Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban; Trump Accuses Harley- Davidson Of Waving "White Flag;" Argentina Faces Must-Win Clash Vs. Nigeria. Aired 11-12p ET
Aired June 26, 2018 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:15] KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. I'm Kate Bolduan. Good morning to all of you. And good morning Mr. President just in case you're
watching. I say that because the word from the White House this morning is that the President is watching TV, watching coverage of the major decision
out of the Supreme Court and a major victory for him.
Just moments ago a divided Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban against seven countries, five majority Muslim countries. The President
not hiding his glee (ph) in this tweet, the statement coming out from him of course.
Supreme Court uphold Trump travel ban. Wow, Justice Correspondence, Jessica Schneider. She's out at the Supreme Court, Jeff Zeleny at the
White House.
Jessica, first to you, what do we know about the ruling?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, the Supreme Court ruling this morning in a 5-4 decision that President does in fact
have broad powers to enact this version of the travel ban to protect National Security.
In fact, the Chief Justice, John Roberts who wrote this opinion putting a quite plainly saying this distinctly, the proclamation is squarely within
the scope of presidential authority. The Chief Justice also seems to dismiss many of the president comment that came before he took office.
Were on the campaign trail, he called from a Muslim ban.
Saying that the proclamation itself this travel ban was mutual on its face and that President's words before he became President did not erase his
authority under immigration law. And the constitution to enact this travel ban.
But of course, there were four Justices who dissented in this and a few of them issuing fiery dissent. In fact, two Justices read from the bench,
read their defense Justices Breyer as well as Sotomayor.
Of course, reading from the bench with a dissent is an extraordinary move that really shows just how much they disagree with the majority opinion.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor even compared this decision to the 1944 decision by the Supreme Court that allowed for the imprisonment and interment of the
Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Justice Sotomayor, even going so far as to say, "The majority here completely sets aside the President's charge statement about Muslims as
irrelevant. And she went on to say. "How not irrelevant the President's statement about Muslims before he become President in sense are.
So, the Supreme Court this morning issuing a ruling that had been closely watched and highly anticipated. The Supreme Court saying that the
President does in fact have the authority to enact this Travel ban, this being the third version of that travel ban that restricts travel from seven
different countries but definitely a win for the Trump Administration and for the President himself, Kate.
BOLDUAN: Jessica, thank you so much. Jeff, let's go over to the White House now. What's the White House saying?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, there's no question we saw in the President's a short but powerful message there in
all capital letters and exclamation point, the word "WOW".
The White House uses his vindication -- that is the exact word I got from the Senior White House official just moments after the ruling was issued.
The President was in the residence of the White House this morning watching this unfold on television.
Members of the White House counsel's office came in to explain the really damn as they were reading through the ruling. And there's no question that
the President uses this as a major win.
One thing you will not hear him say, I'm told, when White House statement is coming out somewhat soon is about these different versions of the travel
ban. We should be clear. This is a very different travel ban than the one that was enacted the first week of his Administration that prompted an
outcry in an uproar.
But this is largely holding on to the principle that he, you know, first announced back on the campaign trail back in December of 2015.
It's one of the things that helped him win the Republican primary. He calls it a Muslim ban at that point. Of course, the language has changed
but the President I'm told is going to seize on this as they win.
And there's one sentence, Kate, in particular, in the Chief Justices' words at the White House is pointing out to me. They're saying the President of
the United States possesses extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf. They believe that that is a sign that all of
these, you know, the commentary that he has made online in other forms about this. He has the right to do.
So, look for him to tweet more. He'll be praising the Justices but particularly Neil Gorsuch. It is probably his biggest accomplishment since
taking office. We saw that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sitting out that picture of him shaking hands with him. Boy did that ever make a
difference but look for the President to say more on this as soon perhaps in this hour Kate.
But again, vindication is the word here at the White House, Kate.
BOLDUAN: And with the vindication, Jeff. Let's just drill down just slightly.
ZELENY: Sure.
BOLDUAN: On the difference between and it was a long -- over a long period of time between the debacle of the rollout of travel ban. One, to where
they ended up with travel ban three and everything in between.
[11:05:09] ZELENY: No question. It was a dramatic difference as specifically in the language in the different countries, Venezuela and
North Korea also added.
Well, look, how much has changed -- on the upfront of the North Korean regime just specifically. That shows how long this has been underway but
remembers Steve Brandon.
