Return to Transcripts main page
Republicans Brace For CBO Analysis Of Health Care Bill; Ousted South Korean President Faces Corruption Probe; New Michael Brown Video Raises Questions About Shooting; New Travel Ban Faces Legal Challenges. Aired 7:30-8a ET
Aired March 13, 2017 - 07:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[07:30:00] SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: -- throughout the country, what will happen to their insurance rates. That they will spike if this bill goes into effect so that we build pressure on Republicans to come and work with Democrats. Right now, there is not enough pressure on Republicans to truly reach across the aisle because they think that they can rush through a bad bill that the American public won't ever see or understand before it's passed into law.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: We'll see if there is a little bit more bipartisan action.
MURPHY: I'm ready.
HARLOW: Senator Chris Murphy, thank you.
MURPHY: Thank you.
HARLOW: It's nice to have you on -- Chris.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right, Poppy, there is a lot of news going on this morning. We have tensions rising in Korea. South Korea's president ousted over corruption charges. Will she be pursued as a private citizen? The North continuing its aggression. Christiane Amanpour joins us next.
CUOMO: South Korea is without a president this morning after she was impeached over a major corruption scandal. Meantime, North Korea continues its provocative behavior, test-firing missiles, ramping up its nuclear program. Let's discuss this and much more with CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour. One of the turns of irony here, Christiane, was the North celebrating the impeachment in the name of justice.
[07:35:07] CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes. I mean, the name of justice, yes, you can -- you can sort of enjoy the irony. But what's really important is that this has happened in South Korea, which is a major U.S. ally. And Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is headed over that way this week and he'll be having a summit in Beijing as well. And all of this within the framework of an increasingly aggressive North Korea. I mean, the way the impeachment and what's happened in South Korea is being played is actually as a reaffirmation of the rule of law and liberal democracy because that's the process. It's happened, the court has upheld it. They'll be a snap election and it's considered her opponent in the Democratic Party will win.
But what to do about North Korea? I had former Secretary of Defense William Perry on my show just over the weekend and he basically said look, if he was advising Rex Tillerson he would say let us try to get a back channel or some kind of channel with China to somehow bring North Korea back from the brink. He says North Korea has a very weak hand but is playing it very, very shrewdly. And, as yet, we do not know the results of the Trump administration-North Korea policy review.
But William Perry, who knows more than any other American official right now about the North and has been there and has been studying this for decades said that we're heading towards a train wreck, with or without a policy. So this is really, really important, one of the mostimportant foreign policy potential crises on the horizon for the U.S. and, of course, for the whole world.
HARLOW: Also, Christiane, you're joining us from London. Across Europe, elections may very well --
HARLOW: -- change the landscape so much, obviously, in France. But before that, in the Netherlands you have a big election on Wednesday. Geert Wilders, a man who has called for banning the Quran, banning Muslims from immigrating. He's called Barack an "immigrant scum." He could likely win. What's the outlook?
AMANPOUR: Well, I've met Geert Wilders many times since the early 2000's and this has been his absolute policy. It's just anti-Islamic and they all should go home, and we should close the borders, and we should ban the Quran and all the rest of it. Now, he was looking quite strong but over the last few weeks the polls have started to tighten very, very significantly and over the last few days the current center-right prime minister, Mark Rutte, was actually ahead in the polls.
But, there has been a major sort of situation going on in the streets of the Netherlands, of Germany, and et cetera over the last few days, basically instigated by the Turkish government which is trying to lead rallies-- bring their foreign ministers and other officials over to Europe to lead rallies for the Turkish constitutional referendum, which is due to be held in the next few months, and that has caused a load of unrest in the Netherlands. That's the latest one.
But we believe that, still, the government is hanging in there and that Wilders may get a lot of votes but he will not go into government because none of the other established parties will form a coalition with him, and in the Netherlands you can't rule without a coalition.
CUOMO: Right. All right. So you have the animosity towards this group of emerging refugees in Europe and then you have the sympathy for that same group and that takes us to Bana Alabed, the seven-year- old. Everybody got to know her here in America because of her, you know, heart-rendingentreaties for mercy to these people. There's a documentary coming out called "Cries from Syria" and, you know, this is very important to you. What should people know?
