IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

MTP Daily, Transcript 1/30/2017

Guests: Sam Stein, Ben Cardin, Eliana Johnson, Perry Bacon, Clarence Page, Andrea Mitchell, Jeremy Bash

Show: MTP Daily Date: January 30, 2017 Guests: Sam Stein, Ben Cardin, Eliana Johnson, Perry Bacon, Clarence Page, Andrea Mitchell, Jeremy Bash

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: KORNACKI: I`m Steve Kornacki. "MTP DAILY" starts right now.

PETER ALEXANDER, MSNBC HOST: Yes, it`s Monday.

Backlash from outside and inside the Trump administration over a controversial executive order. Tonight, the White House defends its immigration order after a weekend of chaos, confusion, and protests at airports across the country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I actually had a very good day yesterday, in terms of homeland security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: Trump aids pushing back against objections from inside the administration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN SPICER, U.S. WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: To get with the program or they can go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: Plus, opposition in the age of Trump. How should the Democrats respond to the president?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: This executive order was mean-spirited and un-American. It must be reversed, immediately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: And making room at the table, White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon joining the National Security Council.

This is MTP DAILY and it starts right now.

Good evening, I`m Peter Alexander in Washington in tonight for my friend, Chuck Todd. Welcome to MTP DAILY.

We`re going to begin tonight by sorting through the escalating chaos rippling through Washington right now, which, believe it or not, has former President Obama getting involved after only 10 days out of power.

Right now, President Trump continues to stand firm amid growing criticism over his executive order. Restricting travel from seven Muslim majority nations, halting refugee admissions, and indefinitely banning Syrian refugees.

In less than an hour from now, House and Senate Democrats are going to gather on the steps of the Supreme Court where they will demand that President Trump withdraw that order.

We have seen at least 18 Senate Republicans publicly criticize the travel ban. Some are arguing it`s too severe, while others are knocking the White House for issues with its rollouts.

And government agencies are scrambling to figure out how they implement this. And some Republicans are also openly chiding the administration that the executive order on vetting was, itself, not properly vetted.

Powerful Republican congressmen have sent a warning to the White House not to cut them out of this process, including the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee who said, quote, "this weekend`s confusion is an indication that the details of this executive order were not properly scrutinized. Congress has important oversight responsibilities over all executive orders which we intend to exercise."

President Trump is firing back mocking the objections of some Democratic and Republican critics. He also appeared to dismiss criticism that the order was too harsh or too harshly implemented saying quote, "there`s nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they could enter our country."

Then, there is the decent within the government. At this afternoon`s White House press briefing, press secretary Sean Spicer had a clear message to staffers circulating a memo voicing their objections.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPICER: Any government official, anyone who doesn`t understand the president`s goal in this and what this actually was.

Again, I think this has been blown way out of proportion and exaggerated.

Again, you talk about in the 24-hour period, 325,000 people from other countries flew in through our airports. And we`re talking about 109 people from seven countries that the Obama administration identified. And these bureaucrats have had a problem with it? I think that they should either get with the program or they can go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: You heard Spicer there make the argument that Trump`s travel ban is an extension of President Obama`s policies.

This afternoon, President Obama`s office pushed back saying in part, with regard to comparisons to President Obama`s foreign policy decisions, as we`ve heard before, the president fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.

Then, there was the legal battle. Right now, there are at least six legal challenges against the president`s order.

And that`s where we begin tonight. I`m joined now by MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber. He`s been expertly analyzing the legalities of this executive order since we first got a look at the language.

Ari, out of the gates, there have, obviously, been a lot of legal challenges to Trump`s travel ban. The question a lot of Americans right now are trying to answer is could the courts realistically overturn this?

ARI MELBER, MSNBC CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: It`s always possible, Peter. But the administration starts out here with a strong hand and that`s because there is a lot of precedent and legal language that gives the president quite a bit of power in this area.

As you know, and as you mention, you have about six suits, they range from relatively small in scope. The Seattle suit, for example, was about two people who have since been released. All the way up to that Brooklyn victory there for the ACLU which certified a class.

What that means is now there are other people who have not necessarily been let go or who have standing to press a larger attack on this order.

[17:05:08] The big question here is not whether it`s good policy, not whether it is the best security idea. Folks watching at home may have heard a lot of talk already about how many big picture priority countries were left out of this order, like Saudi Arabia who sent 15 hijackers into the U.S. While other countries that have not been responsible for a single immigrant ever attacking us with terror are on the list.

The courts aren`t going to look that deeply at that. They are going to look at whether this was done lawfully and constitutionally and whether it is, in any way, discrimination. That`s a big issue in the newest suit that was filed today.

We can read from it. This is from the council on American Islamic relations. And they say, this would be religious discrimination to expel Muslims who are already in the country lawfully. That is one of the arguments being made.

Basically, they are -- they say it`s a less known part of the immigration order, mass expulsion of Muslims lawfully residing in the United States right now. That`s their argument, of course.