Steve Brandon was front and center in the crafting of this first travel ban. He was a member of the National Security Council in that first week
of the Trump administration. He, of course is long gone as well.
So, another sign of how much has evolved and changed here at the White House since those early days of the travel ban. But again, Kate, I would
not expect any of that to be litigated. There are seizing this is a victory and as the President's words here today.
BOLDUAN: Jeff Zeleny, a lot more to come from you. Thank you so much, Jeff. I really appreciate it.
A lot of reaction now coming in, as lawmakers are beginning to digest this major decision from Supreme Court. Let's see how they're reacting to the
news on Capitol Hill.
Manu Raju on Capitol Hill. He's been talking to law makers. What did they tell you Manu?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the reaction is bringing along. Party lines much like the way the Supreme Court broke down
earlier.
Vividly divided here in the halls of Congress, democrats saying there's a very dark chapter in American history. It's not consistent with American
values and trying to figure out what if any they can do to try to overturn this ruling despite their minority status on Capitol Hill.
And Republicans by and large applauding (ph) the decision saying that the President got it right after revising this travel ban and that the
President deserves credit for making changes. And then, they're also, of course, applauding (ph) the fact that Merrick Garland is not on the Supreme
Court's. And then, Neil Gorsuch is after the Senate confirmed that President Trump's nominee.
Just a moment ago, we spoke to the two tops Senators, Senator John Cornyn and Senator Dick Durbin and this is their reaction much like the reaction
that we're hearing all around breaking down along party lines.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: It's not a Muslim ban. It's not anything that President Obama didn't do when we he was a President. So, I'm not
surprised the Supreme Court ruled the way they did. I think they're trying to keep the country safe.
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: I don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling but the categorically brand people because of their religion or
their background what country they're from. It's not the way we do things in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: So, the question is where do we go from here to Senator Dick and Blumental sit on the Senate. Judiciary Committee told me earlier that he
wants to propose a bill to try to over turn this ruling but as Dick Durbin told me after Blumental said that they realized realistically there's no
chance of that happening.
So, the argument is going to be made this fall. I mean midterm elections as they try to make -- the Democrats try to make the case to take back
control of the Senate by saying. Look, if there's another Supreme Court vacancy. Look, how much significance at this any one seat has in
determining the future Federal policy and what it means for the country in the world?
And Republican saying that's so important, and see what Neil Gorsuch did and upholding this travel ban in all the other 5-4 rulings. We've seen so
far this term. So, we'll hear the political going to forward but no consensus at all. And what this means and the parties breaking down on
party lines here, Kate.
BOLDUAN: Yes. Absolutely. I got, at this moment. Well, let's see what happens in the next few minutes. Manu, great to see you. Thank you so
much.
Let's get some more reaction do now. On the phone with me is Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Congressman, thank you much for
joining me.
REP. KEITH ELLISON (D), MINNESOTA: Yes. Glad to be on with you today.
BOLDUAN: Give me your reaction to the ruling from the Supreme Court.
ELLISON: Well, the Supreme Court is said that no matter how bad the discriminatory language is before, during and after the President's Trump
run in his service. As long as he puts a very thin veneer of National Security on top of all that discrimination and racism they will buy it.
In another words, as long as they paying cash (ph) some lipstick on it its fine and that what they have said. And all I can say is that the people
who believe in dignity, of all people believe in freedom of faith and freedom of religion in America. We're not going to stop fighting.
In fact, this is going to enlighten us. This is going to inspire us to push even further and harder to establish the dignity of all people in this
country. We're not daunted here. We're going to keep on pressuring. It just pulls one thing that if you steal on rip-off a Supreme Court justice.
Then you can try to jam any kind of nasty races ugly policy you can down at those with the American people.
BOLDUAN: Wow.
ELLISON: But we're taking it. We're not going to -- that's what I feel.
BOLDUAN: Wow. I mean, Congressman, that is -- you are really upset about this.
ELLISON: Yes.
BOLDUAN: I know, there are a lot of people --
[11:10:06] ELLISON: Let me tell you. I mean, look, let me just tell you this. This our country has gone through some ugly days. I mean, the
Supreme Court in the 1850's said that it was OK to own a black person that stretched got decision, that decision hit the dustbin (ph) of history. So,
to the Plessy versus Ferguson, so did Korematsu and this one will to.
