Can Trump Salvage Travel ban; Both Parties Sinking in Partisan Swamp
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Michael Smerconish coming to you from New York City. We welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. It's only day 22 of the Trump presidency, but there's been enough news to fill three months. The war over the travel ban continues after being blocked by a panel of judges. The White House is said to be rewriting the executive order. So much for see you in court. And instead of abating, the partisan divide is ramping up with angry protests greeting every executive order, Cabinet hearings, even town hall meetings. But what exactly can Democrats do to harness that opposition? They've been behind closed doors in Baltimore debating whether their path forward should be progressive or more centrist. And the president has been hate-watching "SNL" and tweeting negative reviews. Well, tonight's host is impersonator-in-chief Alec Baldwin, so the president is probably in for more unhappiness. Joe Piscapo who played President Ronald Reagan on "SNL" is here with some friendly advice for the unhappy viewer in Mar-a-Lago. But first, the Trump administration has just concluded its third full week and a lot has happened. And patterns are emerging. One is that the president's day often begins with him tweeting. Some are informative, others are boastful, many impetuous. I've looked at every one of his tweets during his first three weeks in office and here's what I've noticed. Almost every day knowing there will be political battles fought he launches an early morning preemptive strike. They come in the form of missiles that land on anyone or anything that stands in the way of his objectives. They stoke his base and they serve as diversionary fodder. Take a look at a couple. The day after women marched around the globe in opposition to his presidency at 7:47 a.m. and all these times are Eastern, quote, "We just had an election. Why didn't these people vote?" Well, presumably they had voted and that's why he lost the popular vote. Three days later he kicked off the day at 7:10 a.m., "I will be asking for a major investigation into voter fraud." And then on the day that he was scheduled to meet with the Mexican president to smooth over the border wall dispute came this misdirection bombshell 6:04 a.m. "Ungrateful traitor Chelsea Manning." After the "New York Times" reported that the president, the Mexican president, was considering canceling the meeting, our president implied that, well, it was his idea. 8:55 a.m., "If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting." And speaking of the "Times," on the Saturday that he was going to have phone calls with five world leaders, he made the newspaper his morning focus. The "New York Times" had published an editorial labeling his Muslim ban, quote, "cowardly and dangerous." 8:04 a.m. he tweeted this, "Failing 'New York times' wrong about me from the very beginning. Fake news." After the news broke overnight that an American-led Yemeni raid ended in the death of a U.S. Navy SEAL came this, "Christians in the Middle East have been executed in large numbers, we cannot allow this horror to continue." Amidst protests over his travel ban, Senator Schumer became his foil. 7:20 a.m. as he mocked the tears of Senator Schumer. Remember those Berkeley protesters who prevented a speech from an alt- right guest? Well, he warned them at 6:13 a.m., no federal funds. He's even taken on the Terminator. At 6:24 a.m., "Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger did a really bad job as governor of California and even worse on 'the Apprentice,' but at least he tried hard." And of course he sought to delegitimize the judge who issued a restraining order halting his travel ban, quote, "The opinion of this so-called judge." That came at 8:12 a.m. but that night Homeland Security halted implementation of the ban. A couple of days later he was going after Nordstrom's. And then to deflect being criticized by his own Supreme Court nominee, he tried to discredit the messenger. At 6:57 a.m., "Senator Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had, major lie, now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him." Just this morning at 7:12 a.m. came the latest, "Our legal system is broken, 77 percent of refugees are allowed since travel reprieve, hailed from seven suspect countries, so dangerous." So what drives this? Is it a presidential form of ADD? Or is he crazy like a fox? I'm not sure. But I do know after reading "Art of the Deal" that everything at least in his mind is strategic. And therefore we need to look behind what often appears to be irrationality and ask the question each morning as to what he's trying to do, what narrative is he suggesting versus the substantive matters that are occurring at the same time. And, again, at the end of the day we need to assess the tweeting in the context of what followed. These tweets are unique, unvarnished window into a president's thinking just so long as we don't allow them to become a shell game, a distraction from more consequential matters that