Return to Transcripts main page


Appeals Court Rejects Trump Travel Ban, For Now; No Tweet From Trump On Latest SNL Skit; Time Magazine: Bannon Is "Commissar"; New Yorkers Unite To Scrub Hateful Subway Graffiti; State Of The Cartoonion: Super Bowl Edition. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired February 5, 2017 - 15:00   ET


[15:00:00] BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: --undeterred by the court's ruling both the president and vice president have insisted that Trump acted within his power as president and that the ban will be reinstated.


MIKE PENCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: There's simply no question under the constitution and frankly under federal law that the president of the United States has the authority in the interest of national security to determine who has the right to come into this country. And we're going to challenge the judge's order on that basis.


SANCHEZ: CNN's Jessica Schneider is live outside President Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, where the president is spending the weekend. Jessica, we've seen that Trump has yet to tweet today like he did yesterday. We also learned that his attorneys working on this travel ban appeal are trying to avoid some of that blunt and inflammatory response from the president, especially when it comes to the comments by the judge who issued the stay. Why is it that he's been so quiet?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, President Trump has definitely raised a lot of eyebrows, prompted a lot of backlash with that Twitter tirade yesterday, multiple tweets about that federal judge. Of course, it's really unheard of for a sitting president to criticize a federal judge, but it's exactly what President Trump did. He called that federal judge in Seattle, James Robart, he called him a, "so-called judge," referred to the order as, "ridiculous."

So now there are a lot of questions being raised or maybe some pushback on it, because we have not heard from President Trump at all as it pertains to Twitter. His Twitter feed has been silent all day. The only thing we have heard from the administration, Boris, is Vice President Mike Pence, who made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows this morning. All he would talk about it was to say that he is confident that the travel ban will prevail and be reinstated. Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Jessica, those tweets have been polarizing in Washington. A little bit tricky for Republicans that may not be as gung-ho or as candid about their feelings over this decision.

SCHNEIDER: Yeah, that's right. We've heard the stern warnings and the rebukes from the Democrats. But when it comes to the Republicans about the tweets, about the Twitter tirades, about President Trump actually slamming this federal judge, they've largely remained silent. In fact, House Speaker Paul Ryan tried to dance around it this morning, continuing to stay on message of policy and not really commenting on social media.


REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We've always had different kinds of Republicans throughout our party. It's a big tent party. You know me. I'm kind of a happy warrior, Jack Kemp conservative.

CHUCK TODD, NBC POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Jack Kemp wouldn't have described America's inner cities as American carnage.

RYAN: Yeah, no. I mean, neither would I. I think really what matters at the end of the day are the results. What I'm focused on, Chuck, is not -- I'm not going on Twitter and seeing what the latest tweet was. I'm not turning on the T.V. I'm focus on delivering results. We ran on specific reforms, specific solutions that we believe will improve people's lives.


SCHNEIDER: And when it comes to delivering results, some Americans are still skeptical about that. In fact, in this most recent CNN/ORC poll that was conducted January 31st through February 2nd, the question was, "How are Republican leaders in Congress handling their jobs?" 39 percent of the American public approved, a fairly low number. 59 percent disapproved.

So it just goes to show that Republicans in Congress led by House Speaker Ryan, they have a lot of work to do. Perhaps that's why Paul Ryan is staying a bit above the fray this morning, not commenting directly on President Trump or his tweets, but instead reiterating that message that he wants to get down to business. Boris?

SANCHEZ: All right, Jessica, thank you for that. Let's bring in our panel to discuss. CNN Senior Political Analyst and Senior Editor for the Atlantic, Ron Brownstein, CNN Political Analyst and National Political Reporter for RealClearPolitics, Rebecca Berg, and CNN Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney, Danny Cevallos.

Danny, to you first. The president has a certain amount of flexibility with executive orders, specifically when it comes to national security and the potential for national security to be at risk. The argument from the White House has been that the U.S. is under attack by radical Islamic terrorists. Ultimately, how much freedom does that give President Trump to act?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That fact isn't as compelling as actual federal law, which grants the executive branch considerable power when it comes to deciding which groups may be a threat to the United States and which groups may not.