I'm telling you, discrimination and racism and hatred and religious bigotry is never going to be winning in the end. And so, we're just -- we're fired
up and we're pushing forward.
BOLDUAN: Congressman, when the majority opinion writes the proclamation is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority. Indeed neither did
sense, even attempts any serious arguments to the contrary despite the fact that the plaintiffs primary contention in their briefing before the court
was at the proclamation value the statute.
I mean, they are saying that it is squarely whether you like it or not essentially is what they're saying. It is squarely within the President's
authority and you're saying what?
ELLISON: It is not within the President's authority to discriminate on the basis of religion. It is simply isn't and in the fact that he slap a few
language -- pieces of language on there into a few other countries is an afterthought doesn't correct the fundamental analytical flaw.
The President said in one of his opening statement in his campaign. He wanted a complete and total ban on Muslim entry into the country. He
reaffirmed that position multiple times before, during and after the election.
The fact that he comes out with an initial ban. And then throws a few extra countries in there and census about National Security doesn't change
that essential fact. It does not change the fact that this is his intent. This is what he wants to do with this particular provision and the Supreme
Court majority ignoring that is simply ignoring President. Ignoring the truth of what the President was trying to do.
And I just -- I think that Justice Sotomayor put it very well. She made it very clear. The United States constitution is founded on the promise of
religious liberty. The Supreme Court majority is filled uphold that today.
It's a shame and but look, other majorities upheld separate but equal. Other majorities upheld like the Roger Tony court in the 1850s said you can
own black person in -- and black said no rights but the whites have to respect.
We've seen majorities highly politicized not ruling based on law. Not ruling based on President. Not really based on the best principles of our
country but just make it partisanship and that's what the Supreme Court majority has done. They've misrepresented this country's best legacy and
they have literally tainted themselves.
BOLDUAN: So, Congressman, when the White House. I mean, were waiting to hear an official statement from the White House. But when the White House
is telling is Jeff Zeleny that the word. I'm sure we'll get a lot.
But I mean, when the White House its initial word to Jeff Zeleny was they're saying vindication. As the first Muslim elected to Congress, what
do you say to the President?
ELLISON: I say that a gloating braggart is not going to win at the end of the day. I say that he has his Supreme Court change (ph) or his ugly
philosophy. This partisan court, Gorsuch really should not be on the Supreme Court.
In my view he may be there but he's not there properly, you can do that. I mean, you can jam in a Supreme Court by denying a sitting President their
right to appoint the Supreme Court Justice. That is exactly what happened and Gorsuch is just done what his paymasters send him there to do.
And so, it's a shame but I just know. I have deep faith that the best impulses of this country about liberty, about equality, about religious
liberty and freedom and was just not going to stop. And we will prevail.
BOLDUAN: Congressman, you are leaving Congress in order to run for Attorney General of Minnesota. If you win, you're in a position may be to
do something. Will you challenge this? Can you challenge this?
ELLISON: Let me tell you this. I think, the duty in the State Supreme Court justice including the Minnesota Supreme Attorney General -- excuse
me. Minnesota Attorney General is to uphold the rights of all people. That's what were our job is to stand with people who are being trampled by
powers that are much greater than themselves and that is what I intend to do.
[11:15:03] And to me this is a classic example of a big giant Federal government, kind of rollover people just because of what their faith is and
that's the kind of thing that I will never stand by and let happen on my watch. And that's why I am running for Attorney General because I want to
stand with people who lead and advocate. And that's what I do and that's what I'm going to do.
BOLDUAN: You people coming that want to come in for Libya, Yemen, Somalia into Minnesota. What do you tell them today? I mean, the Supreme Court
have largely let the travel ban go into place. What different today?
ELLISON: Well, what different today is that before we we're all hoping that the he Supreme Court wound fine? It's the best and noblest ideals of
our nation and upholds them.
That is change the Supreme Court has said no. We're going to give right on and to the worst impulses, the divisive discriminatory impulses, the
impulses of religious bigotry. We're going to given to that but all I said those folks who have American dream is that there are still plenty of
Americans who believe in that dream and we're still fighting for it and we're going to quit.
BOLDUAN: Congressman, thank you so much for coming. Giving us a reaction. We're getting more reaction throughout the hour and we're continue to check
in with you. Congressman, thank you so much.
But coming up, we're getting much more in the breaking news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[11:20:27] DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United
States until our country representatives can figure out what is the hell is going on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: That was Donald Trump in December 2015. That was how this travel ban started.
