Return to Transcripts main page


Trump Claims Security of Our Nation at Stake; State Attorney General Says Future Of Constitution At Stake; Clapper: Not Aware Of Any Extraordinary Threats; U.S. Court Rules 3-0 To Keep Travel Ban On Hold; Brady's Jersey Still Missing; White House: Trump To Honor "One China" Policy; ; Conway's Ivanka Sales Pitch Ignites Ethics Storm; Iran's Revolution Day to Take anti-Trump Tone; Naomi Harris Talks "Moonlight" British Film Awards Nomination. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired February 10, 2017 - 01:00   ET



JOHN VAUSE, CNN NEWSROOM ANCHOR: Hello everybody, great to have you with us. I'm John Vause in Los Angeles where it's just gone 10:00 at night. You're watching NEWSROOM L.A. There has been a stinging defeat for U.S. President Donald Trump. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled unanimously to keep his controversial travel ban on hold. The judges found, "no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States." Washington's Attorney General, who challenged the ban, called it a complete victory. President Trump blasted the ruling.


DONALD TRUMP, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: It's a political decision and we will see them in court, and I look forward to doing it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, you believe the judges made a political decision?

TRUMP: We have a situation where the security of our country is at stake. And it's a very, very serious situation, so we look forward - as I just said - to seeing them in court.


VAUSE: CNN's Dan Simon is live outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Here in Los Angeles, we have Private Attorney Lisa Bloom; Democratic Strategist, Robin Swanson; and CNN Political Commentator and Trump Supporter, John Phillips; and from Ankara in Turkey with international reaction to this CNN's Arwa Damon. So, Dan, let's start with you. The court delivered a huge blow to the President's executive order, almost across the board.

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It really was, John. And let me tell you something, following this ruling, we did not see any anti-Donald Trump protesters outside the Ninth Circuit. There was really no public response of any kind. Let me tell you something, having lived in San Francisco for many years had it gone the other way? This plaza outside the Ninth Circuit would be full of protesters even at this hour.

Yes, you did have two judges who were appointed by Democratic Presidents, but I think what is so striking here is that just across the board this was a clear rebuke of this Presidential order. There were questions about the constitutionality. There were questions about whether or not there were threats around the world that would justify this executive order. Just a real slam dunk. 3-0, John.

VAUSE: OK. Dan, thank you for that. Dan Simons there, with the - the very latest from the court. Let's look at the White House now, which is weighing its options on how to proceed with the travel ban. They could write a new executive order narrowing the focus or they could let the current order work its way through the courts.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you see this as a setback?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: He sees it as - what he's always seen as which is the statute provides a President, in this case, President Trump with great latitude and authority to protect the citizens and check the nation's National Security. This was not argued on the merits. Now they will have opportunities to argue the merits - we look forward to doing that, we look forward to prevail. I think his tweet is perfect when he said, "we'll see you in court."


VAUSE: Now, to Lisa Bloom. So, Lisa, the court unanimously rejected the administration's claim of Presidential authority, questioned its motive, concluded the travel ban was unlikely to survive legal challenges. Was there any good news in this really, for the Trump administration?

LISA BLOOM, AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: No, there really wasn't. And it's so funny that he tweets, "see you in court." Because over and over again, he's been losing in court. He's only been in office for three weeks and not only did the lower court in this case, and then the appellate court unanimously reject the Trump travel ban. But other courts across the United States have done so, as well. So, he is not doing well at all in courts.

VAUSE: Well, I should say, the President has indicated he will continue with this legal battle. How difficult would it be for the government to appeal directly to the Supreme Court?

BLOOM: Well, they can appeal directly to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will make a decision about whether to take the case. Our Supreme Court is one justice short, right now. There's only eight, and so, there's four liberals and four conservatives. If there's a four-force split the Ninth Circuit decision will be upheld. But more importantly, I think it will be upheld because Mr. Trump and his team, don't have a good justification for this executive order in the face of the constitutional challenges. You know, you can get away with bluster and bluff when you're in politics or you're in the press or you're on Twitter. But in court, you actually have to have evidence to support your claims and the constitution is paramount in court. And that's the problem he's been having in all of the court battles.

VAUSE: And that's the criticism of the Department of Justice lawyers in this case is that, they didn't really have any evidence - they didn't really have a case. It's sort of an amateur hour.