The Trump administration, as you played some of the sound, rebuts that strongly and says, no, no one who`s inside the boarder is being messed with. The 100 plus people who came in had delays but ultimately are OK. That`s the rebuttal from the White House.

ALEXANDER: Well, let me sort of zero in on that thought right there. So, the question is, is this a Muslim ban? And I ask that because --

MELBER: Right.

ALEXANDER: -- here`s what Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani said about this travel ban just over the weekend on Fox News. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP ADVISOR: When he first announced it, he said Muslim ban. He called me up. He said, put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.

I put a commission together. And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that`s what the ban is based on. It`s not based on religion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: So, Ari, the question is, is this a Muslim ban? And a lot of critics point to that. What we just heard from Rudy Giuliani is evidence that it is.

MELBER: I`ve got to tell you, I don`t think Rudy Giuliani is a card- carrying member of the ACLU, not to my knowledge. But he did a bigger favor to the ACLU right there in that interview than just about anyone has all weekend. Because, in their view, he gave away the game. He basically publicized the exact wrong purpose, potentially illegal.

ALEXANDER: The motivation.

MELBER: Go ahead.

ALEXANDER: The motivation is what he publicized.

MELBER: The motivation, exactly. And so, if he is saying, basically, we were going to do something that would be bad, and potentially illegal, and we just found a way to cover it up, he is really hurting the Trump administration`s arguments in court.

Now, in fairness to them, this is his story. They have been disputing it, as you know from your White House reporting. They say that this is not the Muslim ban. That most Muslim predominant countries are not affected.

And, again, in fairness to the Trump administration, this is currently the law of the land. The text is being promulgated. There were, obviously, problems. It was not done in a normal, traditional way. That`s why DHS had to go back and forth on basic items whether to hit green card holders or not.

But even putting aside what I think are, by any fair estimation, some of their mistakes in rolling it out, it is an open question about whether this is and whether the courts will see it as religious discrimination.

The courts are going to look beyond just the text. There`s going to be a searching inquiry. And, boy, by tomorrow night, we`re going to hearing a lot about how to interpret text, when we learn who Donald -- President Trump`s new pick is going to be to the Supreme Court.

But this is an open question. There are times where folks will look and say, hey, this is religious discrimination, based on what it does. There are times where people will say, no, what it says is fair and we`re going to read it for what it says. And it leaves a lot of other countries open.

So, we`re going to see that. It`s an open question in court.

ALEXANDER: Ari Melber, counselor, thank you very much.

MELBER: Thank you, sir.

ALEXANDER: Senator Ben Cardin is a Democrat from Maryland and the ranking member of the Senate`s Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Cardin, thanks for being here.

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND: Peter, it`s good to be with you. Thank you.

ALEXANDER: So, 6:00 tonight, Democrats are going to gather on the steps of the Supreme Court to demand that President Trump withdraw this travel ban. But I guess the simple question is, what leverage do you have to convince him or frankly Republicans to actually kill it?

CARDIN: Well, first, I think that his executive order is illegal. It certainly is not in the values of America. It`s reckless and it`s dangerous. It`s dangerous to Americans who travel. It`s dangerous to the security of our country. Where we need to get cooperation of countries around the world to help us in who comes to America.

All that`s in jeopardy because of the president`s executive order. So, I think in that -- in our own national security interests, this executive order cannot stand.

ALEXANDER: So, broadly speaking, though, what can you do about it? The challenge is not that you think it`s reckless. The challenge is doing anything to sort of force it to be withdrawn or to force Democrats, excuse me, Republicans to join you.

CARDIN: Well, I think Republicans will join us. If we can get a clean vote on the floor, I expect that this will be changed.

[17:10:00] So, what we need is Republicans to insist upon their leadership, this is not in America`s interest. That we have to stand up. We`re the legislative branch of government. We`re the policy arm of government. We need to vote on this issue.

And I`m confident if we have a clean vote, the president`s policies will not stand. Because they`re not what America stands for. We don`t impose religious tests on who can come to America. We don`t deal with being out of step with the rest of the world. We take the leadership in helping people from the humanitarian concerns or refugee issues.

So, America doesn`t stand with President Obama on this executive order.

ALEXANDER: More specifically, how far are Democrats willing to go, though, to fight President Trump? On Supreme Court, for example. Do you want Democrats to filibuster the president`s Supreme Court nominee, whoever he announces tomorrow evening?

CARDIN: Well, we know the Republicans denied President Obama his power as president of the United States to get his nominee considered for almost a year.

We want to see who President Trump nominates. If he nominates a mainstream jurist similar to what President Obama did in going mainstream, that`s one set of circumstances.

But if he tries to go in a narrow philosophical direction, I think you`re going to see many of us do everything we can to make sure that nominee doesn`t end up on the Supreme Court.

ALEXANDER: Let`s work through the checklist. Debt limit default, we`re probably going to have a vote on debt limit this spring. We hit that ceiling in the middle of March. Would you call on Democrats to rule out threatening a default?