warrant our attention. As these three weeks have proven, he's still going to have to endorse scrutiny on his actual policies. And speaking of Twitter, what do you think? Tweet me @smerconish, I will read some, and that includes you, Mr. President. Now President Trump has said repeatedly that the travel ban is an urgent matter of national security implying there's an imminent threat. Despite claims that he's not backing down, there've been reports that this weekend the administration is trying to rewrite the executive order. Is there any way the president can achieve his objectives in a way that passes constitutional muster? Joining me now famed attorney and professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, Alan Dershowitz. Professor, he's taking your advice. Good morning.</s>SMERCONISH: For the last several days on CNN, you have been saying rewrite it. Explain.</s>ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Well, he said there's an imminent threat. We know he's going to lose the stay application, so it will take months before he gets to the Supreme Court and achieves a partial victory, which I think he will achieve. And so it's only logical for him to either rescind the order and moot the Ninth Circuit opinion, or simply revise the order and institute a new one while taking a slow track up to the Supreme Court. The last thing he wants is a 4-4 affirmence of the Ninth Circuit striking down his order. So he's smart to try to rewrite the order now, get rid of the application and the order to green card holders and legitimate visa holders, apply it only to people who have never been in the United States, have no contact with the United States, have no standing to raise this issue. And in that way he can accomplish both goals, protect the security of the country and not have a constitutional crisis on his hands.</s>SMERCONISH: Do you think that he expands or limits that list of seven nations? Does he put in a Christian nation so as to avoid an argument over the establishment clause?</s>DERSHOWITZ: That would be foolish. There is no Christian nation today that fits into that category. What would he do throw in Armenia or try to throw in Israel as a Jewish nation? It wouldn't work. In fact, he campaigned on the issue of combating Islamic terrorism, something that the Obama administration refused to mention. And he has the right to say that we're going to focus on those nations that export Islamic terrorism. Of course there are going to be Muslim nations. And he also has the right to say we're going to give special preference to religious minorities who are the victims of Islamic oppression. They are Christians, they are Bahais, they are Kurds. They fall into a number of categories. And it's OK to mention religious groups if there's a secular purpose and the secular purpose is to rescue them from prosecution. So I think he gets the better of the constitutional argument if he can narrow the executive order and distinguish between people who are American persons, green card holders, others, and those who are really strangers to the country and have no standing and no right to come into the country. I think he can have a win-win.</s>SMERCONISH: Am I right in saying that he kind of backed himself into a corner? Because insofar as the order is predicated on an imminent threat, he can't then sit back and allow the litigation to play itself out for a time period that frankly would be longer than the ban he sought to impose.</s>DERSHOWITZ: And that was my point exactly. As soon as the Ninth Circuit ruled, I said he had a conundrum.</s>SMERCONISH: Right.</s>DERSHOWITZ: He had backed himself into the corner by saying that this was imminent. So I think he has no choice but to do this, but look, he's listening. And he's understanding now for the first time that we do operate within a system of checks and balances. Not only do the courts check, but now states have the ability to bring lawsuits and check the national government. This drama is going to continue for months in the future because we have figured out a way of making sure that the president can't just operate without our system of checks and balances. So he's going to have to get used to living within our system of separation of powers with the judiciary is as important in our system of governance as the presidency is.</s>SMERCONISH: Well, he's listening. He's listening to Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz and could do a hell of a lot less. Thank you, Professor. Appreciate your being here.</s>DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.</s>SMERCONISH: Now vivid displays this week of the hostility level in America's partisan divide. Thursday angry crowds in Utah and Tennessee disrupted events hosted by two members of Congress Jason Chaffetz and Diane Black over threats to national parks, access to health care, and lack of attention to the president's possible conflicts of interest. Then on Friday newly confirmed secretary of Education Betsy DeVos tried to visit a Washington, D.C. public school and found her path blocked by more unhappy citizens. With this kind of hyper partisanship and blockading, can anything get accomplished on either side of the aisle? Joining me now, Charlie Cook, the editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report and the columnist for the "National Journal." Charlie, do you see parallels between the Democratic opposition to President Trump and the Tea Party movement in 2010 against President Obama?