AMANPOUR: Well look, you know, just -- it happens, today, that UNICEF, the U.N. children's organization, has come out and said that 2016 was the most deadly year for kids. Something like 650 children were killed because of the war and about 800-plus were recruited into fighting, and many of them were killed near schools and other such things. And so, yes, this is a sort of a plea for a situation where, you know, the U.S. has put the brakes on Syrian refugees and all the kinds of things that are going on, which has really sort of upended policy and politics in the West over the last several years.
So it's really important to remember that there's this war still going on and to remember, also, that the Syrian War started, literally, by Assad releasing a heavy vengeance on children who, as pranksters -- literally, 14-year-olds saw the Arab Spring in 2011 and started spraypainting innocent things on school walls. They were arrested and tortured, sent back to their parents mutilated, and that's what started the first load of protests against the Assad regime six years ago this week, and that is how this war sort of started.And, Assad released all the al Qaeda and Islamic people from jails to fight this war. Now he calls it a war against terrorism. So it's really complicated and it's still going on, Chris.
[07:40:04] HARLOW: All right. Christiane Amanpour in London for us. Thank you very much for all those headlines. When we come back, protests overnight in Ferguson, Missouri. This is all after a new video comes out. It's part of this documentary that's certainly making a lot of headlines and raising questions about what happened before Michael Brown was fatally shot by police there in Ferguson. We're going to have the documentary-maker who moved to Ferguson -- lived there for two years to make this film. We're going to have him join us, next.
CUOMO: All right. Security video in a new documentary is raising questions about what happened in the hours before Michael Brown was shot to death in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. The new video appears to show Brown inside the Ferguson Market and liquor store -- the same store he was accused of robbing several hours later. CNN can't confirm the video's authenticity. It does appear to challenge the account from police that Brown robbed the store moments before he was killed by Office Darren Wilson, again, back in 2014.
The new video is part of this documentary "Stranger Fruit" that premiered at the South by Southwest Festival. An attorney for the Ferguson Market says the video was edited and doesn't tell the whole story in a statement that attorney Jay Kanzier says, "I can now confirm that the uncut video shows the clerks throwing a bag back to Mike Brown. The filmmaker edited it out." Joining us now, that filmmaker, Jason Pollock. Also with us, CNN political commentator Marc Lamont Hill and CNN law enforcement analyst Harry Houck.
Jason, let's start with that allegation that you edited this video to show what you wanted it to show. It is not the full truth. The full video's going to be released by the store. How do you want to couch it?
[07:45:13] JASON POLLOCK, FILMMAKER, "STRANGER FRUIT": I would love to see it. We show the entire exchange. We show the exchange from behind the counter. We chose to use that camera angle so that you could see the counter clearly during the entire exchange. There is no -- at no time does the little bag come back across the counter. You can clearly see what happens. Anybody that sees it sees what happens. The store clerk gave Michael the bag over the counter, himself. Why would the store clerk put the box of cigarillos in the bag and then hand it to Michael if that was not what he wanted to happen?
CUOMO: But just to be clear --
POLLOCK: Michael, then, is about to walk out of the --
CUOMO: Just to be clear --
POLLOCK: What's that?
CUOMO: Just to be clear, what the attorney says is you're going to see him hand that bag back. I guess this is a suggestion that Brown --
POLLOCK: But we see the video. You can see the video, that's the thing.
CUOMO: And you used all of it, you're saying?
POLLOCK: The whole -- absolutely, you see the whole event. Michael walks in the store, throws the bag. You see him walk in the store and throw the bag. We then cut to the back angle so that you can see the counter because we wanted to make sure you could see the counter. You couldn't see the counter from the side angle, so we show the back angle. Once the bag hits the counter we cut to the back angle so you can see the whole back angle, which is a much better view. You then see the exchange. You see them hand him the stuff.
Why would they hand him the stuff? You don't steal a store by being handed stuff from the clerk, and this is a shady store. We've asked a lot of people in this community. You can buy weed at the store. And there's a lot of people at the community that barter with the store all the time. Michael's not a drug dealer. What happened at that store is commonplace. The young people at the store didn't want to tell the old guy at the store what was happening and they still don't want to tell that old guy at the store what's happening. So they lied to him and now he's lying to the lawyer.
