Return to Transcripts main page
Tens Of Thousands Honor Manchester Attack Victims; President Trump Tweets He's Calling It A "Travel Ban" Aired 6:30-7a ET
Aired June 5, 2017 - 06:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: If you are just waking up, here is the latest on the London terror attack. British Prime Minister Theresa May confirming the police now know the identity of the three terrorists who pulled off Saturday's deadly London after on attack Saturday. Here she is moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We could never have predicted the tragic turn of events would take. We could never have imagined the appalling to property that led a cowardly and callous killer to target innocent men, women and children, in the way we saw in Manchester two weeks ago. Nor could we have envisioned the brutal attack that was carried out on the streets of London on Saturday evening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: ISIS is now taking responsibility for the attack that killed seven people and injured 48 others. This as President Trump is under fire for criticizing the London's mayor and for stoking fear some say for political gain immediately after the London attack.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Defiance breaking through the clouds of uncertainty in Manchester. Ariana Grande is back. She returned to the place where she was attacked during her concert and everybody who was there and had a star-studded tribute concert for the victims of that attack to show life goes on.
CNN's Phil Black live in Manchester with more. The British resolve is well known and on beautiful display even in the midst of crisis.
PHIL BLACK, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, indeed, Chris. It all made for a truly extraordinary atmosphere. An emotional night for the many of the artists that were performing there. The likes of Katy Perry, Coldplay and Miley Cyrus.
They were all clearly moved, but none more so than Ariana Grande. It was her fans that were targeted in that bomb blast two weeks ago, but especially emotional for that incredible crowd of 50,000 people.
[06:35:05]Many of whom had been at that original Grande concert had heard the blast felt and experienced the panic and the chaos that followed. There was sadness but overwhelmingly a sense of joy. There were so many special moments. Here are some of the highlights.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARIANA GRANDE, MUSIC ARTIST: Had the pleasure of meeting Olivia's mommy a few days ago and as soon as I met her, I started crying and gave her a big hug. She said stop crying because Olivia would not wanted me to cry and then, she told me that Olivia would have wanted to hear the hits. Thank you so much for coming together and being so loving and strong and unified.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's not easy to always choose love, is it? Tell them I love you. Look in their eyes. Say I love you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All these people who are fearless who came for love! We will not be separated.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to take this moment to honor the people that we lost or that were taken. We love you so much. To the families, we love you so much.
BLACK: It was a truly unforgettable night. Power of music and strength of the Manchester community combing to make a very compelling statement against the violence, which has now recently traumatized two British cities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACK: It was a truly unforgettable night. The power of music, the strength of the Manchester community combining to make a very compelling statement against the violence that has now recently traumatized two British cities -- Alisyn.
CAMEROTA: Music is so powerful, Phil, and just watching all of those performances is really poignant. Thank you very much for bringing that to us.
So President Trump just tweeting again about his travel ban and this time he is saying something that may surprise his own press people. That's next.
CUOMO: Whatever you are doing, please just take a moment and pay attention because we have a breakthrough on a very important question. The debate about President Trump's executive order on travel is over. President Trump just said it is a ban and that the original ban that was rejected by the courts is what he really wants.
His press people scolded the media not to call it a ban. Supporters dismissed those calling it a ban as fake and biased. Well, here are the facts. From the president not scripted, not being told what to say, but what is in his head and his heart.
People, the lawyers and courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a travel ban. Remember, extreme vetting. Not a ban. Remember that? All a lie. The Justice Department should have stayed with the original travel ban. Not the watered down politically correct version they submitted to SC, Supreme Court.
The Justice Department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the Supreme Court and seek the must tougher version. Those are the facts from the president of the United States. It is a ban. It has always been a ban and it targets Muslims. That's what the president wants.
Let that debate be over. Joining us now is General Michael Hayden, CNN national security analyst and former director of the CIA and the NSA. I want your perspective, please, General, on the nature of the threat from the countries focused on in this ban and the realities of security in America.
But first, have you ever seen anything like this? This kind of contradiction in the White House? They yelled at us. You fake news people calling this a ban when it is really just vetting. Now the president in his own words says we were right all along. This is a ban. It targets Muslims and he likes that.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Chris, there is so much to be said about that. Number one, I think David Sanger suggested just a while ago this will increase the odds that the Supreme Court will read intent into the current executive order. Intent that might be unconstitutional.
Look, Chris, I joined a friend of the court briefing opposing executive order one and executive order two. In my heart, I actually think the president has this kind of authority. I just think that it's misapplied here that this is a really bad policy step for us to take.
