Trump Sanctuary City Executive Order Blocked; Interview With Idaho Senator James Risch; Did Former Trump National Security Adviser Break the Law?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Is the Trump administration cooperating with the investigation? Public testimony. Some eagerly awaiting witnesses now have a date to appear before Congress, including Obama Justice Department official Sally Yates. She raised early concerns about Michael Flynn's Russia connections. What will she reveal under oath? And the wall stands. Tonight, the president is insisting that his border barrier will be built soon. Is the wall still a potential trigger for a government shutdown? We are sorting through the mixed messages from the White House. We want to welcome our viewers from in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in</s>THE SITUATION ROOM. ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.</s>BLITZER: Breaking news this hour, a federal judge has now blocked part of a Trump executive order that would cut off funding for so- called sanctuary cities across the country that protect illegal immigrants. The ruling issued in California just a little while ago, it's another major legal blow to the president's immigration agenda after his travel ban also was blocked by the federal courts. Also breaking, new oversight for the feds' Trump-Russia investigation amid new signs president ousted national security adviser may have broken the law. The Senate just confirmed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He now has authority over the entire Russian probe since his boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recused himself. This as the Republican chairman of House Oversight Committee now suggests Michael Flynn may have broken the law by failing to disclose payments he received from Russia and Turkey before becoming the president's national security adviser. Tonight, we are following duelling shows of force by North Korea and the United States as tensions clearly continue to escalate. Kim Jong- un's regime carrying out a massive artillery fire drill with the U.S.- guided missile submarine nearby in a South Korean port and a U.S. Navy strike group finally closing in on the Korean Peninsula. This hour, I will speak with Republican Senator James Risch. He's a member of the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees. And our correspondents and analysts are also standing by. First, let's go to our senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, and follow the breaking news. Tell us about this new federal ruling. A federal judge in California just delivered another major setback to the president.</s>JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It is a big setback, Wolf. A federal judge in California blocked the president's executive order that would have punished so-called sanctuary cities for not cooperating with immigration authorities, cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City and so. The judge's ruling found that cities would have been harmed had the administration carried out its threat to withhold grant money from those cities and local police departments. That's a big setback with Trump, as you said. He promised he would end funding for sanctuary cities as a candidate. And it's not the only loss for the president on the subject of immigration. His travel ban, as we all know, has been tied up in the courts for weeks. And today we learned Republican lawmakers are drafting a spending bill this week that doesn't include funding for the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Instead, that proposal includes funding for border security measures. But, Wolf, getting back to the judge's executive order blocking -- excuse me -- the judge's ruling blocking the president's executive order on sanctuary cities, I just spoke with a senior administration official in the last several minutes. Didn't want to comment a whole lot on the judge's ruling, but said that ultimately they feel like they will prevail. At this point, I talked to a separate White House official who said don't expect an on- the-record comment from the White House at this point. Wolf, I think that is significant, given the fact you will recall during that travel ban fight between the administration and the courts, the president was tweeting about it. He referred to so-called judges. And you had the White House drafting statements and releasing statements that were pretty scathing of the courts during whole process. At this point, we don't see any indication of the White House or the president will lash out at the judge out in California for issuing what is essentially a setback, another setback during these first 100 days in office, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Yes, he has setbacks to travel ban one and travel ban two. That's still before the federal courts, all on hold right now. And we know tomorrow the Department of Homeland Security has been scheduled to release information about its new office of victims of crime involving foreigners, illegal undocumented immigrants who commit crimes here in the United States. Any reaction, any statement yet from the White House or the Justice Department on the latest federal judge who delivered the setback to the president?