BLOOM: Well, I don't criticize - the lawyers, maybe because I'm a lawyer myself and you can only argue the case that's handed to you. For example, Mr. Trump says this is all about National Security. But in court, the judges have said over and over again, tell me the name of one terrorist from any of these seven countries, who's come to the U.S. and done harm here? And nobody is able to do it because that fact, that evidence, just does not exist.

[01:05:08] VAUSE: Is there an option here for the administration to take this to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit?

BLOOM: Yes. An en banc review is what that's called. But that's unlikely, why? Because this was a unanimous decision. It's called per curiam, which means it was a 3-0 decision. Usually, a matter will go en banc to the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals if it's a 2-1 split, but that's not the case.

VAUSE: OK. Now, the three justices did say that the President's past statements, his tweets calling, you know, for example, for a total shutdown of Muslim immigration can actually be used as evidence.


VAUSE: How significant is that?

BLOOM: That's very significant. Because, listen, again, in court we're dealing with logic and evidence. And we all know, that Donald Trump, during the campaign, called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the U.S. We have that on video. We have his statement. We know that more recently, Rudy Giuliani said, that President Trump wanted to do a Muslim ban and asked him, "How can I do it in a way that's legal?"

You know, as a Civil Rights lawyer, I would call that a smoking gun. Then, he has the ban from seven Muslim Majority countries, but he accepts the Christian Minority. So, the court says look, obviously, this is a Muslim ban and we think what we hear the entire case, it's going to be considered to be a Muslim ban which is unconstitutional.

VAUSE: Yes. Although, the court did actually - did not actually address the issue of religious discrimination here in the constitution.

BLOOM: Right. So, well, this is a temporary restraining order. A TRO, right. We're very early in the case. So, the court is not making final rulings, but court is indicating which way it's going to go. The court has to find a likelihood of success on the merits. So, they're not saying with finality, this is a Muslim ban. But they're saying, there is enough evidence that we can find that. And they're essentially saying to the government, look, it sure looks like a Muslim ban. You're probably not going to win that argument at trial. If we get to that point.

VAUSE: Could this verdict ultimately limit the President's power to make immigration policy?

BLOOM: Well, the constitution is the limit on the government's power to make immigration policy. Listen, it is true that the government has broad power to do that. And that the President has broad power when it comes to National Security, and the appellate court recognized that. But he doesn't have unlimited power. We are a nation of laws. This is a very important concept. And that even the President has to comply with the constitution. That is our founding document, it is bedrock. Everybody has the fifth amendment right to due process of the laws, which means, you can't just take people's rights away without giving them the chance to have notice, and to be heard, and to defend themselves, and we can't violate our core principle of no religious discrimination. We do not choose one religion over another in America.

VAUSE: Lisa Bloom, thanks so much for being with us. Thanks for the insights.

BLOOM: Thank you.

VAUSE: OK. To our political panel now; Democratic Strategist, Robin Swanson; and CNN Political Commentator, John Philips. So, shortly after the court's ruling the President tweeted, "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake." And the Attorney General for Washington State fired back with this.


BOB FERGUSON, STATE OF WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, we've seen him in court twice. And we're 2 for 2. That's number one. And in my view, the future of the constitution is at stake.


VAUSE: Robin, how damaging politically is this for the President?

ROBIN SWANSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST AND SWANSON COMMUNICATIONS FOUNDER: Yes, I think this is a real crash course in civics for our President. He is learning about checks and balances. That this is not a dictatorship. That he is dealing with co-equal branches of government. And we've learned that he's not a great - he's a sore loser, he's a sore winner as well. But he is not going to be able to bully the judicial branch. And I think that's going to be a problem for him. You're not seeing a lot of Republicans in Congress standing with him, you're seeing even his nominees questioning his tactics. And I think this is going to define the first 100 days of his presidency, if not, four years of his presidency.

VAUSE: John, do you see this as a - as a, sort of a tipping point, you know, a turning moment in the administration just three weeks in? Or is this just a blip on the radar?

JOHN PHILLIPS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Not at all. I see this as Washington's Attorney General, cherry picking, where this lawsuit pops up because he knew that they had sympathetic judges. We saw that first in the State of Washington and the Ninth Circuit which is very liberal. I don't think there are three people in the City of San Francisco that support these travel restrictions - let alone three judges, three attorneys, or three political appointees. So, this thing is going to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And he's going to take his best shot there. If it doesn't work out, guess what? He can go back and issue another executive order, and change some things around. Executive orders are like Chuck Schumer's tears, there's an unlimited supply and they can be summoned at the drop of a hat.