Now June off 2018 the Supreme Court has had the final word and they say those words do not matter as the policy in its current form is squarely
within the President's power.
With me right now to dissect what exactly the Supreme Court is saying, what this means going forward. CNN Chief Legal Analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN
Legal Analyst, Joan Biskupic, and CNN Justice Correspondent, Evan Perez.
Joan, let me start with you.
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure.
BOLDUAN: I want to get your reaction from what we learned from the justices, what the main point of the majority is that also why in the end
freedom of religion was not really part of this decision.
BISKUPIC: Let me tell you Kate I've been covering the Supreme Court for more than 25 years and these were the most dramatic moments in the
courtroom I have ever seen for 40 minutes beginning with the Chief Justice John Roberts in the center chair, telling people why this is a valid
exercise of Donald Trump authority over immigration.
He starts and he explains first how this executive order complies with long-standing tradition under immigration law and then he goes to the
establishment clause question that you talk about how this isn't a violation of religion.
And you could tell that he was trying to head off what the dissenting justices were about to say during their time in the courtroom. He message
was, we are aware of what Donald Trump said on the campaign done.
We are aware of what was on his Web site. We are aware of what he said since he became President. But that doesn't matter we have wait everything
and we have looked at this executive order and it is neutral on its faith. And it is more comprehensive he said and explained with more thoroughness
than order that for example President Reagan or President Carter had put in place.
And then he said in one of the more dramatic moments of a very stunning as I said about 40 minutes. He said, this is not Korematsu, because he knew
that the centers in many other people across America who are going to see this are going to like it too when the Supreme Court upheld the Federal
government sending those thousand of Japanese Americans to concentrate in camps here in the here.
And the Chief says, this is not Korematsu, in fact we're going to overrule Korematsu officially. But this is different and President Trump is you
talk about any other president would have the authority to do this.
And then two sets of centers spoke, first Justice Breyer on behalf of him and Elena Kagan. And then the most moving statements were made by Justice
Sonia Sotomayor on behalf of herself and Justice Ginsburg.
And she said essentially pay attention here. Pay attention to the kind of statements he had made against Muslims. Pay attention to how much it
actually like Korematsu. There was this one moment where she read some of his statements just as Chief had.
But she said, let those sink in like Muslims hate us. They can this similar (ph) like he was going through those. And the Chief had gone
through those too. But she said pause for a minute to let those sink in.
Those were said by the President of the United States. And nothing that majority is saying today about Korematsu could possibly compensate for
what's happening in this case of Trump versus Hawaii.
And then finally, the national security interest which is what the administration has asserted here. She said, it's a sham, what they're
saying is a sham. So the justification that the majority is pointing to is a sham.
BOLDUAN: Jeffrey, you pointed to the part in the majority where they say that his words don't matter with regard to how they're going about this
decision. Anyway where it says at the heart of their case, there's a series of statement by the President, his advisers both during the campaign
and since the Presidency.
Seem the office, the issue over is not whether to denounce the President statement but the significant of those statements and reviewing a
presidential directive neutral on its face addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.
[11:25:01] But I just had Congressman Keith Ellison on very passionate, very upset on how this went about. And he said, in the end. This is
exactly what the President, the President's word are exactly what he intended, how can they not take it into account?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I mean this is how Donald Trump has changed so much in the United States. You look at what he said
and you could tell him. I mean as Joan so vividly described in the courtroom. And you can read it in the opinion.
The Supreme Court was embarrassed by having to defend Donald Trump's words that Justice Kennedy said, we have to be careful about people's word when
official speak. Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion, it sort of cleared his throat and was clearly was uncomfortable and talked about how
good Presidents talked about religion.
But let's be clear Donald Trump won and he won notwithstanding the fact that he is that views that are clearly, clearly bigoted during the campaign
and certain parts during his presidency.
And the Supreme Court can clear it's throat and be all furrowed brow all at once. But Donald Trump won. And that is -- it's a green light for him to
continue restricting Muslim majority countries their immigration rights. It's a green light for him to say anything he wants because the Supreme
Court isn't going to hold onto.
So, this is Donald Trump's America that reflected in this opinion.
