Return to Transcripts main page


U.S. Court to Hear Travel Ban Arguments Tuesday; Rift in White House over Travel Ban; Russia Demands Apology from Fox News; Senate Democrats Talk All Night to Protest DeVos; Chinese Coast Guard Ships Sail near Disputed Islands; Hawaii Suing President Trump Over Travel Ban; U.S. Court to Hear Travel Ban Arguments Tuesday; Yemeni Family Reunited Amid Travel Ban Suspension. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired February 7, 2017 - 00:00   ET



[00:00:10] JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: This is CNN NEWSROOM live in Los Angeles and London. Ahead this hour --

ISA SOARES, CNN ANCHOR: U.S. President Trump's travel ban heads back to court as states file lawsuits trying to stop it. Hawaii's attorney general will join us live.

VAUSE: The ban has also created a rift inside Trump's cabinet with retired respected generals reportedly angry about being left in the dark.

SOARES: And Russia wants an apology from Fox News after host Bill O'Reilly called Vladimir Putin a killer. The TV anchor says he is working on one but it's going to be a while.

Hello and a very warm welcome to our viewers right around the world. I'm Isa Soares in London.

VAUSE: I'm John Vause. Great to have you with us. NEWSROOM L.A. starts right now.

A U.S. appeals court is moving quickly to resolve the controversy over President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration. A three- judge panel will hear arguments on the travel ban's suspension in the coming day.

SOARES: Yes. Mr. Trump's executive order is currently on hold nationwide. The President blasted the federal judge who made that decision tweeting over the weekend that the so-called judge's ruling was, and I'm quoting here, "ridiculous". The executive order bars temporarily people from seven mostly Muslim countries from entering the United States.

VAUSE: Well for more on this, joining me now is civil rights attorney Brian Claypool and CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein.

So Brian, first to you, the argument before the appeals court on Tuesday is solely to do with the stay that was issued on Friday. Can you read anything into this decision by this appellate court to have this 30 minutes of oral argument from both sides?

BRIAN CLAYPOOL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well John -- I think what that means is the three-panel set of judges wants more information. They don't have enough information yet to make a decision.

For example from Trump's camp they're going to want to have more evidence that there is some kind of irreparable harm that the United States would suffer unless this ban -- this travel ban is lifted. For example, we've got to have some evidence that immigrants coming from these seven countries pose a national risk of harm to the United States.

And up until now, Judge Robart, he was the U.S. district court judge, he looked at one of the U.S. Department of Justice lawyers in the face and said where is there evidence that these folks are causing a serious risk of harm in the U.S. and she couldn't answer that question.

So I think it's important that the U.S. government gives the judges this information. So I think it is of value.

VAUSE: Ok. So Ron -- day 17. The Trump administration is now in a few-blown constitutional legal battle over one of the signature promises made by Donald Trump during the campaign. What is the political fallout here?

RON BROWNSTEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know, the first thing that people have to understand looking at this is that this is Democratic states, excuse me, and Democratic attorneys general using against Donald Trump a weapon that was essentially created by Republican attorneys general against President Obama.

You know, in the 1990s under Bill Clinton we did not see Republican states suing against his initiatives. We did not see Democratic states systematically suing against George W. Bush.

But beginning under Obama we saw a pattern where Republican-controlled states would go into federal court on pretty much every major domestic initiative. The Medicaid expansion or the Affordable Care Act, the Clean Power plant and most directly President Obama's effort to extend legal protection to adults who are here illegally, not just the dreamers.

And what we saw was exactly this. They would have a decision in district court. That would be in their favor. It will go up to an appellate court that was favorable to their side and then reach, I think, a divided Supreme Court.

You could see exactly the same pattern here. And I think what this tells you is that whatever -- however this case resolves it is basically a measure of the depth of resistance that President Trump is going to face from Blue America not only in Congress but in the states. This is the first act in what I think will be many.

VAUSE: Ok. Well, Brian The government is arguing that the President does in fact have the authority under the constitution when it comes to national security (inaudible) in the states. Many others are saying he is (inaudible) already violated the constitution. And as Ron said, this could ultimately end up in the Supreme Court.