The government, the DOJ, has filed a brief now in the Ninth Circuit that does make a strong argument for the fact that the president does have vast power and that this is the kind of power both by federal statute and the constitution that is vested solely in the executive branch.

Of course, the state of Washington's argument on the other hand is that these -- this executive order violates the constitutional protections of its citizens and residents and workers in addition to violating that same federal law, the INA.

[15:05:06] SANCHEZ: Now, Danny, staying with you. The DOJ in their appeal specifically cited standing in their request for a judge to undo the temporary restraining order, saying that these states haven't really proven harm to their citizens. That's a high hurdle for the Washington State Attorney General to jump over, isn't it?

CEVALLOS: In a way. Washington's argument is we have standing because we have these citizens, and their rights are being violated. Therefore, we're the only people -- we are the only party that can vindicate their interest.

On the other hand, the White House's argument is that there is no standing. A state does not have the power to assert standing. And just so we all understand, standing is what gets you able to file a lawsuit. You cannot file a lawsuit unless you have an interest in the outcome.

And the Trump administration's argument is that the state of Washington simply doesn't have concrete enough of an interest, at least a legal interest under the applicable case law, to assert this case on behalf of citizens who they say may prospectively be injured by this executive order.

SANCHEZ: Now, Ron, to you. I'm sure you heard majority leader in the senate, Mitch McConnell say that Congress likely wouldn't intervene if ultimately the courts struck down President Trump's travel ban. I want to play you some sound from that now for our viewers.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) MAJORITY LEADER: Courts are going to decide whether the executive order that president issued is valid or not, and we all follow court orders. The administration is following the court order as I understand it, and the courts will openly determine the validity of it.

Let me just say, I think proper vetting is important to the American people, but there is a fine line here between proper vetting and interfering with the kind of travel or suggesting some kind of religious test. And we need to avoid doing that kind of thing.



SANCHEZ: What does the White House do if, let's say looking forward, this travel ban doesn't stand. This travel ban that the president has been promising for more than a year, if it gets shot down, what do they do at that point?

BROWNSTEIN: I think they're back to the drawing board. I mean, certainly Senator McConnell is sending a very clear signal that any attempt by the administration to try to ignore a court ruling would be immediately met with resistance.

I think what's fascinating here and Danny and I were sitting on the set when the decision came down on Friday night is that we are seeing a Democratic state, a Democratic Attorney General use the exact same weapon against Donald Trump that Republicans essentially forged to use against President Obama repeatedly.

Repeatedly we saw Republican Attorneys General sue the administration over the Medicaid expansion, over the Clean Power Plan and most directly over his effort to extend his dreamer program to adults who had legal citizen children who were undocumented. We saw the exact same pattern where they had a single district court in that case block the nationwide application of that executive order.

It went up through a conservative circuit, was upheld, went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court didn't act, and President Obama was check mated. It was that exact decision that the judge in Seattle, in Washington, cited in arguing for a nationwide application of his ruling, and now President Trump is looking at the same difficult calculus of this having to go forward through the Ninth Circuit, which is probably the most liberal of the appeal courts in the system.

And then at the end of that line, you have a 4-4 Supreme Court and really no guarantee that Justices Roberts or Kennedy I think would stand with him in the end on this as well. So, they are looking at a difficult legal situation, I think, ultimately and one in which the politics may require them to kind of redraft eventually and find a different way to go at this.

SANCHEZ: Rebecca, I think it's curious that President Trump has yet to tweet anything today, specifically, because some of his friends, you could say, at "Saturday Night Live" roasted him yesterday. I want to play a clip from SNL right at the start of the show last night.

Oh, unfortunately, we do not have it. We actually -- we'll play it after this quick break. Panel, please stand by.