And he didn't know what happened the night before and that's why he didn't know. And we saw the altercation take place in the second half of the video. The video that the St. Louis County Police wanted us to see that made it look like there was some altercation that looked like Michael robbed when, in fact, Michael had a close relationship with the store. And regardless of what the store says, that video shows that.
Also, this is not about the video. My film is really about the physical evidence on Canfield, which shows that Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown.
CUOMO: Darren Wilson.
POLLOCK: The video is a distraction --
CUOMO: All right.
POLLOCK: -- even --
CUOMO: Just to be -- just to be clear about it, you know, a lot of these are your suggestions. It's not our reporting. We'll see what they put out in terms of the video and what the discrepancy is.
POLLOCK: Let me just say something real quick about the corroboration.
CUOMO: But hold on. Let me -- let me bring in the panel for a second, Jason.
CUOMO: I'll get back to you in one second. All right.
CUOMO: If taken on its face, as purported in the documentary, it would go to the suggestion that Mike Brown wasn't there to steal, he was there to do a transaction which may or may not have been legal. What's your take on that?
MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: First of all, that's very important. What Jason said is very important. I spent a lot of time with Brown and Ferguson for my book "Nobody" and there's a ton of suggestion that the store was shady -- that illegal things were going on in the store -- so there tends to be evidence to support that.
One of the things that it speaks to is Mike Brown's character. I remember a year ago I said Darren Wilson didn't know Mike Brown was -- had been accused of stealing from the store and you said to me, yes, but in Mike Brown's mind he thought he was being stopped for that if he, in fact, stole from the store. Well, this suggests that maybe even in Mike Brown's mind he didn't have that -- he didn't have that intent, he didn't have that expectation. So it informs our understanding of what may have happened between Darren Wilson and Mike Brown.
But at the end of the day, regardless of what happened in the store, there's another bigger question lingering, which is still, did Darren Wilson have to kill Mike Brown? I've always said no and this actually speaks to that, I think.
CUOMO: Well, the -- right. We have to unpack several different things here, Harry, because they did an investigation of this and they wound up clearing the officer --
CUOMO: -- so it's not a lingering question in terms of the police are concerned. But should it be in light --
POLLOCK: It is a lingering question.
HARRY HOUCK, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, RETIRED NYPD DETECTIVE, HOUCKCONSULTING.COM: No -- Jason --
CUOMO: Jason, I get that it's a lingering question for you. I'm not saying it's not a question. I'm saying it has been investigated.
POLLOCK: It's not just a lingering question for me, Chris. It's a lingering question for a lot of people in the world.
HOUCK: Hey, Jason --
CUOMO: I'm just talking about the investigation.
CUOMO: Hold on a second, all right? I take your point, Jason. I'm just saying investigatively. I'm just trying to keep us straight on what the fact pattern is here. It's been looked at, he was cleared, but what do you make of the suggestion that there's more there than the reckoning of how Mike Brown was painted and what led up to the altercation?
HOUCK: It still shows him as a drug dealer anyway, if this is true, you know. Well, Mr. Pollock basically said that he was giving marijuana, right, to the -- for cigarillos, right? That's what he is saying.
CUOMO: But that doesn't mean -- that doesn't make him a drug dealer even if that's all true.
HOUCK: It's a drug deal, Chris. It's a drug deal. It doesn't matter how it's done. If I give you drugs for something, that's a drug deal.
[07:50:00] CUOMO: Right.
HOUCK: You go to jail, OK? But --
CUOMO: Yes, but it doesn't make him a drug dealer. That's all I'm saying.
HOUCK: Yes, but what I'm saying is that basically -- and even the --
HOUCK: Also, Mr. Pollock, I've got two -- I've got two questions for you, all right? How do you know, in the first place, all right, that there was any drugs in that -- in that little yellow envelope, right?
POLLOCK: Because you can smell it.
HOUCK: Did you interview anybody --
POLLOCK: You can see them --
HOUCK: Do you want to answer my question, all right, because right now I think this is --
POLLOCK: Let me answer your question.
HOUCK: Hold on, Chris.
CUOMO: I know. I'm not going to interrupt you.
HOUCK: This is all assumptions on this guy's part.