[01:10:01] SWANSON: But that would mean that you would actually have to admit some amount of defeat, if went back and change this order. And I don't think he's been willing to do that. And you know, this isn't a liberal court decision. This was two Republicans, and two Democrats. That they were appointed by two Republicans and two Democrats. It's that just not the case.

VAUSE: Two Democrats, one Republican just to correct the record there. But we take your point. Now, a big part of the court's decision was the government's failure to prove an imminent security threat. It's a view which is supported by the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. Listen on what he had to say.


JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Does the terror threat necessitate the ban from these seven countries?

JAMES CLAPPER, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FORMER DIRECTOR: I don't believe - we the I.C. were aware of any extraordinary threats that were already dealing with. And we're using, I think, some very rigorous vetting processes, which we constantly improved on.


VAUSE: Robin, is the administration hyping the threat of a potential terror attack?

PHILLIPS: Well, when Donald Trump called for extreme vetting during campaign, he was met with criticism not just from Democrats but from other Republicans that he ran against in the primary, including Jeb Bush. And you talk about the Republican on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that Republican was nominated by George W. Bush. So, they're cut from that cloth. The people that did support Donald Trump's theory and plan for extreme vetting were the American people, because they voted for him. And so, the fact that he's trying and may not succeed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that's not going to cause people to throw up their hands and go, oh, we made a mistake. That's going to cause people to tell him to double down and keep trying.

VAUSE: Yes. OK. But robin, I just want - I want to talk about the security stuff. This is an important issue, though, because, you know, Donald Trump has continually gone out of his way to attack the judges. Essentially saying, that they're leaving the country vulnerable to some kind of security risk here. So, is the administration - is Donald Trump hyping the threat here of a terror attack?

SWANSON: I think what he's doing is exaggerating things that - just aren't the case. Refugees are women and children. I think the security threat, yes, we'd all love to know the intelligence and I think he's certainly tipped his hand more than we would like a President to show on Twitter. I don't think he needs to be tweeting about these kinds of things that are matters of National Security. And he certainly doesn't need to be tweeting in all caps at the judicial branch. So, this isn't how we would have a President act and if he wants - he needs to start acting Presidential when it comes to matters of National Security.

VAUSE: And on that issue, John, if there was sort of an imminent threat, if there was a real risk out there, why was no evidence submitted before the court?

PHILLIPS: Well, look, ISIS has said in their own words that they plan on sneaking people through the immigration process, they plan on doing it with the refugees, they plan on doing it with immigrants. They did that on 9/11, with Mohammad Atta. They were people who were here on visas that overstayed their visas. The woman who - in San Bernardino was radicalized before she came in the vetting process, didn't look at her social media accounts. There are serious holes in our vetting process and he's taking them on one by one. And again, this is what the American people wanted. He made it very clear that this is what would happen if he was elected and he's following through.

SWANSON: Discriminating -

VAUSE: Well, in - sorry, go ahead, robin.

SWANSON: Yes, I know. It's just - they're discriminating people based on their religion as un-American as it gets.

VAUSE: OK. Over the past few days, Donald Trump has not held back criticizing the judges on the Ninth Circuit. Listen to this.


TRUMP: If you were a good student in high school or a bad student in high school, you can understand this. And it's really incredible to me that we have a court case that's going on so long, courts seem to be so political. And it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right.


VAUSE: And Robin a few hours ago, he said, the judgment that was handed down was a political decision. It seems he is not going to stop going after the judges who don't rule in his favor.

SWANSON: Yes, well, we know he's been a bully in the past. And frankly, he's the one who made this political. This was his campaign rhetoric for the last year. He's just started talking about this by banning Muslims from America. That is a political statement, it was his political campaign. So, the fact that he's talking about judges being political, is really hypocritical on his part. It makes no sense.

VAUSE: John?

PHILLIPS: It's funny, but all the sudden we're worried about politicians taking shots at judges. What happened during the campaign when Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat down for an interview and she said that Donald Trump was a faker. And she couldn't imagine a world with Donald Trump as President - Donald Trump needs to show his tax returns, and Donald Trump is - has this huge ego. She sits on the Supreme Court. As far as I'm concerned, she should recuse herself when this skit's there, for all of those negative, personal, and political attacks that she's made against Trump.