[15:12:42] SANCHEZ: Some of the Republican leadership are coming out today harshly against the president's assertion that the United States is morally equivalent to Russia, saying that our country is not so innocent when Bill O'Reilly called Vladimir Putin a killer during an interview. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted this out just a few moments ago. "America has been a beacon of light and freedom. There is no equivalence with the brutal regime of Vladimir Putin." That's echoing what Senator Marco Rubio tweeted earlier. "When has a Democratic political activist been poisoned by the GOP or vice-versa. We are not the same as Putin."

And Senator Majority Leader -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ben Sasse also criticized Trump's comments. Here they are.


MCCONNELL: Putin is a former KGB agent. He's a thug. He was not elected in a way that most people would consider a credible election. The Russians annexed Crimea invaded the Ukraine and mess around in our elections. Now, I don't think there's any equivalency between the way of the Russians that conduct themselves and the way the United States does.

SEN. BEN SASSE, (R) NEBRASKA: I'll be honest. I don't know what the president is trying to do with statements like he allegedly has on O'Reilly on the Super Bowl tonight. So, I've only seen little clips of it. There may be a broader context, but let's be clear. Has the U.S. ever made any mistakes? Of course. Is the U.S. at all like Putin's regime? Not at all.

The U.S. affirms freedom of speech. Putin is no friend of freedom of speech. Putin is an enemy of freedom of religion. The U.S. celebrates freedom of religion. Putin is an enemy of the free press. The U.S. celebrates free press. Putin is an enemy of political dissent. The U.S. celebrates political dissent and the right for people to argue free from violence about places where ideas are in conflict. There is no moral equivalency between the United States of America that greatest freedom-loving nation in the history of the world and the murderous thugs that are in Putin's defense.


SANCHEZ: Back with us to discuss, Ron Brownstein and Rebecca Berg. Rebecca, what do you make of all these Republican leaders criticizing the president for his admiration of Vladimir Putin?

REBECCA BERG, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it's not necessarily a surprise to me that these Republican leaders would express this point of view, because this is something that Republicans and Democrats alike have long thought and agreed on, that Vladimir Putin is not a good actor, that Russia is not a good actor on the international stage, and that we need to be tough with them as a country.

[15:15:11] Donald Trump is really an island unto himself on this issue, and it's even more curious in the context of what some of his own cabinet secretaries have said on this subject during the senate confirmation hearings for his defense secretary, his secretary of state, his U.N. ambassador, his CIA director, all of them rebuked Russia and the president still has not. Nikki Haley, his U.N. ambassador went to the United Nations this past week and rebuked Russia on that stage in her first address to the United Nations. So it's really remarkable that we have a situation where the president is the only one who has not said anything negative about Vladimir Putin or Russia.

And so it will be interesting to see what is his strategy here. Does he have a strategy here? Or does he actually just legitimately think that Russia is a potentially good actor or potentially a partner?

SANCHEZ: Do you think he has a strategy, Ron?

BROWNSTEIN: I think he has a point of view that is very different, as Rebecca said, than almost anyone else in the political system. I don't know if there's a fully fleshed out strategy. You know, it is striking.

You can kind of imagine as someone said the other day, the earth two version of what would be happening if a Democratic president said so many of the things that Donald Trump has said since taking office. Attacking individual companies over investment decisions to move and create new investment abroad, attacking individual federal judges, declaring that NATO is obsolete, saying that he could care less if the European Union dissolved, which by the way is also the Putiness (ph) position that he wants Europe to be kind of fissured.

And then the one area, though -- and Republicans have been silent on almost all of those as you mentioned in the last segment where we have the Paul Ryan's kind of putting their heads down trying to say we're not going to deal with all of this inflammatory stuff. We're going to try to just pass the bills that we've been formulating since 2010 and we can get this president to sign them.

The one area that seems to be a bridge too far for many of the Republicans is this kind of repeated admiration for Vladimir Putin and the suggestion that the U.S. can sublimate concerns about Russian behavior to kind of joint action together entirely. That really is the essence here, kind of -- if you withdrew the sanctions, for example, you would basically be accepting their moves in Crimea and Ukraine in return for theoretically more alliance elsewhere, and I think that is where many Republicans are saying, that is the point beyond which we cannot go.