CUOMO: All right, but calm down for a second. He says they smelled the bag.
POLLOCK: Assumptions? Look at the video, sir.
POLLOCK: They're smelling the bag.
HOUCK: So what does that mean, right? Because as far as I know --
POLLOCK: It means it's a little bag of weed.
HOUCK: -- somebody smelling the bag -- I can't lock somebody up for smelling a bag. That's an assumption on your part.
HILL: Yes, but prove what it is.
HOUCK: Second of all, how do you know --
HILL: It's not an assumption.
HOUCK: -- the second video is involved in the robbery, all right? The second video is part of that drug deal from the first place. Do you have somebody in the store both times that you spoke to regarding what happened or is this just an assumption in your head?
CUOMO: All right, go ahead. Answer, Jason.
POLLOCK: Michael was in the store 10 hours before. He was handed two boxes of cigarillos in the store. You think it's a coincidence that 10 hours later he went in the store and asked for the boxes of cigarillos that he was handed? Come on.
CUOMO: All right, hold on. Let's Jason finish his point.
HOUCK: You better know exactly --
CUOMO: Harry --
HOUCK: -- what the evidence is that you're talking about, not assumptions.
POLLOCK: Look at the video. Look at the video.
HILL: The microphones work, you all. We could talk a little lower.
POLLOCK: You know what this reminds me of? This reminds me of the inauguration when people looked --
HOUCK: Here we go.
POLLOCK: -- at the empty field and Donald Trump --
HOUCK: Here we go.
POLLOCK: -- said oh, it's the biggest field in the --
HOUCK: --when all you talk about on your Twitter site --
CUOMO: All right.
HOUCK: -- is how Michael Brown is innocent and the police officer who killed Tamir Rice is a murderer. That's all you can talk and that's what you're all about.
CUOMO: All right, Harry.
HOUCK: You have no evidence of anything and that robbery still occurred.
CUOMO: All right, Harry --
POLLOCK: Continue your white supremacy on this air.
CUOMO: Let me have you take. Jason --
POLLOCK: Continue your white supremacy --
HOUCK: Oh, I'm a white supremacist?
POLLOCK: You look ridiculous.
HOUCK: Thank you, thank you.
CUOMO: Harry, hold on a second. And, Jason, you don't have to be a white supremacist to question facts, you know that. Let's keep it in check. Last word from you.
HILL: Oh, wow, this is -- so, a couple of things real fast. One, to Harry's point, I think you're right. We can't prove what's in the bag any more than we can prove he's a drug dealer, but we do look at circumstantial evidence. When someone is sniffing a bag, testing it, it's probably not baby power, it's probably not cologne. We could probably make the argument. But you've got somebody who's buying blunts --
HOUCK: So -- so --
HILL: Wait, let me finish. I get the last word.
HOUCK: You don't get a nickel bag for $200 worth of cigarillos.
HILL: I'm not saying you do.
POLLOCK: It's $20 a cigarillo. It's two boxes.
HOUCK: That was -- those are two giant boxes and they have several packs in those boxes.
POLLOCK: Give me a break. Twenty dollars.
HILL: It was about -- it was about $20 worth, based on what I've heard. But, again, that's just based on the evidence. Again, ultimately, this doesn't --
POLLOCK: That's right.
HILL: This doesn't necessarily change what happened on Canfield but it does raise questions.
POLLOCK: That's exactly right.
HILL: It does -- it does change the conversation. I agree with you, Chris. We don't know all the information.
HOUCK: It doesn't raise anything.
HILL: Maybe not for you but, again, I've been dealing with you since the beginning of this case and nothing raises questions for you about this.
HILL: So -- but for some of us --
HOUCK: And I've been proven right because the officer walked.
HILL: Well, every conversation --
POLLOCK: Oh, you've been proven right, please.
HILL: Just because the officer walked doesn't mean that you're right unless you're --
HOUCK: Because you just make up evidence here. I mean, all the evidence proves that Michael Brown --
POLLOCK: There's a bullet -- there's a bullet in the top of Michael Brown's head, sir.
HILL: This last word has been awesome, by the way.