BOLDUAN: And Evan, I mean what's the reaction that you're hearing from the Justice Department. Do we have any reaction from Jeff Sessions?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think his traveling today that attorney generally smiling today. But he obviously he is very
pleased. It is because of the justice department that this travel ban has been upheld Kate, if you remember. I mean, we should not forget the way
this was this policy was first put into practice --
BOLDUAN: Lay it out, lay it out because it happens so long Evan that I think it's very important this moment to remind everyone the debacle of
travel ban one, what we say in airport after travel ban one and then what they say now the travel ban free.
PEREZ: Right, exactly. I mean these travel ban that have been upheld is far, far from what was first acted. That weekend if you remember, there
were millions of people who are getting on airplanes there were a green card holders, people who are naturalized who are in the process of getting
naturalized who were trying to get back to their families.
And they couldn't because they weren't sure whether or not they would be allowed into this country. There were people who were held up at airports
for hours and days the court system was trying to figure out whether or not this thing could actually go into --get into place.
So, it was frankly just incompetent the way the President and his Lieutenant Stephen Miller and some of these people put this first policy
into place. And it causes a tremendous amount of problems. It cost tremendous amount of damage for the administration it's because of the way
they did that that this has become, 18 months later we're still talking about this is, this is something that the court is still dealing with.
So, if they had done that the version three of the travel ban on day one, perhaps this would've been so a long, long, long time ago. So, that's the
reason why I think if you are the justice department despite the fact that the President regularly attacked the Justice Department, he's even attack
the Justice Department saying that he was unhappy say that this is a watered-down, politically correct version of the travel ban.
But you know what? This is the version of the travel ban that could pass constitutional muster. And so, if you're the Justice Department this is
exactly why they exist. This is why there should have been part of the process when this policy was put into place in the first place.
BOLDUAN: Here's the tweet that you are talking about Evan, in June of 2017. Donald Trump Twitting the Justice Department should have state with
original travel ban, not the water-down political correct version that they've submitted to the Supreme Court.
Regardless since right now his words don't matter as what the Supreme Court says with regard to this.
PEREZ: Right, yes.
BOLDUAN: Jeffrey, what do you think this means? What does it means in the context that this decision comes down at a moment when the country is mired
in another type of -- in another entirely different immigration debate and fight started with a policy put forth by the Trump administration?
TOOBIN: Well, you can be sure that the administration will try to tie the two events together because the last thing the administration wants to keep
doing is talking about 2300 kids who've been separated by their parents and remain incarcerated.
[11:29:57] They can try to change the conversation to say look, the Supreme Court has said that the Trump administration is protecting the borders in a
way that is constitutionally permissible, that we are following the law and we are doing it to protect the American public, that is an argument that
you will hear, if haven't started hearing it already.
Whether that can successfully change the conversation away from the incarceration of unaccompanied children. That's above my pay grade. I
mean how it plays out political, I don't know but I do know that the Trump administration will certainly try to tie the two events together.
BOLDUAN: Evan, Jeff, if you guys can hold on for one second we are finally, I think we're getting a statement in from the White House. Let's
jump back over to the White House. Jeff Zeleny is there, something beyond the tweet from the President I assume, Jeff. What we are hearing?
ZELENY: Indeed Kate, we are getting a full statement from the White House, from the President on this ruling. And we had mentioned the word the
vindication before. That was the immediate response from the senior administration official here.
And that word is indeed in this longer statement. Let's take a look at this statement that were just release a few moments ago, a statement from
the President himself.
He says this. He says, "Today Supreme Court ruling is a tremendous victory for the American people and the constitution. The Supreme Court has upheld
a clear authority of the President to defend National Security of the United States."
He goes on to say "In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movement met on harming innocent civilians. We must properly bet those
coming into our country." He says "This ruling is a moment of a profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and
Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border in our country."
He goes on to say this "As long as I am President I will defend the sovereignty, safety and security of the American people and fight for
immigration system that serves the national interest of the United States and its citizens. Our country will always be safe secure and protected on
my watch."
So Kate, so Kate very interesting there that the President does indeed is seizing on this ruling, which is a narrow ruling upholding the revised
travel ban, revised three times.
BOLDUAN: Right.
ZELENY: He is using it to make a broader point about immigration, in the context of today's decision. And he of course is attacking the media in
the statement, attacking Democratic politicians as he says.
We should point out OK, many Republican politicians as well and people throughout this government were in fact alarmed by the early version of the
travel.
BOLDUAN: Right.