SANCHEZ: I did mention before the break we had a clip from "Saturday Night Live," and I thought it was interesting that the president had yet to tweet out today because they really went after him, and he had gone after them anytime that they had parodied him. I want you to watch this clip and then I'll ask you about it after we watch it.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, Donald. That's enough fun for tonight. Can I have my desk back?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Yes, of course, Mr. President. I'll go sit at my desk, yeah. This is so much fun. I love it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.


SANCHEZ: So the grim reaper in this scenario is actually supposed to be Steve Bannon, and it's curious also that "Time" magazine has Steve Bannon on their cover with a headline that calls him a manipulator. I'm not sure if we have that.

But, isn't it surprising that President Trump, after having said so much about "Saturday Night Live" before, doesn't go after them for this kind of insult where they call into question his abilities as a leader and essentially paint him as almost a child being manipulated by Steve Bannon? Rebecca, you first.

BERG: It is pretty interesting. Donald Trump has never been one to be particularly restrained on Twitter, but it's possible he's distracted with his vacation in Palm Beach this weekend at Mar-a-Lago. But the fact of the matter is that Steve Bannon is a very powerful force in this White House.

Donald Trump is someone who is clearly very talented when it comes to politics, when it comes to messaging and selling a message to the country. But he isn't someone who's necessarily ever been really concerned with the details, with the policy, with the question of how does he get these things done.

And Steve Bannon is someone who cares very deeply about the policy side, has a very strong sort of ideology that he brings with him to the White House and that's coming to bear on some of the actions and decisions we're seeing out of this White House in the first few weeks.

So certainly this is the narrative that I think we'll see a lot more of moving forward because Steve Bannon is certainly one of the most powerful people in the U.S. government at this stage.

SANCHEZ: Ron, when do you think President Trump, if he does, will respond to this parody, him being illustrated as a child?

BROWNSTEIN: Just like how much our world has been turned upside down, that we are now asking why hasn't the president responded to a comedy show, a late night comedy show as opposed to, can you believe the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, is in a Twitter war with Lorne Michaels and the cast of "Hamilton" and Meryl Streep?

[15:20:10] I mean, that is kind of how our expectations have been shifted. Look, I'm sure we will hear on this eventually. But, you know, the Steve Bannon thing is important because Bannon does have -- he -- there is an overriding vision. As he said to "The Washington Post" last week, we are build -- he said, "We are building a new political order."

They believe they are fissuring the parties along new lines, along new issues that are centered on this idea of kind of a populist nationalism similar to what we see emerging among far right parties in Europe from Marine Le Pen in France to the U.K. Party in Great Britain where Donald Trump has been very close to Nigel Farage, who was the key figure in that and where Bannon, himself, has said in a very important 2014 speech that he views, yes, there's lots of reasons to be suspicious of Putin, but that Putin himself reflects many of the same beliefs in terms of kind of primacy of nationalism and standing up for your country against on a global -- kind of globalization and that there are may be opportunities to work with him on other fronts.

So, they have a vision. This is not totally ad hoc. And I think the big question as you go forward, parts of this do-over lapped with what Republicans in Congress want, part of it as we are seeing is very difficult for them to wrap their arms around, and how far do they go with President Trump and Steve Bannon toward -- down this line of what -- creating what Donald Trump himself has called a very different Republican Party, a workers party? And we're going to see as, you know, the kind of conflict you see over the Putin stuff today is indicative of the conflicts that are ahead as some of this turns into policy.

SANCHEZ: All right, Ron Brownstein and Rebecca Berg, we appreciate your insight and expertise. Thank you so much.

BERG: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Coming up, hate-filled graffiti pops up on a New York subway and passengers unite in a creative way to remove it.


[15:25:35] SANCHEZ: Some New Yorkers united to scrub hateful graffiti that popped up on a subway. New York Attorney Gregory Locke says he discovered the anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic writings all over the number one subway train as he headed to dinner in the city with friends. But instead of just looking the other way, passengers joined together to scrub the hate in a spontaneous show of unity and it was all captured in this series of photos that went viral on social media.