</s>ACOSTA: Not as of yet. And I was told by a White House official that we shouldn't expect one any time soon. Of course, that would change. You never know when the president decides he want to tweet something. But I did talk to a senior administration official who said they are confident they will prevail on all of this. But the judge in this case out in California, he said these cities, these municipalities that were challenging these executive -- this executive order, that they had some grounds to state that this would have been unconstitutional, that they would have been harmed in some way if the administration had carried out its promise. We heard, Wolf, Attorney General Jeff Sessions came into the briefing room at the White House not too long ago to explain some of this to reporters and was essentially saying this is the president following through on a campaign promise to go after the cities and essentially warn those cities that if they don't cooperate with immigration authorities, for example, when a police department picks up somebody for a traffic stop or a crime that was committed, if those municipalities, if those police departments aren't cooperating with immigration authorities and saying, hey, wait a minute, we have somebody here who is undocumented or their paperwork is not in order, the attorney general was making it very clear to reporters when he came into the briefing not too long ago that funds, law enforcement fund and grants could be taken away from those police departments. The judge in this ruling today has essentially frozen that process. And so these sanctuary cities are going to continue to do what they have been doing. But no question about it, Wolf, this is a big setback for a president who has made immigration really one of the cornerstones of his first 100 days. But it seems at every turn he is being thwarted either by the courts or by members of Congress up on Capitol Hill -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Yes, a huge setback. We will see what happens in the courts. Jim Acosta at the White House, thanks very much. Now to another major breaking story we are following, the Russia investigation and new indications that the former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn may, repeat, may have broken the law. Let's go to our justice correspondent, Pamela Brown now. Pamela, you have new information, more on this investigation of Michael Flynn. What are you learning?</s>PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, we are learning tonight that top House Republican says that Michael Flynn likely broke the law for failing to disclose payments he received from foreign governments before he became President Trump's national security adviser.</s>BROWN (voice-over): Tonight, new questions about whether President Trump's former national security adviser broke the law over payments he received from Russia and Turkey.</s>MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you believe that Michael Flynn broke the law?</s>REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: I see no information or no data to support the notion that General Flynn complied with the law.</s>BROWN: The revelation comes after leaders of the House Oversight Committee reviewed classified documents in a private briefing. Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill today, they revealed they have seen no proof showing Flynn, a former top military intelligence official, received permission from the Pentagon or the State Department for the foreign government payments he received.</s>REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: He was supposed to get permission and he was supposed to report it, and he didn't, period.</s>BROWN: And they say he didn't fully disclose the more than half- million dollars his firm was given for lobbying activities on behalf of Turkey when he applied to reinstate his security clearance, or the $45,000 he received from Russia for an R.T. TV speaking engagement, money Chaffetz says Flynn might have to pay back.</s>CHAFFETZ: As a former military officer, you simply cannot take money from Russia, Turkey or anybody else. And it appears as if he did take that money, it was inappropriate, and there are repercussions for a violation of law.</s>BROWN: Flynn's attorney general said in a statement he did comply with the law, saying -- quote -- "General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of DOD, extensively regarding the R.T. speaking event trip both before and after the trip." At the same time, the White House is refusing to turn over necessary paperwork on Flynn, saying it doesn't have the relevant documents.</s>SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Right now, to ask the White House to produce documents that were not in the possession of the White House is ridiculous.</s>BROWN: The embattled former national security adviser left amid controversy in February after he lied about discussing sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak Now the former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who alerted the White House about Flynn's conversation with Kislyak, will soon testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Russia's interference in the election.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: We will ask her all questions about Russia, what she knew about Trump ties. Was there any administration effort to unmask people for political purposes? We are going to get to all things Russia in terms of what the administration did and what Russia did.</s>BROWN: And the GOP chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says the panel wants to question Flynn.</s>RAJU: Is there any way you give Flynn immunity to testify?</s>SEN. RICHARD BURR (R), NORTH CAROLINA: No.</s>RAJU: There's no way?</s>BURR: No.</s>BROWN: And the Judiciary Committee's hearing adds to the crowded together field of investigations into Russia, including the FBI, the Intelligence Committees, and the House Oversight Committee. And, today, Republican Senator Richard burr of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who you just heard, downplayed the idea this committee is dragging its feet with this investigation, amid criticism from Democratic senators that the pace is too slow -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Pamela Brown reporting for us. Thanks, Pamela very much. Let's talk about all of this and more with Republican Senator James Risch. He's a key member of both the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, thanks for joining us.</s>SEN. JAMES RISCH (R), IDAHO: Thank you, Wolf. Glad to be here.</s>BLITZER: So, react to the breaking news, our top story, a federal judge now blocking part of President Trump's order to take funds from so-called sanctuary cities all over the country, whether Los Angeles, New York City, all over the country. How much of a setback is this to the Trump administration?