chris: no time for celebration, he s got to read court briefs. they re hearing cases next week. shannon: let s go to the white house. let s check in with john roberts from the north lawn. busy day. they re not wasting any time putting him to work. reporter: you are the master of understatement there. no question about that. there s going to be a ceremonial swearing in of judge kavanaugh at the white house, maybe on monday afternoon or very early on tuesday. i think monday afternoon probably more likely because they ll want to get him seated on the court on tuesday. the president who is now winging his way to topeka, kansas will have more information on that. i expect we ll probably hear from the president when he touches down in topeka. we have a statement from him on dwitter in which he says i applaud and congratulate the u.s. senate for confirming judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. later today i will sign his commission of appointment and he will be officiall
involuntarily. that s the fight they have been having behind closed doors for months now. and it is reaching a climax now, which is why this is so interesting to see this particular document at this moment in time because if bob mueller decides to go forward with the subpoena, therguments laid out in the memorandum are the arguments we will be seeing in court briefs that could very quickly become a pitched constitutional battle the supreme court would have to decide. glen, to charlie s point as his lawyers are arguing, the president cannot be subpoenaed and can put an end to any doj or fbi investigation at any time for any reason. do they base that on any prior law? i don t believe they do and i think the law that s most closely related to that issue actually cuts against them, the next on case, clinton v jones case, picking up on charlie s point, i see this letter as an attempt to persuade the public that the president shouldn t be made to sit for an interview.
wrestle with, when to take this president literally and when to take him figuratively is something that in the media we wrestle with, it s something that americans wrestle with. we don t know when it is a serious presidential statement or when it is the former host of the apprentice who can t keep his twitter finger at bay, and who can t help but make some of these outrageous comments. you know, joseph, at one point, the chief justice john roberts stressed the president s national security concerns in this area. but in a number of friend of the court briefs, former national security experts argued that the travel ban not only violates american law, but also has harmed national security. could that influence the court s final decision? wolf, it could. the president has the right to make policy, even bad policy. of course, others have the right
interest in the outcome of this case. what are some of these companies saying? i know there s been some briefs filed. right, they re friend of court briefs from many high-tech company, google, amazon, microsoft, so forth, and they say as these devices become more sophisticated in the future, not just cell phones but all of our digital devices that connect to the internet or use cell technology or wireless technology, they ll leave more and more of a trail that can be used to figure out where we were at a given time. the fact they say is you can get months and months and months of this data. you can go in essence a time machine they say go back and reconstruct a person s movements over many, many months, something the police could never do if they were just going to follow you around. in timothy carpenter s case, the only thing that was recorded is when his cell phone made or received calls. but now a days they say, the aclu says for example your cell phone, without you doing anything
saying they are doing a better job of explaining it. the shear passage of time allows the administration to say it s been looking at these countries, their enterm vetting procedures. putting it through vigorous review. at the same time the critics are not backing down an inch. the aclu is calling it muslim ban 3.0. trump will have this problem campaign rhetoric when he called for a total shutdown of all muslims entering the country. that s going to be used in court briefs against him people say this is back door way to implement a ban like this. bret: venezuela and north korea present an argument. virtually no north koreans come to this country and venezuela factor is just a few government officials. it s really pretty minor part of this. last quick point. i remain surprised pleasantly that we have not had a major domestic terror attack since president trump took office. i think people were concerned there were going to be a lot of those and immediately trigger drastic action on th