CUOMO: Well, you know what? I'm actually -- I'm interested in the conversation as long -- you know, the tone came back down so I'm more interested in the conversation now. So, to Harry's point, just pick it up on that because this is a big point for people. They'll say "hand up, don't shoot" has become a mantra.
POLLOCK: Harry is lying and everything he's saying is a lie.
CUOMO: Jason, Jason, relax.
POLLOCK: You're a liar and a fraud.
CUOMO: All right, hold on, that's not helpful, by the way.
HILL: It doesn't help up.
CUOMO: Let's have the conversation the way you guys are having it some of the time, which is you make a point, you get a counterpoint. We don't need any insults on this show. There's plenty of it going around already. So the "hands up, don't shoot" thing --
POLLOCK: I'm just telling the truth. Chris, your viewers know that he's lying.
CUOMO: Jason --
POLLOCK: I'm just telling the truth.
CUOMO: Our viewers are smart. They make their own judgments. You don't have to presume it for them.
POLLOCK: That's right.
CUOMO: Just -- let's keep the conversation going.
POLLOCK: That's right.
CUOMO: So, the "hands up, don't shoot" -- I know that it was extended as metaphor to things that happen in policing around the country, but --
HILL: That's true.
CUOMO: -- specific to this case it did wind up being factually not a factor in the investigation. HOUCK: Correct.
CUOMO: How do you deal with that?
HILL: Based on the (INAUDIBLE). I mean, if you read my book "Nobody" like I concede that plan. I never make the argument that "hands up, don't shoot" has been proven by the investigators. I never make that point. What I do make the point is that what happens in the store is more complicated. And as Jason is talking about, there has always been considerable evidence that perhaps it wasn't a robbery. This video simply supports that claim that's already been made.
HOUCK: It was a robbery.
CUOMO: Why do you say that? Why?
HOUCK: A forcible taking of anything is a robbery.
HILL: Harry, hold one, let me finish.
HOUCK: Why? Because the drug dealer tried to get his cigarillos on --
HOUCK: Of course, it's a robbery
POLLOCK: How do you sleep at night debating a child who was killed --
HOUCK: I sleep at night fighting guys like you.
POLLOCK: -- in the street --
HOUCK: That's what I do.
POLLOCK: -- and on national television.
CUOMO: Jason, let's stick to the facts. Stick to the facts. You don't have to make character assassinations.
HILL: The argument is that if he made an exchange and then he came back --
POLLOCK: He's making the character assassination.
HILL: -- and the then he makes -- and then he comes back later to pick up the things that he's already paid for, even if it's through weed, the argument is that wasn't a strong arm robbery.
[07:55:03] HOUCK: Of course, it's a robbery.
HILL: Well, let's take for a minute the legal technicality. What I'm saying, Harry, if you and I make a deal, right. I give you drugs, yougive me a stack of magazines, right? HOUCK: O.J. went to jail for 10 years trying to get stuff back that belonged to him.
HILL: But let's not chase the red herring real quick. Just stay with me for one second.
HOUCK: OK, I'm with you.
HILL: What I'm saying is that if we make a deal --
HILL: -- even if -- even if the thing I'm dealing with is an illegal substance --
HILL: -- i.e., weed, right? If I come back later to pick up the stuff that I paid for through the weed --
HILL: -- I am not robbing you, is what I'm saying.
HOUCK: Yes, you are if you're forcibly taking it from me --
HILL: The claim is --
HOUCK: -- because the law does not give you any allowance to be able to do that.
HILL: That's right, but we don't -- you're missing my point.
CUOMO: My point is that the video -- does it show that it was a forcible taking or not?
HILL: That's the point. What we're rejecting is the claim --
HOUCK: It does.
HILL: -- that he --
CUOMO: All right, let's leave it there. And, Jason --
HOUCK: The second video shows that.
CUOMO: All right. Jason, just to be clear, I know it's tough because you're on remote but we don't need to do it in terms of insulting who's making what argument and not argument. You --
POLLOCK: You know what's tough, Chris? What's tough --
CUOMO: You've got your video out there.
POLLOCK: -- is that -- what's tough, Chris, is that I've been living with the Brown family for two years. CUOMO: I know you have.
POLLOCK: And what's tough is I see the world through their eyes. And you know what's tough?
HOUCK: And you're lying to them, also.