</s>CHARLIE COOK, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER, THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Yes, we do. It's the party that's out of power that where you have the anger, the antagonism, where you have the feeling of alienation. That's where you get the passion in American politics. And one of the dangers for Republicans is exactly what happened with President Obama. You know, in 2008 you had all these people that were really enthusiastic for President Obama, two years later they don't show up for Joe or Jane generic Democrat. 2012 they show up, re-elect Obama. 2014 they don't show up for Joe and Jane generic Democrat. What Republicans have to fear is that these people that came in and turbo charged Donald Trump in 2016, will they show up for another Republican in the midterm election who doesn't look, sound or act like Donald Trump?</s>SMERCONISH: I was surprised. In fact I want to roll some footage of what transpired in Utah. Then I'll make a comment to Charlie Cook. This is Jason Chaffetz at a town hall. Play it.</s>SMERCONISH: You know, not, Charlie, what you'd expect from one of the reddest of states in the country for a Republican conservative member of Congress to be greeted like that at a town hall.</s>COOK: There is an enormous amount -- it's interesting what's happened since the election. You have some people that have just completely withdrawn and won't watch news anymore. And then you have "New York Times" subscriptions skyrocketing.</s>SMERCONISH: Right.</s>COOK: And we're -- it's built this intensity among some people while other people are just sort of withdrawing from the process. But, you know, I've had family members that have never been particularly interested in politics that are just, you know, on the edge of their chairs. And this is -- it really -- it's unique, but it does remind me of when President Obama came in and the backlash against him.</s>SMERCONISH: I have been arguing to my Sirius XM Radio audience that they are more divided than we are. They being the politicians and certain of the media intelligencia, I'm not thinking of CNN. And then along comes a tweet from you this week of a graph. I want to put it up on the screen. It has to do with ticket splitting and it depresses me. What's going on, Charlie?</s>COOK: We are becoming more of a parliamentary government politics. People are either voting blue or they're voting red. Every single United States Senate race in 2016 went to the same side that that state voted for for president. No ticket splitting at all. So the people are voting -- you know, it used to be people proudly say, well, I vote the person, not the party.</s>SMERCONISH: Right.</s>COOK: Well, not anymore. That's just not where we are. They either vote or they don't vote and it's that energy level of who is turning out and who doesn't. And that's where, for example, Hillary Clinton just couldn't bring out the energy that President Obama did. And -- but now, you know, I'm sure Hillary Clinton is saying where the heck were all these people last year? But, you know, it's the way politics works.</s>SMERCONISH: Yes, it bums me out to think that so many are going in and throwing a big lever without taking the time to make individual decisions down ballot. Hey, Charlie Cook, thank you so much for your expertise.</s>COOK: Thank you, Michael.</s>SMERCONISH: What do you think? Tweet me @smerconish. I will read some as the program unfolds. Catherine, what do we got? "Smerconish, President Trump has to tweet because cable and alphabet news networks distort the real news so he circumvents you fake news people." Really, B Piquette? Go fact check the tweets that I've just shown you and all the others he's put out. And then you tell me what's fake news. Still ahead, Democratic leadership has been meeting in Baltimore this week as the party licks its wounds from electoral defeats at a local, state and national level. They will also soon elect a new chair. I'm about to speak to one candidate, former labor secretary Thomas Perez is here. And since "SNL" first aired four decades ago it has lampooned every American president. But Donald Trump is the first one to so publicly express his displeasure. Now it's Trump impersonator Alec Baldwin who is hosting tonight. What can he and we expect? And how should the president react? I'll talk to another "SNL" legend who played Ronald Reagan for years, Joe Piscopo.</s>DARRELL HAMMOND, ACTOR: You've crossed the line. I've killed people for less.</s>DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Looks like you killed a squirrel to me and put it right on top of your head.</s>HAMMOND: Your hair looks exactly like mine.</s>TRUMP: Yes, except my hair's supposed to look like this. I'm a janitor.