[01:15:04] VAUSE: Not going to happen, but she did apologize. While this is a blow to the President's travel ban it's not the end of the legal battles. Many, not just here in the United States but all around the world are closely watching to see what happens. Next, we go to Arwa Damon who is live in Istanbul. And Arwa, many will be relieved, at least for now, by the court ruling.

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they are actually, John - coming to you from Ankara this morning, though. And a lot of people are - yes, relieved to a certain degree that this lifeline has remained open at least temporarily. Bearing in mind though, that people have really been scrambling, at least those that have already gone through this process and have valid visas and their passports to try to get to the United States.

Especially, those that were coming as part of the refugee program. The emotional toll that this has taken on them. One can barely begin to describe it, especially, when you take into consideration what it is that a lot of these families especially those from the war-torn countries have already been through. They've already waited for years just to get this far, were full of hope that America would be welcoming them. And now, they're facing the very real possibility that America might be slamming that door in their face.

So, while this temporary pause is being welcomed in the implementation of the ban, there are also other concerns that some refugee organizations are bringing up. For example, the President of World Relief has said that, one of the most important things that this ruling does not address is one of the most dramatic impacts of the executive order, and that is the reduction of the number of refugees to be admitted from 110,000 down to 50,000. Less than half the number that the U.S. was admitting.

Bearing in mind to that, that's only a fraction of the number of people that are actually in need, that actually want to be resettled. To give it a bit of perspective, Turkey itself hosts around three million refugees from Syria alone at this stage. So, the U.S. wasn't really pulling its weight, so to speak, when it came to opening its doors to people that were seeking asylum. You also have incidentally, President Trump who spoke with the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al- Abadi.

According to the Prime Minister's office, they did, among other issue, bring up the issue of visa restrictions for Iraqi nationals. President Trump saying, that they would be looking at ways to try to address that issue as well. But by and large, this whole ban, these whole restrictions on these people coming from the seven predominantly Muslim nations, it really is tarnishing America's image, not just in the middle east but beyond. It's taking America from being this country that people did, to a certain degree, still try to want to look up to as being a nation that welcomed immigrants, as being a nation where the so-called American dream could be realized, to one that is really becoming more isolationists. At a time when the world - many would, are you can hardly afford it.

VAUSE: OK. Arwa, thank you. Arwa Damon in Ankara, for us there live. Let's go back to panel now, John and Robin. So, Jason Chaffetz, the Republican in-charge of the House Oversight Committee. He faced an angry crowd at a town hall in Utah. Listen to this.




VAUSE: They're unhappy about the President's travel ban but they also want to know why the President had not been investigated for conflicts of interest which is what, you know, It's Chaffetz responsibilities here. He's response problem, was that the President has immunity from conflicts of interest. Is that good enough for Democrats?

SWANSON: Clearly, it wasn't good enough for that crowd. And you know, the White House should not be used as an infomercial for all products Trump. So, I think that is one of the many things he will be facing throughout his term, if he continues this kind of tweeting, inappropriately, if his former campaign manager and adviser goes on "Fox & Friends" and talks about buying Ivanka's products. I think all of those are conflicts of interest very clear and, yes, I think he's going to be held to account. And you're going to see those kinds of protest, not just - it's going to be all over the country. Because I think there's a lot of people who are very hopeful for change, that voted for Donald Trump and now they're just seeing the worst cronyism they have ever seen. And I think, they're very dis-effected, very disappointed. And those aren't just Democrats in the crowd there. Those are a lot of folks, who were promised one thing and given something else entirely.

VAUSE: And John to you, last word on this?

[01:19:52] PHILLIPS: I don't believe that for a second. That looks like every single person that didn't vote for Donald Trump in the State of Utah, was put in one room together. When people who voted for Donald Trump start to turn on him, is when he has to worry. But these are people who hated him before the election, they didn't vote for him in the election, and they hate him after the election. So, it's no news to me.

VAUSE: OK. Robin Swanson, John Phillips, thanks for being with us.

SWANSON: Thank you.