Now I think these tweets are going to allow the court to read back through the tweets into the intent of the ban itself. Chris, can I add just one more thing? We're talking about the ban because the president is talking about the ban.
But anyone who has done this counterterrorism thing for a living is not drawing any connections between what happened in London and what it is this ban thinks it will prevent.
CUOMO: There's no question about the president's right and authority when it comes to the constitution. It is about whether or not this is right to do as you layout.
[06:45:07]So you have two different bases of analysis. First is context of what he saw in the U.K. as a demonstration of why you need a ban. You are saying it doesn't match. When you look at the U.S. security landscape, what the ban wants to do is that what is necessary to keep America safe? Is that the main threat to us people coming overseas and attacking us? Because the statistics don't seem to support that, General.
HAYDEN: It is interesting, Chris, because as you are forming your last sentence, I'm forming an answer in my mind that says statistically you can't prove a connection between the ban and the kinds of threats that we are facing now.
The kinds of threats we are facing now are home grown threats that grow out of a pre-existing Islamic community here in the United States. Chris, I'm telling you as a surveillance guy and counterterrorism guy, the only way we can increase our odds that we detect that kind of threat is through powerful healthy relationships with our Islamic community.
The ban, one, doesn't help against the current threat, but two, actually will very likely make it more difficult because it will alienate the community on which we have to rely to actually deal with the current threat.
CUOMO: So it seems that the position fails both in terms of sensitivity and in making sense. Now there's another layer, another tweet right now in realtime. We know the president is often watching the show. It seems he must be because we are discussing this in earnest right now.
In any event, we are extreme vetting people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political. An interesting issue he raises and one of fact and truth once again.
We've been told, General, that vetting would take place. It would be a 90-day review and that's what this is all about. Do we know of any new vetting procedures for the president to say that they are extreme vetting right now? Has anything changed that we've been told about?
HAYDEN: I don't know that Chris, but that doesn't that that hasn't taken place. It is interesting that you bring up the 90-day period and the extreme vetting. I do think we have it within our ability to tighten up our vetting and again, I've always thought that it's been quite extreme so far.
But if the president wants to make it tighter, he has full authority to do that. If the president is now claiming we have extreme vetting and he still wants the ban, that suggests, Chris, this is not a temporary 90-day thing. He wants to stop people coming into this country from those six or seven countries that he's identified.
CUOMO: And just so everybody understands why this matters, nobody wants bad guys to come in from other places. Nobody wants it to be easy. But the statistics shows that the vetting wasn't terrible to begin with.
But again, General, in this climate right now, in the nature of leaks let alone of disclosure from the White House, what are the chances that if they had significantly changed vetting procedures as they said they would, we wouldn't know about it?
HAYDEN: Well, Chris, as I said, I just don't know and these may be tight, small minute administrative acts that are taken at the front end at the visa issuing offices in our embassies. I just don't know. Chris, look, this is a really serious problem. We have to deal with this.
We are disagreeing about approaches with the president and the administration, but we all have the same goal in mind. So I would hope that this opens up some space for some recent debate between the professionals in our security communities and the folks in the White House.
We are not doing these kinds of things just to meet some sort of political requirement. That we are doing it to meet operational requirements.
CUOMO: Other than geography, is it true that the biggest advantage the U.S. has over places like France and U.K., again, other than geography, is the nature of American society in assimilation specifically with the Muslim-American community? We have over 3 million Muslim-Americans in this country. Is it dangerous to tear at the fabric and to create division?
HAYDEN: Well, of course it is and we do enjoy certain advantages. One is our intelligence services are quite good. Second is geography, distance does matter. The third is history of assimilation, which is different than our European friends. It is a strategic advantage in addition to proving our worth as a people.
CUOMO: All right, General Michael Hayden, perfect timing for you and again, people at home who are watching, the president has said call it a ban that's what it is. I like the original better than what is there now and that we are already extreme vetting. That's the word from the White House -- Alisyn.
[06:50:06]CAMEROTA: OK, Chris. Coming up, we'll have Senator Ben Cardin here. He will give the Democrat's reaction to President Trump's statements.
CAMEROTA: All right. President Trump firing off one tweet after another this morning admitting his immigration order is indeed a travel ban. He also suggests that the revised ban is a sanitized version of the original one that was halted by a federal court and one that he doesn't like as much.
So how will these tweets impact the battle ahead of the Supreme Court? Let's discuss with Maryland Senator Ben Cardin. He is the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Good morning, Senate.