CLAYPOOL: Well John -- I think President Trump's heart is in the right place but I think his head is in the wrong place. And I think he's gotten some bad advice on this.

What I mean by that is that is I think he truly does want to ensure that the United States is more safe and secure from Terroristic acts. That's for sure. But I think the way he's going about it, as a civil rights lawyer, I'd look closely at this.

[00:05:01] The U.S. government is coming in and saying, hey we've got a threat of safety to this country if we let in people from seven different countries. But what the state attorney-general in Washington said and 16 other attorneys-general have now said, John, is wait a minute there's no evidence presented that these individuals pose a risk to our country, number one. And number two, under the First Amendment establishment clause, this is a law that unduly favors one religion over another. And number three, under the 14th Amendment what's called the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment, that this is clearly discrimination against Muslims, against a specific religion.

And I will tell you, that I'm going to make a prediction right now. I think this three-judge panel is going to uphold the suspension of implementing this executive order until there is a full hearing on the constitutionality of this executive order.

Why -- John? Because two of these judges were appointed by Democrat presidents -- one by Obama and one by President Carter, one by George W. Bush. So there's two Democrats and one Republican on this three- judge panel. And I think they're going to rule in favor of suspending application of this executive order.

VAUSE: And from there it could be appealed and goes to a divided Supreme Court. If it's a four-four split, they will uphold that decision. I mean all of this, of course, is you know, hypothetical at this point.

Ron -- we also saw over the weekend, Donald Trump lashing out at the judge who issued the original stay on Friday. This is not the first time that Donald Trump has lashed out at a member of the judiciary.

Ron: Right. It was Judge Curiel during the campaign who was the judge of Mexican descent who was hearing the case against Trump University.

It's also not the first time he's lashed out against anyone or any institution that has criticized him. You know, we've seen it with the media. We see it with Representative John Lewis. We see it when he accused John McCain and Lindsey Graham of aspiring to create World War III.

And this is part of what, you know, one of the reasons Republicans are still uneasy about this presidency because on any given day the willingness of the President to kind of blow past the boundaries of what had previously been considered the acceptable norms of political debate is tested. And they simply do not know what is going to come every day except they pretty much know that every day there will be something they didn't expect.

VAUSE: Brian, this is not the first time that Donald Trump has talked about a Muslim ban. He talked about it a lot during the campaign. Could those words be used against him in this court case?

CLAYPOOL: Well, I don't think so -- John. And I think what's important to note too here is the irony in all of this is that this three-judge panel is ruling on this temporary restraining order, whether this should be upheld. They might actually step into the shoes of the United States Supreme Court. Because if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, it's going to likely be four to four and what happens is that reverts back to the ruling of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

So why is that important? Because President Trump needs to be a little bit more well behaved. This isn't a boardroom where you could just fire people and yell at people and disparage people. The problem he faces, John, is in politics unlike the business room, you've got to deal with politicians again. You've got to deal with judges again. And I think that's where he's got to be more careful here.

And I don't think any comments he's made is going to affect this. What this is going to boil down to is, is there any evidence presented for this three-panel judge that refugees and immigrants coming from seven Muslim countries pose a serious safety risk for this country. And up until now, the federal district court judge hasn't seen it. And unless there's a new brief submitted that has more evidence, this three-judge panel is not going to see it either.

VAUSE: Ok -- Brian. Thank you -- Brian Claypool. And also Ron Brownstein --


VAUSE: -- thanks for being with us.

Ron: Thank you -- John.

SOARES: Now Russia is calling for an apology from Fox News after host Bill O'Reilly referred to Vladimir Putin as a killer. It happened during an interview with President Trump over the weekend, if you remember, where he once again defended Russia's president. Take a listen.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Will I get along with him? I have no idea. Very possible that I won't.

BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: He's a killer though. Putin is a killer. TRUMP: There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What -- you think our country is so innocent? You think our country is so innocent?

O'REILLY: I don't know of any government leaders that are killers in America.

TRUMP: Well, take a look at what we've done, too. We've made a lot of mistakes. I've been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

O'REILLY: Yes. But mistakes are different than --

TRUMP: There've been a lot of mistakes. Ok but a lot of people were killed so -- a lot of killers around, believe me.