VAUSE: A quick break here. And then, President Trump agrees to honor the One-China Policy. Live reaction - a live report rather, with reaction from Beijing in a moment. Also, shopping advice from a Top Presidential Advisor - Kellyanne Conway, wants you to buy stuff from Ivanka Trump. Why members of both parties say, she may have violated federal law.


KATE RILEY, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kate Riley with your CNN WORLD SPORT Headlines. We'd start with confirmation that Barcelona will play the Copa del Ray final against Alaves, without striker Luis Suarez - this thing is sad. The one-match fan was upheld and the forward has now picked up a two-match tournament ban after his sending off in the semifinal second-leg. And then, for taking too long to leave the pitch and staying in the tunnel. Barca has confirmed they will continue to appeal.

From the pitch to St. Moritz in Switzerland for the FIS Alpine World Ski championships. Where one of the biggest names in the sport is struggling to return to winning form. The American, Lindsay Vaughn, said she may be forced to go to such extreme length - says to duct tape her pole to her hand in order to compete. On Tuesday, the 32- year-old failed to finish after she lost grip on her pole in the Super-G. The four-time World Cup winner is still recovering from surgery she had on a broken arm, back on November. She's still optimistic, heading into the weekend events - duct taped or not.

And someone else who should've used duct tape is the Patriots' quarterback, Tom Brady, who is still hoping to get his hands on the jersey he worn during Sunday, Super Bowl. After it went missing during post game celebrations. He maybe in luck though, a law enforcement official told TMZ Sport, they were hopeful that it was packed up right after the game and headed back to Boston now. That's a look at all your sport headlines, I'm Kate Riley.

[01:24:35] VAUSE: President Trump has told Chinese President Xi Jinping, he will follow honor the One China Policy. That's a diplomatic understanding which means the U.S. recognizes Beijing as the only Chinese government and cuts official ties with Taiwan. Before taking office, Mr. Trump questioned whether the U.S. should maintain this long-standing agreement. David McKenzie is in Beijing, live this hour with more details. So, David, this is quite a turn- around for the U.S. President. Any idea why? DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's

really a realistic moment for the U.S. President, because if he treated it any other way, he would have got nowhere with the Chinese government, John. So, there is a feeling amongst some experts already, that I've spoken to that perhaps the new Secretary of State Tillerson, might have had something to do with this adjustment of President Trump's attitude. But it must be said, in recent weeks there's been very little from Trump's administration questioning the One China policy. And we did see that being questioned earlier on in interviews and also of course with that very unusual phone call from President Trump, then President-elect, with the President of Taiwan.

Many people I've spoken to, while I've been in Beijing, and certainly just everyone's understanding of Chinese politics, is the One-China Policy is not something to be negotiated if you want any kind of relationship with Beijing - that needs to be kept as a separate issue. So, certainly, it will calm the diplomats and the Beijing leadership as a starting point of what will potentially be a very difficult relationship.

VAUSE: So, how will they see this news in Taiwan?

MCKENZIE: Well, John, I think of course many Taiwanese, particularly those who are pushing for independence will be disappointed. But I think some of them are realistic with the chances of the relative power that Taiwan has - regarding the whole of China of course, Beijing regards Taiwan as a renegade province. But when it comes to foreign policy, and dealing with China, the interests of the China- U.S. relationship which is one of the most important strategic bilateral relationships in the world, will generally be seen as taking precedented over the Taiwan issue. So, just in terms of real politics many felt that President Trump really had no option, but to accept this long-standing policy which came into effect in 1979 and really paved the way of modern U.S.-Chinese relationships. John.

VAUSE: OK. David, thank you. David McKenzie, live in Beijing. And President Trump is hosting the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, for a summit at the White House on Friday. Then, they'll to the President's estate in Florida for weekend round of golf. There're reports Mr. Abe may offer to invest billions of dollars in the U.S. economy potentially creating thousands of jobs. Will Ripley, reports on what's at stake during the visit.


WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Perhaps, no world leader has gone to greater lengths to build ties with President Trump than Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Who is the first leader to meet with Trump in New York after the election, calling him trust- worthy? Also, giving Trump a high-end golf club in his signature color, gold. Now, the President is returning the favor, inviting Abe for a weekend of golf at his lavish Florida get away, and possibly, a ride on Air Force One.