CARDIN: I`m for paying our bills. I hope we don`t get to that. I thought it was irresponsible when the Republicans tried to block us from paying our bills. If it`s a clean debt ceiling vote, I think we -- you`ll see there`ll be Democrats that will join.

But if they use it to try to advance their extreme agenda, they`re on their own.

ALEXANDER: So, what does that mean when you say, clean vote?

CARDIN: Just put up a debt ceiling extension, like I think Democrats will vote for. I know that I`d be interested in voting for just a debt extension.

But if they couple it with policy changes, such as giving --

ALEXANDER: Right.

CARDIN: -- tax breaks to the wealthy or cutting programs that are critically important to middle income families, then they`re on their own.

ALEXANDER: I guess the bottom line is (INAUDIBLE) government shut down, would you -- would you call for that? April 28th is the deadline to fund the government. Should Democrats rule out a shut down?

CARDIN: No, Democrats do not want to shut down. We want the government to continue. We tried to get a full year budget this year.

(CROSSTALK)

ALEXANDER: So, what leverage do you have? I guess -- sorry to interrupt you. What leverage do you have then in the minority?

CARDIN: We`re just asking that if the Republicans act responsibly, if they work with Democrats, we`ll get a budget done this year. We know it`s not going to be our budget. We know that we won`t get this -- what we want. But if it`s a true compromise, then Democrats are prepared to work with Republicans.

But if they go their own way, if they look for tax cuts for the wealthy look to cut Social Security and Medicare, if they look to hurt middle income families, let me tell you, Democrats are not going to help.

ALEXANDER: But, Senator, specific to this executive order that so many Democrats have been furious about, the minority leader Chuck Schumer saying it is un-American. What leverage, specifically, do you have to do anything about this?

CARDIN: Well, again, the floor on the Senate generally requires 60 votes. And the Republicans need Democrats to work with them.

On this executive order, we think we have Republicans who share the same sentiment that I`m expressing tonight. That the executive order does not represent American values. It`s illegal. It`s got to be withdrawn or repealed.

And I think if we get Republicans to join and they`re able to vote on it, they`ll express themselves as I have just spoken.

ALEXANDER: Finally, how do you talk to constituents who are concerned about the screening process right now? Can you convince them to certify that every one of those individuals vetted from the seven countries included in this order are safe to allow into the U.S.?

CARDIN: We have a vetting system, particularly on refugees, that could take 18 to 24 months. They`re the most vetted group of individuals who come to America from so many different ways are they vetted.

We need to make sure everyone who wants to come to America that that person`s not trying to cause harm. And in doing that, we need the cooperation of other countries. What the president just did with this executive order is to isolate America and our effort to keep ourselves safe. That`s going to make us greater at risk.

ALEXANDER: Senator Cardin, we appreciate your time and your comments. Thank you very much.

So, let`s bring in the panel. Eliana Johnson is a national political reporter with Politico. Clarence Page is a Polar Surprise winning columnist with "The Chicago Tribune." And Perry Bacon is NBC News Senior Political Correspondent.

Eliana, let`s start with you quickly. I want to get your reaction to Senator Cardin. It appears clear that, as he indicated, there ain`t a lot of leverage that Democrats have right now. And, obviously, they`re not really ready to go full scale, in terms of their opposition to Donald Trump and Republicans.

ELIANA JOHNSON, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, POLITICO: Yes. You know, I think the Democrats realize they need to pick and choose their battles. So, right now, when Republicans are -- they have a lot of Republicans who are outraged about this had executive order as well.

[17:15:04] We`re getting a Supreme Court nominee tomorrow night. I actually think the Democrats are going to wait until there`s a second Supreme Court nominee and that`s really where they`re going to pitch a major battle. That`s when the balance of the court could change.

And I think that`s where you`re going to see Chuck Schumer and the rest of his conference really come out to oppose Trump and the rest of his administration.

ALEXANDER: The bottom line is whoever he selects tomorrow replaces Antonin Scalia. That doesn`t have a lot of impact. But what happens next will be significant.

Perry, to you quickly. What leverage do the Democrats have, though, right now? What can they do if they`re going to stand up at the Supreme Court within the next hour and try to make it clear that President Trump needs to withdraw this order. But that doesn`t get action made.

PERRY BACON, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, NBC NEWS: I mean, the leverage, I would say, is really the public. What you`ve seen the last couple days is these protests, people going to the airport. That does -- that`s what -- the administration is going to move but they`re going to move because of the public opposition. The Democrats and Congress have a lot of power.

I would argue, right now, in fact, the Democrats are actually following the public. The public is driving the opposition, and then Democrats are joining it, as opposed to the opposite. (INAUDIBLE) the fact that the protests are move me. The protests have been very important.

ALEXANDER: He was heartened, he said.

BACON: Yes, those are the citizens acting. And I think if Trump moves this issue -- it`s an executive order, so, of course, Congress has no real role in executive orders in the first place.