Joining us now is Gregory Locke, the man who posted these photos on Facebook. Greg, walk us through this. You were riding the subway last night, and I saw in your post that you said some of the passengers clearly were uncomfortable. What happened?

GREGORY LOCKE, FOUND NAZI GRAFFITI ON SUBWAY: Yeah. When I got on the train, I think the first emotion that I experienced as well as everybody else was sort of shock. Nobody knew how to react or what to do. There was one gentleman on the train who sort of came up with the idea to use hand sanitizer and tissues to remove the permanent marker on the train.

And I think after that one gentleman spoke up, everyone sort of realized they could place (inaudible) graffiti and everyone pitched in, however, they could, providing him with hand sanitizer and tissues to try and those in the advertisements to try to get rid of the graffiti as quickly as possible.

SANCHEZ: Being, of course, one of the most culturally diverse cities and a symbol of this country, it has to take special meaning that everybody pitched in to clean up this, you know, hateful speech. What did it feel like watching all these passengers come together to scrub off that hateful speech?

LOCKE: For a moment, you forget that it's so disappointing to see that kind of speech on the train, and you just feel heartened and empowered that everybody would come together to do what is right. And I think New Yorkers have a reputation of being cold and uncaring, and I don't think that's true.

I think there's just a harder shell to get through maybe with New Yorkers. But when there's something that drastic on the train, that shell was broken very quickly, and everybody sort of rallies together.

New Yorkers have a good sense of what is right and wrong, and we value diversity and the input and the benefits that diversity contributes to our city. So, everyone on the train was very united in their efforts to get rid of that hateful message.

SANCHEZ: And it's gotten a large response on social media. Gregory Locke, thank you so much for sharing your time with us. We'll be right back after this.

LOCKE: Thank you.


[15:31:08] SANCHEZ: Thanks so much for joining us on "Newsroom". I'm Boris Sanchez. Fredricka Whitfield is off today.

Travel soon and travel quickly, that's the advice of some immigration attorneys after an appeals court denied the Justice Department's request to restore President Trump's immigration order. The controversial travel ban is suspended for now, but the appeals process is far from over. Volunteer immigration lawyers are urging anyone with lawful plans to fly to the U.S. to act fast.


RENEE PARADI, VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY WORKING WITH AFFECTED PASSENGERS AT JFK: I would say if you have a visa to the U.S. that was issued before the executive order came down and you're immigrating to the United States, you're coming here for a long travel, that the next few days would be the time to do it.


SANCHEZ: Let's go to CNN Correspondent Sara Sidner. She's live outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco. Also with us, CNN Supreme Court Reporter Arianne de Vogue.

Sara, let's start with you. The Justice Department's request yesterday was denied, so help us understand what happens next. The court now is making demands of both sides.

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And we need to be clear. Only one part of the request was denied, and that was a request for an administrative stay. Really what that is asking the Ninth Circuit court judges to do is to stop this -- allow, excuse me, this travel ban while these justices think about what it is they're going to do.

And the second part of the request from the Department of Justice was, Can we have a motion for a stay during the appeals process?" Now, that part of it that has not yet been decided, and there are still a panel -- motion panel of justices here who will look at that and who will try to decide. And what they have told both sides to do is now we have this stay request from the Department of Justice. We want to hear the response from Washington and Minnesota, which are involved in the case that's been begun in Seattle and then we will make a decision.

I want to let you hear exactly what and why they made the decision on that administrative stay from a law professor at U.C. Hastings, Rory Little.


RORY LITTLE, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW: It was just like, could you give you a stay while you think about it. And the court said, "No, we're not going to change the status quo during the three days that we're going to let you brief this case." So that's what they're doing. They're ordering briefing now, and by tomorrow at 3:00 p.m., California time, this will be ready for decision.


SIDNER: So you heard that, tomorrow at 3:00 p.m., California time, 6:00 p.m. East Coast time where you are, that is when we're expecting to have the court to have everything it needs to go ahead and look at this case and potentially give some sort of an answer tomorrow. We may get it as soon as tomorrow, this decision on whether or not this emergency stay will be granted to the Department of Justice.

