation, why it was so limited in terms of who was involved and how quickly it was implemented.

BLINKEN: Well, I can tell you this, Wolf, for someone who was part of the team when President Obama brought Osama bin Laden to justice, we had meeting after meeting for months on end with all of the relevant cabinet officials, subcabinet officials who need to be part of that decision. That didn't get out. And similarly, when we've done - when we've looked at refugee immigration issues in the past, there's been a very deliberate process, and everyone's been in on the decision.

BLITZER: The - everyone - when you - was - was - a lot of people were in on that decision. BLINKEN: Yes.

BLITZER: Do you believe what the president has now done, this temporary ban on people coming from these seven predominantly Muslim countries, an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees coming to the United States is going to do any negative damage, harmful damage to U.S. national security?

BLINKEN: I do. But, look, it's understandable, the president is right to be focused on job number one for a president. That's the security of the American people. There's no argument about that. But he is taking a sledgehammer to the wrong problem. The number of Americans killed by citizens from the seven affected countries since 1975, zero. We have put in place a very effective vetting system for immigrants, for refugees. Refugees, by the way, the least likely group that a terrorist would try to infiltrate to come into the country. It takes on average two years to get into the United States as a refugee. Immigrants as a class commit fewer crimes than native born Americans.

So this is the wrong problem. Unfortunately, what this is going to do is exacerbate the problem that does exist. Right now the Islamic State, ISIL, is on its heels. This is going to be a recruiting bonanza for ISIL. It plays right into their story that we're engaged in a war against the Muslim world.

BLITZER: The argument that you hear from Trump advisors is that maybe that's true. There were no terrorist incidents from those seven predominantly Muslim countries in the United States. But look what's going on in Europe right now, in France or Belgium or Germany. The United States is taking preemptive steps right now to prevent that kind of situation from developing here in the United States.

BLINKEN: Look, it's a totally different situation. What you see in Europe is - are people showing up literally in the countries in question without any kind of screening, without any kind of vetting and looking for asylum. In the United States, anyone who gets here as a refugee has to go through an extraordinarily laborious process. First, usually through the United Nations, and then through our own system. And as I said, on average, it takes two years. There is no comparison.

Now, the Obama administration had some concerns about these seven countries, but what we did was not a ban. With Congress, we worked very carefully and we -

BLITZER: Well, let's talk about that because there's been - a lot of the Trump people have been making the point that President Trump is simply following an example of what President Obama did in 2011 when there was a temporary, you know, we call it a ban, whatever you want to call it, of Iraqi refugees coming to the United States. Listen to Kellyanne Conway, the counsellor to the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, WHITE HOUSE COUNSELOR: President Obama certainly had a ban on the Iraqi refugee program for six months, which is double the time that's contemplated under President Trump's executive order. His is 90 days, or three months. President Obama had it for six months, suspending the Iraqi - banning the Iraqi refugee program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:25:05] BLITZER: I believe that - in 2011 you were still at the White House -

BLINKEN: That's right.

BLITZER: Working for - as a top national security advisor to Vice President Biden. Then you went over to the State Department in the second term. Is she right when she says that President Obama certainly had a ban on the Iraqi refugee program for six months?

BLINKEN: No, she's not. There was -

BLITZER: Explain what happened because there was an incident in Kentucky. Two Iraqi refugees who did get through were then discovered. They were in the United States -

BLINKEN: That's right.

BLITZER: To have planted bombs, killing American soldiers in Iraq. They got through, and at that point the president said there's going to be new restrictions on Iraqi refugees coming to the United States.

BLINKEN: So, Wolf, you're exactly right. Two people had come in - Iraqis had come in through the program, in Kentucky, were picked up because we had concerns that they might, in fact, be engaged somehow or connected somehow to terrorism out of a couple of hundred thousand who come in. There was never a ban.