SENATOR BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND: Alisyn, it's good to be with. CAMEROTA: In case you have not read them yet. This tweet at 6:25 a.m. "People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a travel ban. That was the first.
The next followed four minutes later. "The Justice Department should have stayed with the original travel ban. Not the watered down political correct version they've submitted to the Supreme Court."
Next one came out about eight minutes later, "The Justice Department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the Supreme Court and seek much tougher version."
Then the fourth one is interesting, Senator, because it says, "In any event, we are extreme vetting people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political."
[06:55:05]So I guess, fourth tweet, "Problem solved. We are extreme vetting people." Senator, this obviously all seems to be in the aftermath of the London terror attack. How do you interpret the president's message this morning?
CARDIN: The president's message is just the wrong message. It does not make us more safe. The travel ban puts us more at risk. It targets Americans traveling abroad. It does nothing about self- radicalization. It is not in keeping with America's values. It exceeds the president's authority.
It adds for a recruitment tool for terrorist groups. For all those reasons, the president is wrong. As we see the tragedy in the U.K., our thoughts should be with the solidarity of the U.K. and not looking at something that could make America less safe.
CAMEROTA: Well, but we don't know frankly. We don't have enough information. The Brits have not released the names of the attackers or their country of origin. If it turns out that they come from one of these six countries where the president wants the travel ban, then doesn't that help bolster his case?
CARDIN: Not at all. A travel ban will not make us more safe. The travel ban will target Americans traveling abroad for terrorists. It adds as a recruitment tool for terrorist overseas. They will use that to attract more people to the extreme agenda.
Lastly, we know that the terrorist groups operating around the world target locals to assist them. This adds as an effort for self- radicalization. For all those reasons, a travel ban particularly one designed by President Trump, which was a religious test against Muslims, is just not going to keep America safe or keep the global community safer. In fact, it makes us more at risk.
CAMEROTA: But do you think that his tweets where he is admitting that he doesn't like what had been called the new and improved version? But he doesn't like it because it is a lesser version than the original one. He is calling it a travel ban, which some in his press communications department said it is not a travel ban, but better vetting. What do you think this does when the case goes before the Supreme Court?
CARDIN: Well, it clearly shows his intent. Of course, the president doesn't believe in the other branches of government. He doesn't believe the courts should have the power to stop him from doing what he is doing. The courts have ruled. The courts said this abused the executive powers. His lawyers try to justify it by saying it wasn't a travel ban, but it was just extreme vetting. The president made that very clear. It is a travel ban.
CAMEROTA: Do you think that the vetting is successful enough here in the U.S.? I mean, look, there are all sorts of statistics that show refugees coming in from other countries have a lower crime rate than even the natural born Americans. Obviously in the wake of San Bernardino, et cetera, et cetera, there is a feeling that more can be done. Your thoughts?
CARDIN: That is very clear. If you look at the refugee population, they are less likely to commit terrorist activities than the general population. Does that mean we can't do a better job of vetting? No. We can always do a thorough job of vetting those who come to this country.
Well, we also have to rely on intelligence and information and we need to deal with people in our own community. We need to have a comprehensive plan to keep Americans safe against terrorist activities.
But to say that let's block refugees from coming into the country or visitors from coming here. That will not make America safer. It is really not targeting the real problem.
CAMEROTA: So I mean, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, what do you think of President Trump's feud with London's mayor that we have seen play out from President Trump on Twitter?
CARDIN: Well, it is somewhat bizarre the way the president went after the mayor. The mayor as I understand it was basically commenting about the fact that there will be a lot of police activities in London and citizens should not be concerned about it. The president interpreted that differently at a time when everybody is very sensitive of what happened in London. So it seemed like the wrong response by the president.
CAMEROTA: Very quickly in just a few seconds, Senator. Do you think that the new travel ban will make it through the Supreme Court?
CARDIN: No, I don't think it will. I think the travel ban as the president has indicated is a clear effort at a ban that is targeted Muslims. That is not what America stands for. That will not make us safer. I think the courts will agree as we've seen by the lower court decisions.
CAMEROTA: OK, Senator Ben Cardin, thank you very much for joining us this morning. CARDIN: Good to be with you.
CAMEROTA: We are following a lot of news, President Trump's tweets and the latest on the London terror investigation. Let's get to it.
CUOMO: All right. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. We begin with President Trump doubling down and making something very clear, his executive order on travel has always been a ban and that's what he wants it to be.