JEFF KINGSTON, TOKYO PROFESSOR AND AUTHOR: Abe is going to pull out all the stops. RIPLEY: Author and Tokyo Professor, Jeff Kingston, says Japan's

leader needs a successful U.S. Summit. President Trump, could also use a diplomatic win after recent tussles with top allies.

KINGSTON: Both sides have an entrust in trying to make this look good. A bromance.

RIPLEY: It wouldn't be the first, so-called bromance between a U.S. President and Japanese Prime Minister. In the '80s it was Ron and Yasu, the fabled friendship between Raegan and Nakasone. 20 years later, President Bush and Prime Minister Koisumi, bonded over American Pop Culture. President Obama and Abe, never became close friend, but had a strong working relationship.

KINGSTON: It's all about the image. And I think that Abe has Trump's number. He understands that Trump is very petty and vindictive towards those who criticize him, and takes care of his friends. So, Abe is going to be his best friend.

RIPLEY: Being friends, reportedly includes bringing Trump a multi- billion-dollar proposal. Promising massive Japanese investment in U.S. railroads and infrastructure. And potentially, hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Abe, hopes to propose that will deflect criticism from Trump, or betray currency policy, and security. Japan also wants to show China, the U.S. alliance is strong. In Tokyo, some are skeptical.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Mr. Trump is such an extreme person, says this student. I hope they don't end up talking circles.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I'm sure Mr. Abe has his strategy ready, says this I.T. worker, whether it'll actually work on Trump. I'm not so sure.

RIPLEY: The U.S. is Japan's most important economic and military partner. Whatever happens at the White House, and on the golf course, friends and foes, of both countries will be watching. Will Ripley, CNN, Tokyo.


[01:30:01] JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Still to come here on CNN NEWSROOM, White House counsellor, Kellyanne Conway, tells Americans to buy Ivanka Trump's products and her sales pitch ignites an ethics storm.


VAUSE: Welcome back, everybody. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause.

Updating our top story now, a stunning setback for the Trump White House over its travel ban. Three U.S. judges ruled unanimously against reinstating the ban, after another judge put it on hold. President Trump lashed out on Twitter saying, "See you in court." CNN's Laura Jarrett tells us the judges rejected every argument from

the administration.


LAURA JARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In a huge blow for the Trump administration, three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that the travel ban will remain suspended. In a 29-page opinion, the judges rejected each and every one of the arguments the Justice Department used to try to justify a reinstatement of the ban, saying the government failed to prove why the travel ban was necessary as an urgent national security matter.

The judges wrote that "The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree," the court wrote.

Essentially the court is saying while it gives deference on immigration and national security issues, it has every right to review the case, unlike what the government argument on Tuesday.

In the end, the judges said the government did not meet its burden in the case and the travel ban must remain on hold.

The government had previously suggested that the court should limit the ban to those people from the seven banned countries who had never stepped foot on U.S. soil. But these three judges rejected that option as well.

Right now, the Justice Department is reviewing the opinion and weighing the options on what could happen next, which could mean an appeal to the Supreme Court.


[01:35:30] VAUSE: On page 600 of the federal ethics regulations, subpart G, titled, "Use of Public Office for Private Gain, "Federal employees shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a non-governmental capacity."

So, with that in mind, listen to White House counsellor, Kellyanne Conway, on the FOX News channel reacting to a decision by retailer Nordstrom to drop Ivanka Trump's fashion line.


KELLLYANNE CONWAY, SENIOR TRUMP ADVISOR: They are using her, who has been a champion for women in power and the workplace. to get to him. I think people can see through that.

(CROSSTALK) CONWAY: So, go by Ivanka's stuff, is what I would tell you.


CONWAY: I hate shopping. I'm going to get some myself today.

It's a wonderful line. I own some of it. I'm going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it, today, everybody. You can find it online.


VAUSE: It's a wonderful line of clothes. OK, well that comment set off a firestorm and traffic to the government ethics website surged to the point it was inaccessible much of the day. The O.G. also tweeted their website, phone and e-mail system are receiving an extraordinary volume of contacts from citizens about recent events.

So, amid all of the outrage and what appears to be a clear violation of the ethics rules, this was the response from the White House.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Kellyanne has been counselled and that all we are going to go with. She's been counselled on that subject and that's it.


VAUSE: Joining us is Norm Eisen, special council for ethics during the Obama administration and a man who earned the nickname Mr. No.

Norm, thank you so much for being with us.