O'REILLY: All right.


SOARES: Well, O'Reilly responded to the Kremlin's demand on Monday night saying Mr. Putin might have to wait a while longer for that apology.


[00:09:54] O'REILLY: Apparently the Putin administration in Moscow, demanding that I, your humble correspondent, apologize for saying old Vlad is a killer. So I'm working on that apology but it may take a little time. You might want to check in with me around 2023.


SOARES: So it might take some time. Let's get more. CNN's Clare Sebastian joins me now from Moscow.

So Clare -- clearly they didn't get the reaction the Kremlin was expecting, Kremlin saying it was unacceptable and an insult. What's the reaction been to O'Reilly's comments?

CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes -- Isa. I mean Feds say they are watching this very closely. That refusal to apologize playing fairly high on state news bulletins this morning.

And I think, you know, these comments are being taken as very incendiary here. This is very strong reaction that we got from the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Paskov, yesterday including these comments -- his statement that Putin was a killer, calling them offensive and unacceptable.

But it's interesting to note when we asked him on that call with journalists, what he made of Mr. Trump's response to that that the U.S. is not so innocent in that area. He said he would rather not comment.

So it's very important to note that the Kremlin now delineating between this spat with Fox News and Bill O'Reilly and not involving their relationship with the U.S. as a whole and President Trump. They are still leaving the door open to better relations with Mr. Trump going forward -- Isa.

SOARES: Yes. Of course, or perhaps distancing themselves from that.

And Clare, it seems there are potential cracks appearing in that U.S. and Russia relationship following comments from Russia on the question of Iran. What did Russia have to say about that and just how at odds are those countries when it comes to Iran?

SEBASTIAN: Yes. It was interesting. On that same call (inaudible) yesterday, Isa, Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, saying that he disagrees with the classification of Iran from the U.S. as the number state sponsor of terror. Russia reiterating that it has a close relationship with Iran; that it wants to deepen those economic and trade ties.

And this is really a conundrum for President Trump going forward because obviously the U.S. has put Iran on notice, you know, slapped new sanctions on it. And it also says it wants to work with Russia in fighting terrorism in Syria.

So the question remains Russia and Iran are key allies in Syria. So how will Mr. Trump work closely with Russia and Syria while at the same time not implicitly supporting Iran and Syria? It certainly presents a conundrum.

But for Russia's part it says yes, there are profound differences between the U.S. and Russia but that should not stop them working together on issues that are mutually beneficial for them. So still very much saying that they are ready and willing to improve relations with the U.S. should the opportunity arise -- Isa.

SOARES: Clare Sebastian there for us in Moscow where the time is 12 minutes past 8:00 in the morning. Thanks very much -- Clare.

VAUSE: The controversy over the roll out of the U.S. president's travel ban has also reportedly exposed a rift between the political leadership within the White House and the two military generals in the cabinet -- Defense Secretary James Mattis and John Kelly who heads Homeland Security.

According to the "Washington Post", "They presented a united front and complained about the process that led to the issuance of the immigration executive order, focusing on their near complete lack of consultation."

Many Republicans point to Kelly and Mattis as a steady and reassuring presence within the Trump administration which might ultimately mean they could have a huge influence on the President.

For more, Jamie Weinstein, political journalist and host of the podcast "The Jamie Weinstein Show" joins me now from Washington.

So Jamie -- right now, the theory is Mr. Trump needs the two generals more than they need him. Is that about right? JAMIE WEINSTEIN, POLITICAL JOURNALIST: Well there was the worry when Trump first nominated -- appointed some of his top advisers that a lot of people in Washington were worried that there were so many generals he was appointing. And you know, I thought this was a little overblown for many reasons, not least of which because that Obama appointed the same number of generals to top positions.

But what we're seeing now actually in, you know, two of those generals in particular General Mattis and General Kelly, his Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, are so widely-respected that they're really right now, the canaries in the executive coalmine, if you will.

You know, you can sense where real trouble is going to happen when these figures are upset. They're not going to be content just to be window-dressing to some ideological crusade with in the White House. And if for some reason they are pushed too far and one were to resign, you could really see this whole administration fall apart, even Republicans in Congress, you could imagine breaking with the White House if these two figures who are really, really widely-respected were to break with the President.