ALEXANDER: Clarence, I think there were a lot of questions, as soon as President Obama left, about who would, sort of, fill that vacuum for Democrats, who would, sort of, lead the charge in the face of Donald Trump, in the case of executive orders and other actions he had taken.

President Obama is not going to be former President George W. Bush. He`s not painting at home right now. Ten days in, he`s already put a statement out. What do you make of his statement and his decision to wade into this already?

CLARENCE PAGE, COLUMNIST, "THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Well, Democrats need a good figure head. Some -- a good voice out there to lead the charge. Chuck Schumer so far has been the -- probably the biggest voice of opposition.

But unless Republicans -- unless the Trump side loses enough Republican votes, Democrats don`t really have a real leverage. What they are drawing right now is simply drawing that line in the sand that defines the differences between the two party`s positions on this.

Nobody`s really talked about whether this extreme vetting is really need. They already -- refugees already get extreme vetting.

ALEXANDER: It`s 18 to 24 months.

PAGE: Exactly. And we also have such a tough process that we have the fewest number of refugees that we take in. Compared to Europe, we`re really pikers on this issue.

But nevertheless, both sides are defining themselves in the midst of this public debate.

ALEXANDER: Let me ask you, if I can, Eliana, on this, quickly. Is the Republican concern, as we`ve heard from, like, 18 Republican senators right now, is it specifically about the sloppily implementation or is it about the policy where the real issue lies?

JOHNSON: I think that`s a great question because I think Republicans are upset, not about the substance but about the method. And if you see the Trump administration get a more organized method of going about what they want to do, consulting with the agencies, getting an interagency process going, consulting with Congress, looping people in, there`s going to be much less Republican opposition to these sorts of things.

Because their opposition is not necessarily based on the substance of these executive orders. And there are little errors, like the green card error in this executive order, that could be caught were their, you know, greater collaboration.

ALEXANDER: The bottom line, the corrections, as they were, made by the DHS, the new secretary, John Kelly, having to correct the issue of green cards today. We know that James Mattis over at the Defense Department is, sort of, sorting out those who may get exemptions. So, this seems like the kind of things that could have been done in advance.

Let me ask you quickly, though, Perry. The bottom line is here is Americans broadly support President Trump on this issue. Take a look at these numbers. Taking in refugees was not popular the last time NBC News polled this issue. 56 percent said the U.S. should take zero refugees from Syria or certainly take fewer refugees.

So, at the end of the day, Americans seem to lean in on what President Trump is saying.

BACON: I think it depends on how you phrase this issue. If people see this as a ban on Muslims, which I think a lot of people do, I think that`s when --

ALEXANDER: Well, there`s the opposition to that.

BACON: And that -- we`re debating that today, as Ari said. But (INAUDIBLE) seven Muslim countries. Viewed that way, I think the polling numbers have been more divided. And I`d be curious to see, after these protests and the way this was handled, if those numbers change even more.

ALEXANDER: Which is why communication of this matters as much as anything.

PAGE: That`s right. The real thing that people hear when the polls were asking the question is, do you want your government to keep you safe? And people say, sure.

ALEXANDER: Yes.

PAGE: But the fact is that if you make the other argument saying that a Muslim ban or whatever, this policy, will not make us safer, then you begin to get more support for the opposition.

ALEXANDER: Yes, the way they write these polling questions always, sort of, varies in the way we are able to address them.

Perry, Clarence, Eliana, stay with us. We`ll check in with you guys again shortly.

But we want to show you a live picture right now. The steps of the Supreme Court. That`s where Democrats will be gathering shortly to denounce President Trump`s executive order on immigration. We are keeping an eye on it. And we will take you there as soon as anything begins.

And coming up, could the president`s attempt to protect the country from terrorism actually put us in more danger? We address that next. You`re watching MTP DAILY.

[17:20:05]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTIN PRUDEAU, PRIME MINISTER, CANADA: This was a group of innocents targeted for practicing their faith. Make no mistake, this was a terrorist attack. It was an attack on our most intrinsic and cherished values as Canadians, values of openness, diversity, and freedom of religion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: That was Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau earlier today, calling last night`s deadly shooting, at a Quebec City mosque, a terrorist attack. Six people were killed. More than a dozen others injured in that attack. It took place during evening prayers at Quebec`s Islamic cultural center.

One of the victims have been identified as a professor from Universite Laval which is located near the mosque. Two men were arrested but only one is being considered a suspect tonight. Sources tell NBC News that suspect is being identified as Alexandre Bissonnette. No motive has been identified for the shooting so far.

Police say the second man in custody is considered a witness. President Trump, he called the Canadian prime minister today to express his condolences. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALEXANDER: Welcome back to MTP DAILY.

As we`ve been saying, there was outcry, both at home and abroad this weekend, over President Trump`s executive order temporarily banning travel from seven Muslim majority countries. One of the arguments being made by critics is that the travel ban makes Americans less safe.