SANCHEZ: Now, Ariane, let's dig deeper. Tell us more about exactly what each legal argument, each side entails.

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Well, it's important to stress, right, that no court has ruled squarely on the legal merits right now. That's to say no court has said, "Yes, this is constitutional," or, "No, it's not." So far we've only got that one district court judge. He's halted the executive order for now nationwide pending the appeal.

But the filings in these preliminary actions, they reveal the broad arguments on both sides. You've got the opponents of the executive order saying it's unconstitutional. It favors one religion over another. It discriminates based on national origin. It violates the right to travel.

And on the other side, you've got the DOJ that says, "Look, first of all, a very important issue is the fact that the states bringing this challenge, they have no right to be in court." They don't have -- they can't show the injury necessary to allow them to go forward. And then the DOJ says, "Look, the president has broad authority when it comes to immigration, and there are big national security implications here, and that's why the executive order is important."

[15:35:11] So those -- that's sort of the meat of the legal arguments on both sides.

SANCHEZ: Now, Ariane, if you could, help us understand. There are even numbers of justices right now on the Supreme Court because of the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. What happens if we end up with a 4-4 split? I've heard different people say different things.

DE VOGUE: Well, so after the Ninth Circuit rules, the losers could very well go to the Supreme Court. We only have eight justices. So what happens then is if the court were to split 4-4 here, they would simply left -- be left with having to uphold what the Ninth Circuit did. So that's why this Ninth Circuit opinion could be so important.

SANCHEZ: All right, Sara Sidner, Ariane de Vogue, thank you so much for helping us to understand a complicated legal process. Thank you.

DE VOGUE: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Of course, be sure to watch Anderson Cooper tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. He's going to be sitting down with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson who issued the initial restraining order against the Trump administration's travel ban. We'll be right back.


SANCHEZ: Despite it being caught up for now in the courts, President Trump's travel ban could be considered a victory by his supporters, one of his many campaign promises actually being carried out. We asked some Trump supporters what they thought about it.

[15:40:02] Now, keep in mind they were interviewed before the ban was rejected by an appeals court. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, there's a human side of which I think -- which we could have done differently. But the intent, I think the intent is right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's temporary until we figure out a way of securely vetted the people who are coming to this country. I think everyone wants to be safe.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is the right of my children to grow up in a country where they feel safe and protected.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right now we have a threat, and we are at war, and we have to recognized that and do something about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SANCHEZ: I want to bring in Omar Jadwat. He is the Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. You just heard Trump supporters reacting to the ban. You, yourself, have been outspoken in saying that this is not just a travel ban, this is a Muslim ban. But the order itself doesn't say that.

On top of that, 47 percent of the country supports what the president is doing. It's a minority, but it's still almost half the country. And to be fair, it's a promise that he made on the campaign trail. He did win the election. Isn't this just him carrying out the will of those who put him into power?

OMAR JADWAT, DIRECTOR OF THE ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT: Well, I mean I think part of your question answers itself. You mentioned that he made a promised on the campaign trail and that he's carrying it through, and I would agree with that. The promised that he made on the campaign trail was to institute a Muslim ban and that is what he's doing here.

So, it's obvious and Rudy Giuliani told us as much that the, you know, way that it operates through specific countries rather than literally asking you your religion to determine whether the ban yields is just a way that they came up with in order to reduce the degree of legal vulnerability in their mind that this program would have. But, it's clearly a Muslim ban, and it's clearly unconstitutional for that reason.

And, you know, even if it were actually supported by a majority of the population, which it is not, even if it were, the majority doesn't get to override the constitution. And the most, even if widely felt, is not a reason to enact a law or a regulation that affects people's lives.

And I think that, you know, if you look at the stories of who has been affected by this ban and how they've been affected, the notion as some of your -- the interviewees expressed that this would have something to do with security, that it would actually make us safer is really proven false.