VAUSE: Ok. So under what scenario -- how serious would it have to be for either General Mattis or General Kelly to resign from the administration?

Weinstein: Well, look, you know, these two, you know, really great Americans, they're not going to just resign for any reason. They really want the President to succeed because they want to see America succeed.

[00:15:03] But I don't they were going to stand in their positions just to be window dressing for Steve Bannon, Steven Miller -- the kind of two aides in the White House who are known for their ideological zeal, who angered according to reports the generals, the retired generals who now have these cabinet posts without consulting with them with these executive order on immigration.

So they're not just going to be the face giving legitimacy to this administration without being at least brought in to the process to give their opinion to the President. So, you know, if that continues, or if they're ordered to do things that they probably think are illegal or catastrophic to the country. For instance, I can imagine, you know, President Trump has already been tweeting about the judges.

If he tells General Kelly for instance or I should say Secretary Kelly to ignore court orders, telling him to stop him to do something I don't think that's something that General Kelly would do. And I think in those scenarios it's not impossible to imagine one or both of the generals who are now secretaries of major departments resigning.

VAUSE: And you touched on this, the impact of this could have on Republicans who may have been, you know, a little twitchy about a President Donald Trump and they've been reassured by having these two generals there. If they're no longer there, that could have a ripple effect. WEINSTEIN: Yes. Even supporters of the President, those who are not even critics when you ask them what is the best thing that you think about Donald Trump; they'll say, you know what, the things that we point to that make us assured that this administration won't be something out of the ordinary or out of the normal is that his appointments of General Mattis and General Kelly, or retired General Mattis and General Kelly -- these great figures who are widely- respected figures.

And if you lose that plank, if you see one of those figures leave office or resign under duress, I think you would see a lot of Republicans in Congress take a step back and go whoa, maybe this is out of the ordinary and start looking for ways to weaken the President or even consider the possibility that this president is isn't fit to serve in the position he is.

VAUSE: Do you think President Trump -- when he was choosing this two men for his cabinet, that he may in fact be backing himself into a corner like this?

WEINSTEIN: I don't think he thought of that. I actually think that, you know, Donald Trump is known for liking to see, when he meets with these figures he kind of looks for central casting, as they say. He wants to pick a figure that fits in the role if you're casting something for a movie.

And if you meet General Mattis, for instance, and I was fortunate to be with him for an hour one on one back in May out at the Hoover Institution in an off-the-record conversation, you know, this is a guy you know immediately would be perfect for secretary of Defense -- a really impressive person.

So I think he got that same impression. I don't think he thought two steps ahead that if he appointed this figure, you know, the legitimacy of his administration may depend on General Mattis being happy and staying with in the administration. I'm not sure he thought about that.

VAUSE: Ok. Jamie -- thanks so much for being with us. Good insight there and certainly something to watch in the coming weeks, coming months and maybe the next few years. Appreciate it.

WEINSTEIN: Absolutely -- thank you.

SOARES: Now here during the show, Senate Democrats are pulling an all-nighter to protest President Trump's Education secretary nominee. You will have the details next.

Plus a territorial dispute in the East China Sea could test President Trump's relationship with China. Next, how Mr. Trump's new Secretary of Defense is responding.

Both those stories for you after a very short break.

You are watching CNN NEWSROOM.


SOARES: Thousands of people flocking to Romania's government house in protest of the plans to revise parts of a controversial bill. The decree put out a week ago protecting many politicians from being prosecuted for corruption. The government repealed it on Sunday after about half a million protesters took to the streets as you can see there. But the reversal did little to calm public outrage because the Prime Minister appears to be moving forward with some similar amendments to the criminal court.

VAUSE: It's after midnight in Washington and Democrats are still on the floor of the Senate. They're talking all night long to try and stop President Trump's nominee for Education secretary. A confirmation vote for Betsy DeVos is expected on Tuesday.

Two Republican senators have broken from their party and say they will vote -- they will not vote for her. And Democrats say they may have a third unnamed Republican who is also ready to vote no which would block the confirmation. Without that third Republican, Vice President Mike Pence would cast a tie-breaking vote. Senate Republicans have said they're confident DeVos will win confirmation.