Those critics include members of the president`s own party, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain among them. Releasing a joint statement on Sunday calling on the Trump administration to make changes to the ban and saying, quote, "This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security."

[17:25:03] Former CIA director Michael Hayden spoke about the ban on NPR this morning, saying he believes it can be used as a tool by terrorists.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MICHAEL HAYDEN, FORMER DIRECTOR, CIA: What we`re doing now is it`s probably made us less safe today than we were Friday morning before this happened. Because we are now living the worst jihadist narrative possible.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: So, let`s bring in my guests, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent and, of course, host of Andrea Mitchell Reports right here on MSNBC. And former chief of staff at both the CIA and the Defense Department. He is also an NBC News national security analyst. That is Jeremy Bash. We`ve got a smart panel today. So, I appreciate both of you --

ANDREA MITCHELL, CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, NBC NEWS: Jeremy is smart.

ALEXANDER: I`d say we`re smart across the board. Andrea, let me start with you, if I can, quickly. NBC News has obtained a draft of this dissent right now.

MITCHELL: Yes.

ALEXANDER: The bottom line is that hundreds of foreign service officers say the ban is in their words, quote, "It will increase anti-American sentiment." Broadly speaking, what are you hearing right now? And the uniqueness of this moment is within this administration already there`s a big outcry taking place.

MITCHELL: There is. And this is a procedure, a practice, at the State Department. It is to protect people who want to speak out. It is a formalized process, once used against Hillary Clinton, in fact. Very striking. It`s like a slap in the face of a secretary of state.

But this is a dissent memo that is being circulated and being signed by many foreign service officers against the executive order, against the refugee ban. And Sean Spicer, I think not understanding the weight of this. As it is encapsulated among foreign service officers, it`s part of their legal right.

ALEXANDER: Get with the program or you can go.

MITCHELL: To get with the program or you can go in a very dramatic way. He said, essentially, the same thing twice and said it so strongly at his daily briefing that I think that was a real shock to the system. Because that can be viewed as an attempt to silence dissent on a critical foreign policy issue from the professionals.

ALEXANDER: Jeremy, Senators McCain and Graham call this a self-inflicted wound. Already are we seeing evidence that ISIS or other Islamic -- radical Islamic terrorist groups, as Donald Trump calls them, are taking this as a propaganda tool to use?

JEREMY BASH, NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, NBC NEWS: Absolutely, Peter. I was looking at the social media site telegram which is one of the sites that ISIS tends to use a great deal. And they`re basically saying, all of you out there, look at the way America treats its own Muslim populations. They`re not even letting people who have green cards who are lawful, permanent residents of the country back into their own country where they`ve already been vetted. And it`s become a recruiting tool for ISIS already even in the last 48 hours.

And I`ll just say, as a counterterrorism strategy, this is pretty foolish. Because it puts under suspicion an entire civilian population as opposed to following specific leads.

MITCHELL: And let me take up that point. Jeh Johnson had gone to Chicago and gave the first --

ALEXANDER: Former Department Homeland Security secretary.

MITCHELL: -- Homeland Security counterterror official to the entire Muslim community gathered there and spoke to them very meaningfully. And it was really following up on something that George W. Bush started after 911. That was laying the groundwork for the best kind of counterterror work which is done in the NYPD. They have huge outreach to the Muslim communities. And this just flies in the face of it.

ALEXANDER: So, earlier today, we were talking about Sean Spicer. Something he said at the start of his remarks sort of struck me. He was speaking specifically to what had taken place, the mosque shooting in Quebec. Here`s what he said. And, Jeremy, I want to get your thoughts. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPICER: It`s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation`s safety and security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: The bottom line, Jeremy, this was a white French national. This is not an individual who, best to our knowledge at least, had been to any of those seven countries. But, certainly, this doesn`t demonstrate the point.

So, does it undercut the argument the demonstration was trying to making today?

BASH: It does. Under that logic, we should close the border to all Canadians, because a Canadian committed a terrorist act in Canada.

MITCHELL: Against Muslims.

BASH: It doesn`t -- it makes zero sense. And it just shows you that, actually, this isn`t a counterterrorism strategy at all.

ALEXANDER: Let me ask you about Stephen Bannon, if I can. This is getting a lot of people talking today. This is the chief strategist. He is a political advisor to President Trump, perhaps shy only of Jared Kushner, in terms of influence he has on our new president right now. He`s now going to be a permanent member of the National Security Council.

It`s a position traditionally reserved for, well, it includes secretaries of state and defense. He`ll be on equal standing with them right now. What do you make of this right now as we learn today the CIA director will be added to this? But it`s Bannon`s inclusion that has people still turning their head.

MITCHELL: And it is unusual. It is true that David Axelrod did come to some of those meetings. George Bush made sure that Karl Rove never did. It is very unusual to have a political advisor.

The counterpoint from Sean Spicer is that he has military experience, seven years in the Navy. But that is hard -- that hardly makes him a foreign policy advisor. He`s a strategist. He is a big idea guy with right wing connection to Breitbart.