We just heard from Sean Spicer saying that Kellyanne Conway had been spoken to. Is that the typical disciplinary action for this type of ethics violation?

NORM EISEN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL COUNCIL FOR ETHICS & GOVERNMENT REFORM: John, thanks for having me. And, no, this is not the typical disciplinary action. There is nothing typical about the Trump administration approach to ethics. This is the latest in a series of actions by Mr. Trump himself, by his wife, by his children, to capitalize on his election, and now his service as president of the United States. It stems from Mr. Trump's own refusal to do what every president has done for four decades, Democrat and Republican, give up ownership interests, appoint a trustee. Everybody is getting in on the unethical act, and the latest was Kellyanne Conway.

VAUSE: If something like this had happened during the Obama administration, what would have happened to that staffer?

EISEN: I can tell you one thing, that, for sure, you would not have had this tap on the wrist where a couple hours later the White House press secretary gets up and says she's been counselled, that's all I have to say about it, go away, don't bother me. VAUSE: Clearly the president believes this decision by Nordstrom to

drop the fashion label, which his daughter owns, was politically motivated. Does that have any bearing here?

EISEN: John, that's nonsense. Nordstrom said it's not politically motivated. They've said it's a result of declining sales of the line.

You know, with his tweet, Mr. Trump has attacked the core of the American capitalist free enterprise system, which is to let business function. This kind of bullying is a signal to those who do business with him, including the foreign governments who are making payments and giving him benefits, in violation of the United States Constitution Emoluments Clause. It's a signal to them, don't cut off our supply we're going to punish you. It's wrong, it's unethical, and I think illegal.

VAUSE: The House Oversight Committee has written to the Office of Government Ethics and wants to recommend disciplinary action against Conway, because -- and this is what they say -- "Her statements clearly violate the ethical principles of federal employees and are unacceptable."

But I guess the keyword here is "recommend" because any action, it's ultimately up to the White House, isn't it?

[01:40:00] EISEN: Well, on this specific instance, the ethics issue will be up to the White House with respect to the violation. And even the White House agrees, she had to be counselled. The White House did not dispute there was a violation.

There is appropriations law that comes into play here. You are not supposed, to under our rules for spending the taxpayer dollars, you are not supposed to use it for an unauthorized purpose. An infomercial for Ivanka's line is an unauthorized purpose.

So, we may see more congressional oversight. And, more importantly, this is part of a pattern and practice where people are litigating, going to the courts, like with the Muslim ban case that Mr. Trump lost tonight. I am part of litigation to cut off foreign government payment to the administration. This big pattern is going to be looked at by courts and other bodies.

VAUSE: And it's still the third week.


Norm Eisen, thank so much for being with here. We really appreciate it.

EISEN: Thanks for having me, John.

VAUSE: It looks like Donald Trump's proposed wall along the U.S./Mexican border may cost much, much more than originally claimed. The Reuters News Agency is reporting it will cost $21.6 billion and it could take more than three years to build. That's based on an internal U.S. Department of Homeland Security report that Reuters says it saw on Thursday. Mr. Trump said during the campaign the wall would cost $12 billion. Top Republican lawmakers have put the price at $15 billion.

It's Revolution Day in Iran and celebrations are expected to take on an anti-Trump tone. We'll have the latest in just a moment.


[01:45:23] VAUSE: Iran is celebrating Revolution Day, the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Parades are lining the streets of the capital, Tehran. And President Hassan Rouhani is set to make a public address at any moment.

This comes during a time of heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington. Just last week, the national security adviser, Michael Flynn, said he was putting Iran on notice after they launched a ballistic missile, which the U.S. says was a violation of U.N. sanctions. Iran said they had a right to do it and it was not a violation. But the new administration in Washington did slap new sanctions onto Iran because of that ballistic missile launch, and the Iranians have amped up their war of words with the United States.

With that in mind, Fred Pleitgen joins us live from Iran's capital.

So, Fred, given the escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran, are we expecting more anti-U.S. rhetoric, anti-Donald Trump rhetoric today?