We get more now from CNN congressional correspondent Phil Mattingly.


PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The reality here on Capitol Hill is this. Betsy DeVos is on track to be confirmed as the next secretary of Education. But that doesn't mean Senate Democrats are not doing everything in their power, procedural or otherwise, to try and stop it from happening.

This is a nominee that they are very opposed to as a party. This is a nominee that brought the first two Republicans in the U.S. Senate to also oppose a Trump cabinet nominee.

However, as it currently stand, Betsy DeVos has 50 Republican senators supporting her nomination. Mike Pence, the Vice President will be able to cast the tie-breaking vote so long as no Republicans flip their votes.

That's why you've seen Democrats on the floor, 24 hours straight is the plan, as they've had rallies outside the Capitol Building. Thousands of phone calls coming in as well over the last couple of weeks trying to find any way possible to get one Republican senator to flip their vote from a nominee who has become extremely divisive and said she's out of touch with public education and says she simply doesn't have the experience for the job.

Democrats hoping that as they extend this timeline, even if they can't block the nomination on their own, perhaps they can help increase the pressure to get one of their Republicans colleagues to flip themselves.

So far though, no indication that that's happening; several Senate Republican aides say the nomination is still on track. Phil Mattingly, CNN -- Washington.


SESAY: Now, to an international dispute in the East China Sea that is testing President Trump's relationship with China. Three Chinese coast guard ships sailed on Monday near a chain of islands that Japan controls, you can see there in your map, China claims the islands which have major economic potential. The new U.S. Defense Secretary says the U.S. will continue the long tradition of defending Japan's control of them.

Let's get more on the story. Our David McKenzie joins us now from Beijing.

David -- what more do we know at this hour about China's actions near these islands?

DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What we do know is, from both the Chinese and the Japanese side, that three coast guard vessels, so official vessels but not maybe vessels per se of China were close to the Diaoyu Islands as China calls them, the Senkaku Islands as the Japanese refer to them. Those are a disputed island chain in the East China Sea. Those -- those vessels according to the Japanese spent several hours in Japanese waters and then returned.

And it's pretty typical action of the Chinese to stake their claim as it were on these disputed islands and interesting timing, of course, in the wake of the trip of the Secretary of Defense coming through, masses (ph) through Japan and South Korea where he publicly restated the U.S.' point of view that they share Japan's feeling that they own these islands and would defend Japan if it would ever come to military action to defend these islands -- Isa.

[00:24:55] SOARES: Yes. And we also know in the last few minutes that the U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has spoken with Japan's foreign minister. Do we know anything else in terms of what was said during that call?

MCKENZIE: Well again, it was a reflection and a repetition, I think, of what the Secretary of Defense has said in his tour through the region.

What we know from the readout from the Japanese foreign ministry is that he reaffirmed the close alliance between the U.S. and Japan as well as reaffirmed the point of view of the U.S. that they would come to Japan's defense including on any dispute militarily on these islands.

I do think it's important to point out that this is not something that China does on rare occasions. At our count, at least these 33 times in 2016, the Chinese sent their coast guard vessels and sometimes fishing vessels into that area to show their point of view and there have also been instances when they've sent military aircraft into that region as well. So the Chinese have a longstanding belief that these islands are theirs. The difficulty is what the U.S. administration coming in that is believed to be at times unpredictable -- how that will play into this dispute -- Isa.

SOARES: So David -- not unusual but does this standoff have the potential at least to become much more serious?

MCKENZIE: Isa -- it does have that potential because it depends whether China or Japan decided to ratchet up the tension depending whether they want to test the U.S.' resolve in this matter. Both China and Japan have an air defense identification zone over that area and so that means they believe their military has the right to patrol in the air space, those areas.

We had an event or a series of events in December last year where it got very tense indeed when the planes, the military planes flew close to each other. If you had an accident of some kind because of this robust action by either China or Japan, it could get potentially explosive -- Isa.

SOARES: David McKenzie for us in Beijing. Thanks very much -- David. Very good to see you. John.

VAUSE: Well the U.S. state of Hawaii is joining the legal action against President Donald Trump. Just ahead we'll talk with their Attorney General on how the travel ban could be impacting the Aloha State.