[17:30:02] And interesting past, you know, Goldman Sachs. He has had many careers.

ALEXANDER: Yes.

MITCHELL: So he`s obviously very close to the president, increasingly close to the president, as clearly is Jared Kushner from the proximity of the office right off the oval, and also the president said, I want him to negotiate Middle East peace, I want him involved in foreign policy.

But it does diminish and importantly we see a diminishment or diminishing of Michael Flynn.

ALEXANDER: Right.

MITCHELL: . the national security advisor, but it does put him on a par with these other important figures and despite what Spicer said and Jeremy can bear -- bear out -- bear me out on this because he was the chief of staff to Leon Panetta when he was secretary of defense and CIA director, there is a diminishing role if by invitation only you have the chairman of the joint chiefs and the DNI. They have to be invited to this meeting or ask may I come? ALEXANDER: That`s right. In fact, I was seeing the elevate General Flynn, right? Because all of a sudden those two other military and intelligence leaders may not be there.

JEREMY BASH, NBC NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yeah, and Flynn will be there every time. It`s a shame though that now the DNI and chairman of the joint chiefs will have to ask for permission to attend. The reason you have intelligence and military professionals at the table when big policy issues are being teed up is to constrain policy.

To say, Mr. President, we can`t do this, or if you do this, this will be the repercussions. I believe had they consulted the chairman, had they consulted the director of national intelligence about this Muslim ban, they would never have rolled it out because the military and intelligence professionals would have said, this is bad for American security.

ALEXANDER: Last thought.

MITCHELL: In fact, there have been two quick fixes today, at least two that we know of, one coming from General Kelly on homeland, and one coming from the Pentagon from General Mattis. Both fixing some of the visa and green card and Iraqi -- Iraqi allies of ours who work with our military making them able to travel.

ALEXANDER: Which demonstrates the value of inter-agency consulting that normally takes place before executive orders like this. Nice to see both of you, Jeremy and Andrea.

BASH: Nice to see you.

MITCHELL: Thank you.

ALEXANDER: Coming up right here, Supreme Court decisions.

(START VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was the reason that President Trump decided to move up his announcement from Thursday night to tomorrow night? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because he wanted to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALEXANDER: Welcome back to "MTP Daily." Tomorrow, it turns out, is the day President Trump tweeting this morning that he will announce his supreme court nomination, tomorrow, at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. Sources tell NBC`s Pete Williams that the president`s pick is likely to be one of these two men. Neil Gorsuch, a U.S. court of appeals judge for the tenth circuit. He lives in Boulder, Colorado, or Thomas Hardiman, a U.S. court of appeals judge for the third circuit. That`s in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Both men were on the list of potential nominees that then candidate Trump released during the campaign. The seat on the high court has been vacant, of course, since justice Antonin Scalia passed away last February. Republicans declined to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, that was President Obama`s pick to fill the seat. You can bet the democrats will bring that up as they threaten the filibuster of the new president`s nominee. There`s a lot more "MTP Daily" just ahead. First, Hampton Pearson joins us with your "CNBC Market Wrap."

HAMPTON PEARSON, JOURNALIST, CNBC WASHINGTON BUREAU CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Peter. We had stocks sliding across the board. The Dow finishes with 122- point decline back below the 20,000 level. The S&P falls 13. The Nasdaq drops by 47 points.

Pending home sales rose 1.6 percent as buyers came back to the housing market despite an increase in mortgage rates. Activity was brisk in the western and southern U.S.

Meanwhile, consumer spending increased last month as Americans shelled out for vehicles and a range of other goods. Spending was up half a percent in line with estimates. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALEXANDER: All right. Welcome back now. Developing news on Capitol Hill. The senate is voting on a procedural step in Rex Tillerson`s nomination for secretary of state. The final vote on his nomination is expected to happen a little bit later this week. Before the vote got under way, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer requested it be delayed until Tillerson is questioned about President Trump`s travel ban.

But that request was denied on the floor. Democrats also attempted to bring a bill to the floor to overturn the executive order by unanimous consent, but that was also denied. Here is the senate democratic leader on President Trump`s order.

(START VIDEO CLIP)

CHUCK SCHUMER, SENIOR U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK: It raises serious doubts, Mr. President, about the competence, the basic competence of the new administration. When such an important order is so poorly vetted and executed. Just like some of their cabinet nominations. Such a far-reaching and impactful executive order should have gotten extreme vetting. Instead, it was rushed through without much thought or deliberation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: In just a few minutes, Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi are hosting an event on the steps of the Supreme Court. There is a live picture. They will be protesting the executive orders on travel and immigration. Democrats are certainly up in arms over some of the new president`s moves, but is there anything that they can do to stop them? Beginning a busy week right now on the hill.

Joining us is NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O`Donnell. So Kelly, procedural vote on Tillerson just happened. I guess the question is do we expect any fireworks come the real vote later this week? Is Trump going to get his guy on this. Is there any way they can force them to answer questions in effect for Donald Trump`s travel ban?