POLLOCK: What's tough is that they're hurt by --
CUOMO: Easy, Harry.
POLLOCK: -- what people like Harry are saying right now. They are crying at their houses -- by people like Harry and what they are saying right now. So I am personally hurt by the offensive comments from the radical right to destroy this young man's character. That's what's the problem.
HOUCK: We know where you're coming from?
CUOMO: All right. But, Jason --
HOUCK: We know where you're coming from.
CUOMO: All right, but Jason, look, there's a lot of pain to go around. I'm not questioning the source of your pain and what you've been exposed to. I'm just saying the most helpful thing is you put the facts out there, you make the arguments on the basis of what you think you know --
POLLOCK: That's right.
CUOMO: -- and we go from there.
POLLOCK: That's right.
CUOMO: There's no reason to attack each other. There's been plenty of that already and it hasn't gotten us anywhere. But thank you for coming on the show. We'll see what happens when your video comes out about this lawyer and the store can put out.
POLLOCK: I really appreciate it.
CUOMO: We'll have you back on if there's a material discrepancy.
CUOMO: Gentlemen, thank you, as always --
POLLOCK: Great, great.
CUOMO: -- especially you, Marc -- Poppy.
HARLOW: All right, guys. Also, this week, President Trump's new travel ban is set to take effect. It's going to happen on Thursday. It, of course, still has a chorus of critics who say this is just the same bill, different wrapping paper -- same executive order. They say that this discriminates against Muslims. Will it hold up to those court challenges that took it down on the first try?
Joining us now to discuss, Andre Segura, with the ACLU. Also, Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. It's nice to have you both here. This takes effect on Thursday. And let me begin with you, Andre, because we did not see the protests -- thousands of people at the airports, et cetera. This is different. The question is to what extent is it different, and that's an answer that will only come from the courts from these challenges. But I would pose to you there is no mention of religion in this one, for example. You guys still want to fight this.
ANDRE SEGURA, ACLU STAFF ATTORNEY: Right. And in the first one, to be clear, there was only one mention of religion, but what we're arguing is beyond that. You have to look, and courts allow you to look, beyond the four corners of a document to say there was discriminatory intent based on religion.
HARLOW: But are you looking at intent -- just for our viewers, you're talking about -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- when the president said during the campaign that he will institute a Muslim ban. Legally, that's a hard argument to make that intent before someone was in office is what is part and parcel of what --
SEGURA: It's not because this is -- this is directly connected to what he wanted. And he said I'm going to have a complete and total shutdown on Muslim immigration and this is what he's trying to do through this -- through proffered security rationales. But we know in the original order that carries on to the second attempt, in which they waited to do and now have stripped it of certain things to try to pass legal muster. But it's very clear. The president has not said anything genuine to change his original rationale. It's still pretty much the same thing.
HARLOW: So, Dan, what do you say to that because you could also point to Rudy Giuliani's comments, right -- someone who was very close to the president during the campaign and still is. He said look, the president called me up and said how do we make this Muslim ban legal? Does that hurt them with this second attempt, in the court system?
DAN STEIN, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM (FAIR): Look, we think the incumbent administration has done an excellent job in tightening up the original drafting, excluding permanent resident aliens and others to, in the four corners of the document, rely on a very heavy basis of statutory authority. We're talking years, decades of practice ratified even by the Ninth Circuit. The president has this delegated authority from Congress. And by excluding permanent resident aliens and eliminating every -- any reference to religion, I mean, this thing is buttoned up and airtight.
And part of the reason they went back and redrafted the executive order was they wanted to make sure that an eight-person Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality and legality of this ban. We are --
HARLOW: So what are -- so what about the --
STEIN: -- totally confident that this will be upheld.
HARLOW: -- fact that one of the senior advisers at the White House, Steven Miller, came out on "FOX NEWS," you know, just about a week or so before this second executive order was handed down and said fundamentally, you are still going to have the exact same basic policy outcome for this country? He said these are "minor, technical differences." I mean, the first one did not hold up in the courts.
STEIN: Well, it's changing --
HARLOW: What do you make of this statement saying essentially the same thing?
STEIN: Eliminating law for permanent residence from the ban is a huge change in the substance --
STEIN: -- as well as the procedural due process arguments constitutionally.