[00:30:45] JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back, everybody. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles, I'm John Vause.

ISA SOARES, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Isa Soares. Let me bring you up-to- date with the main news headlines we're following for you this hour.

In the East China Sea, three Chinese coastguard ships sail near a chain of islands that Japan control. China also claims the islands which have major economic potential. The new U.S. Defense Secretary says the U.S. will continue a long tradition of defending Japan's controls of the island.

VAUSE: Democrats are pulling an all-nighter refusing to yield the floor of the U.S. Senate. They plan to keep talking all through the night to try and stop President Trump's pick for education secretary. Betsy DeVos is expected to case the confirmation vote later on Tuesday, but Senate Democrats are hoping to convince a third Republican to vote no and defeat her nomination.

SOARES: The speaker of Britain's House of Commons says he doesn't want President Trump to address lawmakers in the U.K. later on this year. John Bercow, you've seen there, cited parliament's opposition to racism and sexism. He's one of three officials who must approve any invitation for someone to speak in Westminster Hall. Downing Street has said it will welcome Mr. Trump. VAUSE: The top law enforcement officials said 16 U.S. states had joined the fight against President Trump's travel ban. The attorneys general say the order hurts their state especially at universities and medical institutions. Hawaii has also filed its own lawsuit against the travel ban.

Joining me now from Honolulu, Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin.

Mr. Chin, thank you for being with us.

Are the hearing on Tuesday, this will determine the fate of the restraining order against the travel ban. It's just about that state which was issued on Friday. Still, do you see this as the biggest test so far for the president's executive order?

DOUGLAS CHIN, HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL: Oh, absolutely. The Ninth Circuit is going to be hearing this case tomorrow. We are expecting them to issue a decision very soon simply because they've already been putting this on a very fast track. And I think that's a good indicator that even for the judiciary branch, they are considering this to be a very significant issue.

VAUSE: There is still the brooding question, whether or not the president has exceeded his authority.

CHIN: Right.

VAUSE: This is what the White House Spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters on Monday.

Listen to this.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Clearly the law is on the president's side. The constitution is on the president's side. He has broad discretions if you would. It's in the nation's best interest to protect our people and we feel very confident that we will prevail on this matter.


VAUSE: So, clearly, you and the state of Hawaii and many others see it quite differently.

CHIN: I think it's ultimately going to come down to a decision by the court regarding how much the president's power stacks up against all the checks and balances that all of us who grew up in the U.S. understood to be those checks and balances.

So, you know, a president's power is not completely unfettered. Our concern here in Hawaii when we file this lawsuit is that anytime you have an executive order that discriminates against people based upon their national origin or based upon their religion, that's going to be a red flag. 75 years ago, there was a president's executive order that in the name of national security authorized the interment of Japanese people, whether they were citizens or non-citizens.

So we see this as a dangerous baby step to going in that direction. And the people in our state are very concern.

VAUSE: Is there a compromise here? The Department of Justice argued in the last few hours to stay on the travel ban. It should actually be limited to immigrants who have already been in the country. They may be outside the country right now, but they were here legally. They should be allowed to return to this country.

It seems like at least some kind of move for compromise on at least part of the order.

CHIN: Sure. It's just unfortunate that the way the administration is behaving right now is to start moving into a compromise after they issued an order, after hundreds of people had to protests and lots of people -- hundreds of people were turned away at the airports.

I think part of our legal argument that we raise in our lawsuit is the fact that just administrative procedures are not followed. So in other words, when the president issues an order, if there's a rule, usually you have some sort of notice and comment period or some sort of rule making that that occurs that allows agencies to weigh in, the public to weigh in and that just isn't what happened here.

[00:35:18] Now I understand that the president can do that. You know, when there is some sort of national security concern. We're not. We're not questioning that. But it really has to do with how much a president can do when there really -- when there is no justification for that. And that's what's lacking in the current order.

VAUSE: Yes. Over the weekend, President Trump lashed out of the judge who ordered the stay on the travel ban. He did a lot of tweets.

One of them read this. "The opinion of this so called, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country is ridiculous and will be overturned."