KELLY O`DONNELL, NBC NEWS LEAD CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT: Well, democrats are trying to make the most of running the clock on Tillerson. It is critical and more quickly if they had agreed to move the vote. That`s how the senate works. The two parties can pace things more quickly if they agree. So democrats are using their ability to slow it down to try to focus on some of these issues.

it is still widely expected that Tillerson will be the secretary of state, that there won`t be a snag, it`s a matter of running out the clock in a way. And for Chuck Schumer and democrats, this is a chance to try to shine a light on issues that they are concerned about, to try to bring pressure, and to try to use something they didn`t see coming, this new executive order on travel restrictions, and to fold it in to some of the dialogue they`re having about nominations.

Now, part of what they tried to do today was to put up a stop bill on the president`s executive order because democrats can`t control the floor. That was doomed to failure, but it was something they wanted to do as a measure of what they are standing up for.

Now, republicans had to be there to object to it, and Tom Cotton of Arkansas was the man chosen for that. He put a stop to it which any senator on the republican side could do, and he had some words about democrats and how they`re reacting today versus some of the issues from the Obama years.

(START VIDEO CLIP) TOM COTTON, JUNIOR U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS: Here`s the minority shedding crocodile tears over President Trump`s immigration and refugee policy, but where were those tears the last eight years when President Obama`s foreign policy created all of these refugees? (END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Now, Peter, another way that democrats are able to use the executive order and to kind of wrap that in the confirmation process, we learned today that democrats objected to committees working later today which is a more obscure rule in the senate, but one that comes in handy today because the finance committee democrats who would be handling the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be treasury secretary want to be at that protest that you just told viewers about outside the supreme court.

They couldn`t be in two places at once, so by using another one of the tools of the senate, they put up a roadblock for Steven Mnuchin to be considered by the relevant committee tonight. Now, it`s a delay of only one evening into tomorrow morning, but again, it allows democrats to sort of pump the brakes and not let Donald Trump`s choices for some of these top cabinet positions go through as easily as they might otherwise have. Peter. ALEXANDER: Kelly O`Donnell on Capitol Hill for us. Kelly, thank you very much. Still ahead, stars have strong words for President Trump. How Hollywood is reacting to the new president`s immigration actions.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALEXANDER: We`re back on "MTP Daily." Actors at last night`s Sag Awards did not stray from current events, but instead they ran straight for them. Here`s some of what you missed.

(START VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because I love this country, I am horrified by it`s blemishes, and this immigrant ban is a blemish and it is un-American.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I`ve learned from working on moonlight is we see what happened when we persecute people.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you hear that the Doomsday Clock has been moved up to two and a half minutes before midnight? And this award, it came just in the nick of time.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This story is about what happens when we put our differences aside. And we come together as a human race. We win, love wins, every time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will as per chief Jim Hopper punch some people in the face when they seek to destroy.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: Back right now with "The Lid." Our panel is here again. Eliana Johnson, Clarence Page, Perry Bacon. All right. Let`s talk about Steven Bannon if we can for a second. This issue of the national security council right now, the inclusion of a political strategist alongside the secretary of defense and secretary of state.

Just want to get your take on that, Eliana, right now. They insist that this is necessary to give Donald Trump the sort of assessment he needs from the people who are closest to him. It`s another voice in the room, but a lot of people view this a lot more skeptically.

ELIANA JOHNSON, CONSERVATIVE WRITER, NATIONAL REVIEW MAGAZINE: It may be true that for Trump this is necessary because he is such a small inner circle of people he trusts. But it is unprecedented. I think Barack Obama paved the way for this fight, even allowing his political strategist to sit in on meeting.

Trump has done something entirely differently by formalizing this in an actual policy document saying that his chief strategist Bannon is part of the National Security Council. Obama did not do that. And before that, George w. Bush expressly prohibited his guru. People talked about Karl Rove as Bush`s brain. Expressly prohibited Karl Rove.

ALEXANDER: Yeah, just former chief of staff said not going to happen.

JOHNSON: Yes, expressly prohibited because he didn`t even want the appearance of mixing politics and national security. So, we saw with Obama a little bit of an elevation but this is entirely unprecedented.

ALEXANDER: Clarence, what do you make of this right now? Is this much to do about nothing -- why -- I mean, the president (inaudible) to people that he trusts next to him and Steven Bannon, it appears is as high on that list as anybody.

CLARENCE PAGE, SENIOR MEMBER OF THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD: No question about that. What disturbs a lot of liberal and conservative alike is the (inaudible) of President Trump`s circle. To put Steve Bannon in that critical position without having more alternative voices in the room is what indicate that Bannon is not Trump`s brain but ideology because Trump doesn`t have the ideological theories wherein Bannon does.

Trump has spoken out about foreign affairs over the years. They all have been pretty simplistic with what you call right wing militant views. But Bannon is much for that. He has got a whole lot of scenarios for where he would like the world to move. People didn`t vote for Bannon, they voted for Trump.