The president ordered a review. Throughout the review process, which did take six months, brought in all of the relevant cabinet agencies and officials. A dozen meetings of the deputy's committee, the principle's committee, the major decision making bodies in the administration. Throughout that entire time, Iraqis continued to come into the United States as refugees. There was never a ban. And the review process led to some added measures taken to make sure that we had the most - the toughest most stringent security possible.

BLITZER: Because, you know, if you read that "Washington Post" fact check on the whole thing, I'll just read to you a couple sentences from an article contemporaneously back in 2011 that "The Economist" magazine reported. "Immigration authorities soon began rechecking all Iraqi refugees in America, reportedly comparing fingerprints and other records with military and intelligence documents in dusty archives. About 1,000 soon to be immigrants in Iraq were told that they would not be allowed to board flights already booked. Some were removed from planes. Thousands more Iraqi applicants had to restart the immigration process because their security clearances expired when the program stalled. Men must now pass five separate checks, women four, and children three." Is all that accurate?

BLINKEN: Yes, that sounds accurate. It's based on my recollection. But, again, very important, there was no ban. We didn't stop the process. We slowed it down. We reviewed it. We made sure we had the toughest measures in place. And that was all done with every responsible official, the State Department, the Defense Department, the intelligence community. All of these agencies at the table making sure that we did it right and that all these different equities were taken into account.

BLITZER: Those tougher restrictions, did they last for six months?

BLINKEN: The tougher restrictions were put in place -

BLITZER: Within six months?

BLINKEN: Within six months and they -

BLITZER: So during those six months, it was more difficult for Iraqis to come to the United States?

BLINKEN: It was more difficult. Things slowed down. But they didn't stop. And we wanted to make sure we had the best possible system in place. And we do.

But, again, it's really important for people to understand that if you're coming here as a refugee from Iraq, from Syria, from anywhere else, on balance it's two years and sometimes even more to get into the United States. And you go through the most stringent verification and security possible.

BLITZER: When the Trump administration now says the seven countries listed as - there will be a temporary ban, those individual - people from those countries coming to the United States, they also say those were the seven countries listed as hotbed of potential terrorist attacks by the Obama administration. That's how they came up with those seven countries. Is that true?

BLINKEN: Yes. So what happened with those seven countries, working with Congress, closely with Congress is, because of security concerns from those countries, they were removed from the so-called visa waiver program. That means that if you're - if you're part of that program, you can come to the United States without a visa, and without the checks that go along with getting a visa. We, along with Congress, reinstituted the visa requirement, but we didn't stop people from coming from those countries.

BLITZER: I quickly want to get your thoughts on this sort of restructuring of the National Security Council, the principles, the top national security advisors, at least removing formally, although they can participate, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the director of National Intelligence. Steve Bannon, a top strategist in the White House, he's now going to be a permanent representative of the National Security Council. I assume you participated. You were a member of that National -

BLINKEN: That's right.

BLITZER: You - were you one of the principles? BLINKEN: I was at one point. As deputy secretary of state, I was

written into the order as someone who participated in all the meetings.

BLITZER: Did - was David Axelrod, who was a strategist during the first term, did he participate in those meetings? Because the administration seems to suggest that he did.

BLINKEN: It's wrong. I mean, what happened at the beginning of the Obama administration is that certain other officials, including David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, at the very beginning of the -

BLITZER: Robert Gibbs was the press secretary?

BLINKEN: Was press secretary.

BLITZER: David Axelrod was the strategist --

BLINKEN: They were not - they were not members of the National Security Council.

BLITZER: But did they participate from time to time?

BLINKEN: They, back then, the first few months of the administration, they back benched.

BLITZER: What does that mean, they back benched?

BLINKEN: Which means - that means that you've got a table in the situation room, the White House Situation Room.

BLITZER: Yes.

BLINKEN: And around the table, behind it, are seats for folks who are not usually directly participating in the deliberations of the conversation. That's where they were. And they were -

[13:30:05] BLITZER: So do you have a problem with Steve Bannon, this top strategist, top adviser to the president, participating in these National Security Council meetings?