FRED PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's what we are seeing shape up here. We're at the Revolutionary Day parade, which is a big event in Iran every year, but this year, it seems like it's even bigger than before. And one of the reasons for that is because the Ayatollah Khomeini has told people to come out here in force. He said that this day is going to be Iran's answer to Donald Trump. And we are seeing a lot of people are anti-Donald Trump posters and people with posters of Donald Trump on it with quotes from the ayatollah, saying that Donald Trump has shown the world the true face of the United States. The Iranians are coming out in force today. And in speaking to people, a lot of them are very angry at the rhetoric from the White House. Also of course, the sanctions levied against Iran, the travel ban. It looks as though people are mobilizing on this day. Right now, there are hundreds of thousands who are coming to central Tehran here for this demonstration.

VAUSE: So, Fred, would you say the atmosphere, it's a celebration or angry? How would you describe it?

PLEITGEN: Well, I mean, obviously, first and foremost, it's a celebration. They are celebrating their Revolutionary Day, the day that they occupied the embassy here in Tehran. But at the same time, there is obviously a lot of anger at America that is displayed as well. You have people chanting "death to America." And then, the Trump administration, the new president is a lightning rod for a lot of the demonstrators here. You can see that reflected in a lot of the protesters with some of the posters that they have and some of the things they are telling us as well, where they say, look, this man, Donald Trump is against Iran. They have been hearing the rhetoric and they say it's something that angers them a lot.

There is obviously a lot of very, very hard feelings towards the new president here by a lot of Iranians because of the policies in the early days of the new administration.

VAUSE: OK, Fred, thank you. Fred Pleitgen, there amongst the crowd while they celebrate Iran's Revolution Day. Appreciate it.

A short break here. When we come back on NEWSROOM L.A., Hollywood's Academy Awards are more than two weeks away but the BAFTAs will be handed out on Sunday night. CNN speaks with British actress, Naomi Harris, whose movie "Moonlight" is up for best film.



[01:52:34] VAUSE: Actor George Clooney will be soon starring in a new role, fatherhood. Reports are confirmed that Clooney's wife, Amal, is pregnant with twins. Matt Damon says that Clooney told him the news last year but urged him to stay quiet until further in the year. The babies, reportedly, a boy and a girl, are due in June.

On Sunday night, movie fans will be tuning in to the annual British Film Awards. They have singled out "La La Land" for 11 nominations, including best film. Also, nominated for best film is "Moonlight," the best drama at last week's Golden Globes.

And CNN's Neil Curry spoke with one of the stars.


NEIL CURRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The British actress, Naomi Harris, has walked the red carpet on some of the biggest blockbusters, from "Pirates of Caribbean" to the Bond movies where she appears alongside Daniel Craig, as Ms. Money Penny.

NAOMI HARRIS, ACTRESS: I'm going to lose him.

JUDITH DENCH, ACTRESS: Can you get into a better position?

HARRIS: No time.

CURRY: But it's low-budget movie, "Moonlight" which has secured her the holy trinity nominations, the Golden Globe, BAFTA and Oscar nomination.

HARRIS: I definitely think the movie as a whole is incredibly important. The first thing is you got to get people to see the performances to nominate them. To entice people, you have to be part of a great movie.

Why you didn't come home like you're supposed to? Huh? And who is you?

CURRY: Breaking out from a global press tour of "Specter," Harris had three days to shoot the role of a drug addicted mother of a boy discovering his true sexuality in a tough urban community.

HARRIS: I think it has to be as realistic as possible so it touches something inside people. Because I think that's why you go to the movies is to be moved.

CURRY: The actress is encouraged by the greater diversity among this season's nominees following last year's Oscar so white controversy.

HARRIS: You want to have a controversy with me?


HARRIS: It's so diverse this year and it's fantastic. I think we want as an audience to see diversity. You know, we want to see life is incredibly diverse. We as people are incredibly diverse. And art is supposed to reflect life. So that's what we want to see on the screen too.

CURRY: Harris has an easy way to keep her grounded in the face of her recent success.

[01:55:11] HARRIS: What works for me is my family. I'm really, really close to my family. I live on the same street as them. They're just eight doors away. Whenever I'm down I go to my family. A lot of insults in my family. That's how they get through. That's their sense of humor. But it always gets me laughing and puts life in perspective as well.

CURRY: With "Moonlight" nominated for eight Academy Awards, Harris says she's proud to be in a film that moved critics and audiences alike.

Neil Curry, CNN.


VAUSE: You are watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause.

Please stay with us. I'll be back with more news after a short break.


[02:00:11] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.