</s>RISCH: Well, first of all, not fully unexpected. Every time the president does something like this, it is pretty easy to find a left-leaning judge somewhere in the country that would block it at the lower level. You got a circuit court and a Supreme Court above that. These kinds of things -- every time the president does something, he is going to get sued over it. And they don't unravel until you get higher up.</s>BLITZER: His travel bans, travel ban one, then the revised travel ban, both of those were at least stayed by federal judges, including higher level federal judges. And they are still on hold. He can't go forward with that travel ban. This could stick around for a while as well. It is pretty embarrassing, though, when these federal judges come and say to the president, to the attorney general, what you have done may be unconstitutional.</s>RISCH: Yes. Well, look, all of us that are in public office do things and expect to be challenged by them. And it's up to the courts to make a determination as to what is constitutional and what isn't. When it comes to the travel ban, obviously, the issuance of visas is totally within the discretion of the second branch of government, not the first, not the third, but the second branch. I doubt federal courts are going to take over the discretionary issuing of travel visas to the United States. It's got to get higher up in the courts before you some get clarity on that issue.</s>BLITZER: At this point, do you think the Trump administration, the Justice Department should rewrite this latest order on the so-called sanctuary cities preventing federal funds from going to these cities as long as they occasionally go ahead and protect some of these undocumented immigrants?</s>RISCH: I haven't read it, but obviously after you get to court and you read a court order and see what it is that caught the court's fancy, you can many times go back and correct it, as if with legislation or anything else. But that is going to be up to them. Good lawyers. They will handle it.</s>BLITZER: Based on what you know on this other breaking story we're following, Senator, involving former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, do you believe that he may have broken the law, that he may have committed a felony?</s>RISCH: I don't know. Obviously, I have seen the same stories you have. And it's possible. Look, in the position that he was in, we have some very clear and very strict laws about what people who have been in the position of national security can and can't do, particularly when they are holding a clearance. The rules are very specific. They're very clear. Obviously, people in the House who have reviewed those think there is reason to believe that. But, again, that's not the job of the Congress to prosecute. That will be up to the Justice Department. I have every confidence that if indeed the law was broken that he can and will and should be held to account for it.</s>BLITZER: It's not just the Democrats who are these making insinuations. As you know, Jason Chaffetz, he's a Republican congressman from your neighboring state of Utah, he's the chairman of the House Oversight Committee. If he says there is no evidence he was actually, Michael Flynn was complying with the regulations, may have committed a felony, that's a big deal, right?</s>RISCH: It is a big deal. But, in America, always you're presumed to be innocent until otherwise. And I think, like you say, there is reason to look at this. Where it ends up, let's let the facts come out and we can all make a decision.</s>BLITZER: That's fair enough. Senator, do you think the White House, though, bears some responsibility for not properly vetting Michael Flynn? It was so well-known he visited Russia, had dinner with Putin, sat at a table. We all saw the video of him on so many occasions during the campaign celebrating President Putin. There you see Putin at that event. This is in December of 2015. You see General Flynn sitting at one of the main tables right there. Everyone knew he went to Moscow. There was a problem there. Maybe they didn't do a good job vetting him. What do you think?</s>RISCH: Well, first of all, you're absolutely right. We all knew what the situation was. The national media reported that he was over there at this celebration of Russian TV, who operates in the United States, by the way. And so that particular fact was well known. As far as the vetting is concerned, look, I was a governor, I know how you do these vetting things. It is a lot easier to do at the state level than it is at the national and international level. You need good people to do the vetting. I would think they would have asked the questions. But I guess when the documents come out, we will get a better feel as to whether or not the vetting was properly done.</s>BLITZER: It's not just, what, the reported $45,000 he got for the speaking engagement for R.T., Russian TV, when he went over to Moscow, but more than half a million dollars from various Turkish elements. He only registered as a foreign agent after he left the White House, after he was fired as national security adviser. They are looking at that as well. That's appropriate, right?</s>RISCH: It is appropriate they look at it. This whole thing doesn't have a good feel to it by any stretch. But having said that, again, we need to not rush to judgment on this and get all of the facts in front of us. But it doesn't have a good feel to it.</s>BLITZER: Because it is significant also when you see the Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee in the House, Jason Chaffetz, and the ranking Democrat, the ranking member, Elijah Cummings, they're both on the same page as far as Michael Flynn is concerned, you don't see that all that often nowadays, but that's significant.</s>RISCH: Significant. And you're right, you don't see that all the time.</s>BLITZER: Stand by, Senator. We have got more to discuss, including there are some late-breaking developments involving North Korea. Want to pick your brain on that. We will take a quick break. We will be right back.