i have no crystal ball, but i know jeff sessions is going to be asked to answer the question that he asked sally yates, will he tell the president truth when it comes to what is lawful and unl unlawful. reporter: that moment was notable given all the questions of senator sessions. the president s immigration executive action certainly is handing democrats up here on capitol hill more fuel to their fire to push back on him, and you have top democrats like senator schumer who is saying senator sessions should go on the record one way or the other what he thinks about trump s travel ban. we know sessions, according to a written answer that he submitted overnight, he said he had no direct role in president trump s recent executive order, but that
pivotal player on the court, despite how he looked coming in under reagan as a rock conservative politically. if you remember from 1987, the first nominee that reagan put up was robert bourque, and it was only have three tries that he was able to get kennedy on the bench but he was approved unanimously, so probably there were enough democrats that thought maybe under that exterior we might get a few votes we like, and they have. that s a big question for tonight, once you get the name will the democrats go all in on this time or wait for the next one and not waste their firepower and change the filibuster and getting mcconnell to change it. what is your take on that? it s going to be a really tough question for them, and tonight, coming down the pike,
bernardino. so 48% to 42%, people favored suspending it may not be relevant anymore. so not more than half the country? it s a plurality and on the winning side of the equation. that s a nonspecific question in terms of this policy, and that was rolled out for seven countries. we need to wait a little bit. how you do something matters? the criticism of the ban goes to its conception, and its execution in terms of not dealing with any of the agencies. you have your own eyes, and mattis is supposedly upset and tillerson is baffled in terms of this. i think we will see partisan divisions on this, as we see on many things. you through a partisan lens will determine how to respond to the question and implementation. i don t know if you have the same fault lines, and you had a
it s fine to have somebody come in and say this is who i am, but the question is what kind of records exist back in the home countries, and often times those records can be unreliable, and that s the concern that i have. clearly we are much better today at vetting individuals. i don t have a problem with trying to do more to make sure the vetting process is more accurate and complete. no question about that. but until then people should be banned in your mind? listen, i think until then what we need to do is do everything we can to make sure people are not coming into this country with evil intent. i am talking about a very small percentage. but we all know that it s a very dangerous world and there are people out there that want to do harm to the united states, and i listen to the earlier statement about homegrown terrorism, and no question about it, we have our own challenges within our borders, but that doesn t mean we ignore totally what is going on outside our borders. thank
where various departments were not, in fact, notified. so unprepared. also not clear about the unintended consequences of this decision. it has actually created more danger because there are countries that are now, in fact, not able to cooperate with us in terms of intelligence sharing or generally mistrust, and there s going to be tit for tat, where we have troops in iraq and we have to worry how they are going to be treated. i think it has created chaos internationally. and then i think it s all not based on facts, undocumented, and it s made up of various statements that don t make any sense. i think it s one of the worst decisions. and then blaming a whole religion for this is truly outrageous and un-american. i think the question is, there s danger in the world, no question