I mean, you have here, you know, people who have worked for the U.S. government overseas, babies who are coming to have a heart surgery in the United States, students who have lived here for 20 years-plus, all kinds of folks who present no security risk, whatsoever. And, moreover, the idea that you would send the message to the rest of the world that America is a country that would discriminate in this way against people based on their religion that is more harmful to our national security than anything else.

SANCHEZ: To be totally clear, in the campaign the president did move away from saying that he would institute a Muslim ban. And, again, in the executive order, it doesn't specify that Muslims are not welcome in this country. Also, the president has said that this travel ban is similar to what President Obama did in 2011, right, when he rescreened Iraqi refugees.

SANCHEZ: The justice -- I'm sorry? JADWAT: Yeah. It doesn't resemble that at all. I mean, it doesn't resemble a short pause on one country. You know, that the -- that that was based on actual facts on the ground at the time. I mean, we're talking about, you know, not just a 90-day bar on these seven countries. A 120-day bar on all immigrants, a permanent bar on Syrians, and the promise that the government may add more countries and more people to this bar as time goes on.

That's nothing like anything that any previous administration has done, and certainly the bare-faced acknowledgment, again, by the president himself when he was talking about the Muslim ban morphing into this, you know, slightly more complicated ban or his advisers. The fact that they have been so forth right in saying that what they're trying to do is bar Muslims, there's nothing like that in the history of this country.

SANCHEZ: Now, Omar, we're running out of time, but I really have to ask you this question because we've had several guests that have told us that the constitution doesn't really apply to citizens of other countries that are trying to apply for visas and that are trying to come to the United States, wouldn't that throw a wrench in the case that the Attorney General of Washington State is presenting?

[15:45:11] JADWAT: Well, it hasn't so far and I don't think it will for at least a few reasons. But that I don't -- I can't get into all of them here. But one thing is that the establishment has protects all of us in the United States, right, from the government favoring one religion or disfavoring another.

It's our right as Americans here that are violated when the government makes these kinds of explicit or implicit religious preferences that operate in the way that this ban does. So, you know, I think that that is in certain ways a red herring, you know, that the idea that this is only something that affects the rights of people overseas.

SANCHEZ: Omar Jadwat, thank you so much for the time. We appreciate your perspective. We'll be right back after this.


SANCHEZ: The Super Bowl is tonight and the season has been replete with politics. So the question for tonight is, are you ready for some political football? It's the topic of this week's State of the Cartoonion by Jake Tapper.


JAKE TAPPER, STATE OF THE UNION HOST: Tonight's Super Bowl showdown between the Atlanta Falcons and the New England Patriots might be flagged for interference. President Trump is so close with the Patriots. He is practically part of the team.

[15:50:05] TRUMP: (Inaudible) as the great people, the great champions.

TAPPER: Team owner, Robert Kraft attended the Trump inauguration. TRUMP: Bob Kraft, so good luck Bob.

TAPPER: Head coach Bill Belichick is a supporter.

TRUMP: He's a champ. This guy is a true champ.

TAPPER: But in Trump's eyes, the real star is quarterback, Tom Brady.

TRUMP: Great friend of mine, great, great champion, unbelievable winner.

TAPPER: President Trump, of course, loves a winner. And Brady seems to be happy to be play on Trump's team.

TOM BRADY, AMERICAN FOOTBALL PLAYER, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS: He's a friend of mine. He supported our teams, what the Patriot is done. The Patriots sidelines a lot.

TAPPER: But is being a super fan enough to earn you a Super Bowl ring? Yes, if you are Vladimir Putin, who you might see someday sporting Robert Kraft's 2005 victory ring.

ROBERT KRAFT, PRESIDENT OFTHE KRAFT GROUP AND THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS: You're all a joy (ph) except for my third one, the original. He's in Russia with the president of the country.

TAPPER: Talk about Russian interference.

KRAFT: I showed it to him when he put it on and he sort of enjoyed this, so we kept it on.

TAPPER: A confrontation between two of President Trump's allies. That would be a (inaudible) situation for him to resign. Anyway, enjoy the game, Mr. President.


SANCHEZ: We're just a few hours from kickoff. We may see the Falcons win their first championship or we may see Roger Goodell hand the trophy in a very awkward situation to a man that he suspended for four games this year.