PERRY BACON, NBC NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: (inaudible) council Bannon is on but appears in this order, the immigration over this weekend, Bannon was heavily involved but the head of DHS and the head of the (inaudible) was not very involved in what sort of have been formula policy almost at the end of the process while Bannon in the beginning is -- surely Bannon has more experience than they do on the relevant issues compared to the DHS secretary of the policy.

ALEXANDER: Let`s talk a little more superficially about the Supreme Court decision now. I want to talk about specifically in terms of the real consequence of it right now. First to you, Clarence. Should we make anything of the timing of this being moved up from Thursday to Tuesday. I covered Donald Trump for much of the campaign.

Whenever there was a controversy that he didn`t like, he would make some other news on a different topic. And all of a sudden, that will be swiped aside away, be focusing on another prime time address in effect. He will be announcing his new Supreme Court choice. Was that by design?

PAGE: (inaudible) new cycle pleased (ph) Donald Trump. So far, he is pleased (ph) by giving us a fire hose of new development. The fact that he will move this up tells me that this immigration story isn`t turning out the way he like for it to. He wants to try to move it off the table and change the subject, better way to bring up Supreme Court nominee.

ALEXANDER: Eliana, break this down, if we can right now. Thomas Hardiman, Neil Gorsuch. To a lot of Americans, these names are not all that familiar. Both of them associate as having sort of similar views as Antonin Scalia. It`s not so much this decision that`s going to be as consequential in effect, right? Because the (inaudible) doesn`t change. It`s the next once that a lot of Americans will be zeroing in on.

JOHNSON: That`s right. I think the two key things to keep in mind is both Hardiman and Gorsuch were approved by the senate for their current positions by unanimous votes, Hardiman by an actual vote and Gorsuch by voice vote. It`s going to be hard for democrats to say well, this is different and now we oppose them for the Supreme Court. We`ll be hearing people say that.

It`s the next nomination, I think republicans and democrats alike do expect to see perhaps an Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire in the next four years. That will really shift the political makeup of the court from what is now a 5-4 or 4-5 liberal conservative court to something that could be more predominantly conservative and shift the court for a generation to a more conservative leaning court for the next 20 or 30 years.

BACON: Peter, I think the story of the democrats is going to be -- you held the seat unfairly that Obama should have picked since last year. I think they know the pick is going to be someone who is very conservative, someone who is very Scalia like. It`s going to be why should you get a pick and we didn`t get ours when he was president.

ALEXANDER: This is the point Senator Merkley make so is there are filibuster. Do we see the republicans return with what`s call the nuclear option?

(CROSSTALK)

BACON: McConnell said he doesn`t want to change the filibuster rule. Democrats filibuster Supreme Court nominee. I think McConnell might have changed his mind. I think this is a real interesting fight. I do think the democrats watching this protest are not going to sort of lie over and let this happen. ALEXANDER: The challenge to the democrats right now has not basically taken the same playbook as the republicans. You get criticized in the same way.

JOHNON: Well, I was gonna say we heard democrats argue for the past several -- for the past year that we cannot have an eight-member court. Now, we`re going to hear a very different argument.

ALEXANDER: Yes. Eliana, Clarence, Perry. Great panel today. Thank you guys all very much. I appreciate it. Coming up after this break, marking a "Meet the Press" milestone. You`re watching "MTP Daily."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALEXANDER: In case you missed it, it has been 70 years since "Meet the Press" first went on the air. That was 1947. It is the longest running show in television history. We are going to be celebrating "Meet the Press" 70th anniversary throughout this year here on "MTP Daily" starting right now with a look at 70 years of "Meet the Press" in 70 seconds.

(START VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight from Washington D.C., NBC television brings you America`s press conference of the air "Meet the Press."

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR, "MEET THE PRESS DAILY" SHOW HOST: "Meet the Press" is the longest running show in television history.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I tell you I`m very radical about education for instance.

TODD: And 2017 marks our 70th anniversary.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we`re in good company. TODD: The show started as a mini press conference with a simple mission.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would like to be opposed to war. Unfortunately, I don`t think we are in a position as nation or as a world at this moment to be.

TODD: Challenge guests to defend their points of view.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I frankly think that too often both political parties are just irrelevant. TODD: If there was news in politics, sports, or foreign affairs, then "Meet to Press" was play to go to talk about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think for example the agreement that was worked out last week was a good agreement.

TODD: Over time, the show includes new elements like longer interviews and round table discussions.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I take out an issue with all (inaudible).

TODD: But after 12 moderators and thousands of guests.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the things I learned and Joe will call me back. He never say never in politics.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why have you changed your view?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, that was a year and a half later. TODD: The hard hitting interview is still at the heart of every show. Because guess what? If it`s Sunday, it`s "Meet the Press."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER: Great look back at 70 years. That`s all for tonight. We`ll be back tomorrow with more "MTP Daily." "Fort The Record with Greta" starts right now.

END