ZELENY: It had to be revised several times but this statement makes clear the President seizing victory, seizing vindication. There's no room for
nuance here in the statement at all seizing a win and using it for the argument going forward that we know he wants to make this midterm election
campaign that Republicans are for stronger borders, Democrats or not that's how he is framing it quite simply.
And he's going to use that Supreme Court decision to amplify his argument, Kate.
BOLDUAN: I also, just a final thought, thank you so much Jeff. Jeffrey Toobin, also I am struck as we're kind of listening to the reactions here.
We're looking at the President's tweet from this morning.
The statement from the White House, just how the administration of the White House that it tied itself up and not for weeks and months to try to
say this was not a travel ban, this was not a Muslim. This is not a ban, this is now of this was. And as the President is saying in his initial
tweet this morning, that's exactly what it is.
TOOBIN: Well, the argument that they made was that it's not a Muslim ban. I don't think they denied that it was a travel ban but they kept insisting
it's not directed at a religion, it's directed at people with countries that have major National Security problems.
One of the major changes they made was they added North Korea to the list of countries that that were immigration was banned from. And North Korea
of course is not a Muslim country, all of was part of the effort not to tie this restriction so directly to religion the way the earlier version was.
Now, obviously the four dissenting justices thought that was all pretext that this really is a Muslim ban that you have the look beneath the surface
and the motivation here. But they -- the Trump administration certainly persuaded by justices that this was a legitimate exercise of presidential
power not a discriminatory act towards a religious group.
BOLDUAN: I do, distinctly remember them saying though it's not a Muslim ban, and it's not a travel ban regardless.
TOOBIN: I don't remember the travel ban part. But I take you word for it.
BOLDUAN: Always do that. Let me just put it that way, Jeff. Always take my word for it. A lot to learn from this, Jeffrey thank you so much.
Evan, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
Jeff Zeleny at the White House getting more reaction from there.
Coming up for us, President Trump has a new target in the growing trade war and it is not a foreign adversary. It's quintessential American brand.
[11:35:04] Harley-Davidson, why the President accusing the motorcycle marker of waving the white flag, that's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: You know that old saying President shouldn't pick winners and losers. Well, once again, with President Trump you take the paper that was
written on, tear it shreds and let it on fire.
The President on tear on Twitter of course, taking on Harley-Davidson now for daring to move some of it's production out of the country as the result
of the tariffs that President Trump slap on U.S. allies, Trump accusing them of surrendering of using the tariffs, doesn't excuse and even
predicting now the company's ultimate demise. Their employees and customers are already very angry at them, he tweets. If they move, watch.
That'lll be the beginning of the end. They surrendered, they quit.
[11:40:00] And Harley now to the list of people places and things that have been -- have seen both sides of Donald Trump. Harley executives were
invited to the White House last year where he thank them for building things in America and predicted they would expand.
Now, they are on the wrong side of the Trump flip flop after executives announced they're moving some production overseas in order to avoid
retaliatory E.U. tariffs.
Joining me now, CNN Senior Economic Analyst, Stephen Moore, and CNN Global Economic Analyst and Associate Editor for the Financial Times, Rana
Foroohar.
Guys, thanks for being here. Stephen, the President hit Harley first surrendering too soon, be patient he says. Did Harley have another option
here?
STEPHEN MOORE, CNN SENIOR ECONOMICS ANALYST: Well, look, I was never in favor of some of these steel and long run tariffs on the first place. I
think, they were misguided at there's other points that I made to the White House says look, you might be protecting some of your steel and aluminum
jobs.
But the millions of Americans who use aluminum and steel maybe put a disadvantage we're seeing that now. Now that being, so I was against the
policy. But I have to say this. I think this decision by Harley-Davidson will go down as one of the worst corporate decision.
This is like new Coke. It is going to be disaster for Harley-Davidson. I use to go the Trump rallies when I was working on the campaign. And there
would be hundred and hundred of Harley-Davidson motorcycles parked on the side of those venues.
Trump dominated the Biker vote. These aren't going to be happy customers. They may gain some customers in Europe. But I think they really put at
risk on their customer base in the United States by moving out their facilities outside the United States.
BOLDUAN: What did they do, did $100 million lose?
MOORE: Well, look. I mean Trump's point is, these countries are think are going to have to back down. I mean, we just going to simply blank first.
I mean, Trump has very valid case that they have, I don't know since they have tariffs than we do.
Trump wants a level playing field and also in league he wants the tariffs with all these countries reduced, not increased.