Hines Ward is live in Houston right now. Hines, you've done pretty well in some Super Bowls, I guess you could say. What are the players feeling right now before the big game?

HINES WARD, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Well, you talk about anxiety. You talk about the nervousness and sleepless night. There's no question, you're lying in bed playing the game within your mind. Now, only five Falcon players have ever played in the big game, so this is new to a lot of their players.

Now, my first Super Bowl, I didn't go to bed until about 1:30 in the morning because, Boris, I was so tired from the night before that I ended up taking a nap before the biggest game of my life.


BRADY: I love this sport and I commit my life to playing it. And there's a lot of decisions that I make based on my lifestyle that help me play at this more experienced age than most.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He attacks every day like he's a rookie. I mean, it's unbelievable to see the way the guy works and prepares. Whatever he's doing, we all hope he can keep doing it for a long time.


WARD: Now, Tom Brady, I asked him the secret of his longevity in this league. And he told me, it's about taking care of his body. He hired a chef because neither he or his mother or wife can't cook. So, Tom Brady is fully committed about getting better and that's why you respect him. He's playing in his fifth Super Bowl. So, I mean, he play -- has a chance to win his fifth Super Bowl, so we shall see after the game there, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, he's played in seventh Super Bowls. He's 39 years old. Really, whether you like him or not, personally, what he's done, you have to acknowledge, he's incredible. A quick question for you Hines, what were you more nervous about playing in the Super Bowl or dancing with the stars?

WARD: Playing in the Super Bowl. Playing in the Super Bowl, what I address (ph) about my whole life, Boris.

SANCHEZ: All right, all right. Thank you so much, Hines. We appreciate it. We'll have more next hour as we prepare for the big game. We'll be right back.


[15:57:18] SANCHEZ: There's no question that there's been a lot of confusion about President Trump's travel ban. First, it was on, then it was off. Now, it's essentially on hold. So, of course, "Saturday Night Live" helped us sort it all out.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Welcome to the United States. As you're waiting in line, this video will let you know what to expect and what is required to pass through U.S. customs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Portions of this video have been recently edited.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You may be ask to provide a few simple -- forms.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hundred, confusing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: First, your completed customs form. You'll also need a valid passport from your country of origin.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan or Yemen and may be Australia, we'll see. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our priority is to make this process easy for each and every one of you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not you. Not you. No way. Next try. Not you. Oh, he's good. Come on in, buddy. No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congratulations and welcome to the United States, a land of opportunity from sea --


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- to shining --



SANCHEZ: That clip is gathering some steam online to this one. Actress Melissa McCarthy's surprise appearance drew the most laughs. She played Press Secretary Sean Spicer appearing to loss his mind on members of the press. Here's just to sniff it.


MELISSA MCCARTHY, ACTRESS: Before we begin, I know that myself and the press have gotten off to a rocky start. All right, all right, all right, all right. In a sense, when I say rocky start, I mean it in the sense of "Rocky" the movie, because they came out here to punch you. And also, I don't talk so good. Now, I would like to begin today by apologizing on behalf of you to me for how you have treated me these last two weeks. And that apology is not accepted.


SANCHEZ: To be fair, Sean Spicer is a little bit nicer than that. In the past few months, President Trump has tweeted complaints and criticisms of SNL. But he has yet to respond to last night's episode or any other sched (ph) since his inauguration. The next hour of CNN "Newsroom," starts right now.

This is CNN "Newsroom." I'm Boris Sanchez. Fredericka Whitfield is off. The clock is ticking on the legal showdown over President Trump's travel ban, which at this moment is temporarily suspended.

This morning, a federal appeals court rejected a request by the government to reinstate that ban. President Trump once again taking to Twitter just moments ago to target the judge in the case, saying, "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens, blame him and court system, people pouring in, bad."

[16:00:05]Let's get to CNN's Jessica Schneider who is live outside President Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. Jessica, we know that Trump's lawyers at the Department of Justice had been careful to not mention or bring out --