What's your reaction to this tactic by the president to essentially go after the judges or the judge involved in this matter.

CHIN: Right. I mean, my initial reaction is it's a form of bullying. I mean, I don't think it's really the appropriate way that any of us learn in the -- growing up in the United States as a way to treat our judges or our judicial system.

I, myself, am the son of Chinese immigrants who fled the communist regime in order to come here to the U.S. in the 1950s. And my sister and I became citizens over born in the U.S. because of that -- because of that courageous move.

And so, you know -- so I think what we're seeing is a generational shift towards a different kind of the United States that none of us, we don't -- I don't feel comfortable with it. And I think that those of us who were not comfortable need to really speak up against it.

VAUSE: There are a lot of states, a lot of Democrat states who are involved in this action against the executive order. Is this sort of the way forward to oppose the agenda of the Trump administration? Republicans used it against President Obama. Could you see this as essentially the opposition moving forward against many of the controversial aspects of what Donald Trump promised during the campaign?

CHIN: Here's what I think has really struck me is that President Trump has only been in the office for two weeks or a little more than two weeks. And I didn't think that we would be facing this number, this flurry of orders that we would be responding as much as we have been. But I think with all the different decisions that have been made and just really to our minds the violations of the constitution and the statutes, it really is something that we, just on behalf of our states need to be able to speak up and that's why we are doing what we are doing.

VAUSE: OK. Douglas Chin, attorney general of Hawaii. Thanks so much for being with us. Most appreciate it.

CHIN: John, thank you so much.

SOARES: Now Israeli parliament has passed a bill that approves controversial outpost in the West Bank and Palestinians are furious. The Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO, accuses Israel of, quote, "Authorizing unlawful land theft" and it's calling on the international community to act.

The new bill would legalize thousands of housing units built on pry for Palestinian land. Settlements established without Israeli authorization. The new law is widely expected to be appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Now two Yemeni brothers were caught in President Trump's travel ban. After the break, the moment they finally reunited with their father in the United States. We'll bring you that story after this short break.


[00:40:42] SOARES: Now the controversial travel ban left many unable to fly to the U.S. Among them, two brothers from Yemen. They couldn't meet their father despite having proper paperwork. Now President Trump's executive order now suspended, the family has been reunited.

Amara Walker has the story for us.


AMARA WALKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's a joyful day for the Aziz brothers. They're finally able to reunite with their father, a U.S. citizen. For the last nine days have been anything but joyful.

They are from Yemen. And among thousands whose valid visas were revoked as part of President Trump's January 27th travel ban.

SIMON SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG, LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER: The Aziz brothers were working for a year and a half to get their immigrant visas. Their father is a U.S. citizen. As every U.S. citizen has the right to do, he petitioned for his sons so that they could come here and live here with their father pursuant to law.

They were taken out of the group. Their visas that they worked so hard to obtained, a giant cancelled stamp was stamp right on top of those visas. They were forced to sign paperwork that they didn't have any understanding of what the meaning of that paperwork was.

It says Cancelled-WAS, Cancelled-WAS, application withdrawn.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What does application withdrawn mean?

SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG: Application withdrawn means that supposedly they voluntarily withdrew their application for admission. We believe that that's the form that they were forced to sign.

WALKER: At this point, the Aziz brothers are just grateful to be here with their dad.

TAREQ AZIZ, REUNITED WITH FATHER: I just want to thank all the people who support us, who wait with us. They made me feel like it is a family here, that we have a family and that's what I love about America. Today, we're good. I mean, we never felt like this before.

WALKER: Amara Walker, CNN, Atlanta.


VAUSE: So in case you didn't see it. Lady Gaga's halftime show at the Super Bowl took a lot of work. A stunning time-lapse video makes that pretty clear. A reporter with the "Cincinnati Inquirer" shot the video, showing a sped-up version of the performance. He then posted and wrote this, "Halftime time-lapse. The coordination is ridiculous as was the outcome of the Super Bowl."

Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm John Vause in Los Angeles.

SOARES: And I'm Isa Soares in London. "World Sport" is up next. Then we'll be back with another hour of news from right around the world. Do join John and myself. You are watching CNN and we are, of course, world's news leader.