BOLDUAN: Rana, and what the President is saying is short-term paying long- tern gain. Do you see that working?
RANA FORROHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: Yes, it's a really interesting question. There's been a big debate about whether these tariffs are
negotiating posture, on the part of the President.
I think that they're more than that. And I think if you think about the host (ph) and the White House right now, Peter Navarro the Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer. I think that these folks that want to see a fundamentally new trade regime. They want to see more regionalize
supply chains. They want to see things rejiggered in the global system.
And what's interesting is the Harley case underscores a problem that a lot of American companies are going to have to face. They're now going to have
to face a real existential crisis in term of we did business one what for 40 years.
We were able to out source supply chains wherever it was cheapest. If things are fundamentally changing, then companies going to have to rethink
that and they can continue to do business the old way and there's certainly a lot of people that would support that.
But they may bump up against trade wards into unexpected ways. I mean Steve and I agree on the fact that, I think the real issue is between the
U.S. and China, now between the U.S. and Europe. I think it's been a strategic mistake for the White House to get involved in fighting everybody
at the same time on trade issues --
IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello, I'm Ivan Watson at CNN's Center. You've just been watching my colleague Kate
Bolduan's coverage of breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court.
With the Justices have voted to uphold the Trump administration's ban on travelers from several mostly Muslim countries, and in extremely close vote
of vote 5-4, the court said the ban was within the President's authority. It applies to five countries that are predominantly Muslim as well as
Venezuela and North Korea.
Now stay with us. We will keep you updated on this story throughout the day but for now, CNN World Sport with my Friend Don Riddell is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:46:04] DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Hello there and welcome to World Sports. It is another World Cup special with another nail biting day in
store in Russia. All eyes will be Lionel Messi in Argentina later this Tuesday as they try to salvage a miserable campaign.
But as we speak right now, another group is nearing completion. Where in group C and this is how it's stands as we were in final moments. It is
goalless between Denmark and France. And Peru are making up for disappointing campaign so far by beating Australia 2 nail (ph), as I say
this just a couple of minutes left.
If it stays like this France and Denmark will be going through. We will have confirmation and we will bring you the highlights from those games
shortly.
Later today as I say, a crunch match for Argentina, a country that's already in full morning because their team has been so poor at the
tournament so far. Quite simply, they must beat Nigeria in their final Group D match and hope that it's enough to see them through and you might
not be.
And of course beating Nigeria is far from guarantee. There have been reports of mutiny in the camp and bust dance (ph) between some of the
players. And this is how the national papers are portraying the game.
A rallying call from Clarin calling for harmony among the team and it's fans saying "All for the same side". While the national newspaper Olay
(ph) states the obvious it's now or never. And finally a gesture of support for their talent man who had to bear an enormous amount of
expectation and scrutiny throughout this tournament and of course as usual when he's playing for Angentina (INAUDIBLE) "Let's save Messi."
Lionel Messi not the only one to be criticized Argentina's the belief (ph) of coach Jorge Sampaoli, ays the match with Nigeria is all about how his
side respond to the adversity they face so far in Russia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JORGE SAMPAOLI, ARGENTINA COACH (through translator): I think with the match tomorrow has a lot to do with Argentina. We have to take on board
what happened to us. The point where we are now and we have to be aware it's more less than five matches that are going to take us to the final,
tomorrow when he played first of five finals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RIDDELL: For more let's head out to World Sport colleague Alex Thomas who's in Moscow. Along side the former Nigeria International and two-time
World Cup veteran Peter Odemwingie.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX THOMAS, CNN WORLD SPORT: It's Group D that's got everyone talking, one of your home nations Nigeria Peter and he played in two World Cups up
against Argentina. Not often we see Nigerian in the driving seat, and Argentina desperate for that win.
PETER ODEMWINGIE, PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLER: Yes, it's the first time we're in the driving seat. We've been losing over the last maybe four World
Cups. But narrowly losing, so we're not that cut down with 1-2 in a friendly game that no long ago.
So that's stays in the back our mind. We know this is split camp. Now at the moment and this is the best time to take advantage of that.
THOMAS: Yes, those head to head are fascinating, because alluded to there four World Cup defeats the Nigeria against Argentina. But in the last four
meetings Nigeria won the two of them and about 20 goals on those four pictures. We could see with another average of five take --
ODEMWINGIE: Will be nice to see a lot of goals obviously for the fans. But a point is enough for us so where it be comfortable now, pretty
confident because defensive team (ph) was excellent in the last game. And Argentina can post with that at the moment.
THOMAS: How much comfort when Nigeria get in the fact realistically they will need a point to go through?
ODEMWINGIE: I think there was a bit more calmness in our camp over the last three days. But if was Argentinian player, I will now things that
really bad but they're about to get even worst if we don't change something.
So, obviously there were different opinions so far. But they have the last chance to solve the situation. And few things have already leaked out from
their camp. And I think more will leak out. There will be more drama if they're not get the result today.
So, they have the last chance to show that they're family and they can get things done together.
THOMAS: And we're showing our views video of Lionel Messi. And I also want to show them a quote from Messi's mom. This was in the TV appearance in
Argentina after they draw with Iceland but the fall of the trashing from Croatia.
[11:50:07] And Lionel Messi's mom said "His aim is to bring the Cup home, to win the World Cup. It's one of his biggest desires. We see him suffer
and cry at times. He is the first who wants to bring the Cup with him. He more than anyone would give everything for this to be his World Cup."
You know about the pressure of expectation back home, how much is Messi feeling at now?
ODEMWINGIE: He's not going to be easy for him. A lot is expected from him because he has carried the team over the years. But they suffer
disappointment in final over the last year I think football for American finals.
So a big games now. He hasn't really done it like they compare him to Maradona who has done it for the nation. So, for me he it probably a
bigger talent than him but this is missing to just put together all the arguments about he is one of the world's greatest.
THOMAS: You pretty much nailed your scored prediction the other day, what's today. He said, five now then. Adviser there's a two open Nigeria.
ODEMWINGIE: Because there have been so many goals in the friendly games. I think there will be goals in this game. I just hope going to be a draw
over to Nigeria. But I think I'm looking the draw and how best and hopefully we win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RIDDELL: We'll soon see. Thanks very guys.
OK, the two early Group C match into injury time. We'll have details and highlights right after the break. And will be hearing from Nigeria festive
fans. And today hope to see Messi and Argentina packing.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RIDDELL: Welcome back it is has been a really wonderful World Cup so far hasn't it with pretty much every game offering goals, excitement and no
shortage of late drama. And up until Tuesday, there wasn't a single game that finished in goalless draw. All good things must come to an end
though.
And let's take it to Moscow where France we're playing Demark. Their final game in Group C, Demark having the better chances in this one, this attempt
coming midway through the first half, a threw ball making it's way to feet of Tottenham Christian Eriksen, he was smoldered by the goalie just as he
tried to put on the finishing touch.
Eriksen once again the catalyst here, this time striking a free kick from some way out, Mandanda spiting it but he was able to collect before any
damage could be inflicted. This one finished goalless.
Meanwhile, both Peru and Australia are going home but South Americans will head to the airport with a lot of pride restored. Playing in their first
World Cup tournaments since 1982, Peru were unfortunately have lose their first two games.
But in (INAUDIBLE) they starting to off in a high Andre Carrillo with ball there in the first half and Paolo Guerrero then double their advantage
after the break, so this one finish two nail (ph) to Peru. It means that Australia finished bottom of the group having managed only one draw from
their three games.
So let's just a bow on a group and bring you the table. France finish top with seven points, Denmark go through the second place with five.
[11:55:04] Both of those teams knew that a draw which boosted them through and that is how it turned out. And I guess we did efficiently go 36 games
at this tournament without goalless draw. That was a terrific run while they lasted.
Croatia have already secured their passage from Group D. Who will now join them? Argentina or Nigeria or maybe Iceland. Given Argentina struggles
throughout the tournament, it is easy to see why the Super Eagle fans are feeling optimistic.
Our Amanda Davis caught up with Nigeria's kind of an atmosphere on the street of Moscow.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe we can do it because the boys now have the courage. The fear is out.
AMANDA DAVIES, CNN WORLD SPORT: How confident are you of Nigeria against Argentina?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm confident of Argentina is against us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before we thought (INAUDIBLE) but I can see, I can tell you 100 percent I have into World Cups. I was in South Korea 2002. I was
in South Africa 2010. I was in Brazil 2014 and now I'm in Russia.
And I believe this has been the best experience I have had with (INAUDIBLE).
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RIDDELL: I agree with the last guy. Have been a great World Cup. We're out of time thought. See you soon.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
