gotten e-mails from people that complained that their assets are very concerned about this. when you have the president of the united states coming out and saying, pushing the muslim ban, it makes it not only harder to recruit people in that community, it makes it harder to retain them. you talk about terrorism, that is giving up a massive line of defense that we have against this scourge. ned, how do you balance i guess the question for me is, what how do you have the rest of the government deal with this at the center? at this point it is what it is. the president s going to tweet. it seems to me that basically we re asking for the other institutions of governance to deal around this in the midst of it. you saw it with the acting ambassador who s running the embassy in the uk, acting like a normal gracious ally while the president is tweeting this feud. yeah, chris, it makes it challenging and incredibly
khan spoke incredibly movingly about his connection to his faith. and how he viewed these attacks through that prism. and it seems inescapable to me that s part of the sub text of this back-and-forth. absolutely, chris. i couldn t agree with you more there. look, besides the sort of, you know, the muslim component here, there s also a practical one here. i m sure ned can expound on this as well. the idea is when you re coming from a law enforcement perspective, you can only go so far. you can t necessarily affect an arrest. as we look at terrorists, in many cases they don t actually commit anything illegal until they commit the act. you re looking outside of the united states, outside the uk. as a law enforcement or intelligence officer, you rely on the community as part of that first line of defense. and so just as a practical matter, when the president of the united states comes out and reactions to a terrorist attack is to push a muslim ban, it s going to do nothing more i ve
he went after the justice department, should have stayed with the original travel ban. the watered-down version he s referring to is the revised version of the first executive order which was blocked in court. the second one that it could withstand better scrutiny than its predecessor. that version is also blocked by the lower courts and is now in the hands of the supreme court. a well connected conservative lawyer who just turned down the nomination to lead the justice department civil division suggested the president s tweets could significantly hurt his case. quote, these tweets may make some people feel better, but they certainly won t help the office of the solicitor general get five votes which really matters. sad. by the way, george conway is the husband of white house senior adviser kelly anne conway who scoffed at the media for covering things the president says on twitter. his obsession with covering everything he says on twitter and very little of what he well, that s
back our rights, we need the travel ban as an extra level of safety. this morning, president again appeared to explicitly articulate the intention of his executive order, quote, the people, the lawyers in the court can call it whatever they want, i m calling it what we need, a travel ban. he went after the justice department, should have stayed with the original travel ban. the watered-down version he s referring to is the revised version of the first executive order which was blocked in court. the second one that it could withstand better scrutiny than its predecessor. that version is also blocked by the lower courts and is now in the hands of the supreme court. a well connected conservative lawyer who just turned down the nomination to lead the justice department civil division suggested the president s tweets could significantly hurt his case. quote, these tweets may make some people feel better, but they certainly won t help the office of the solicitor general get five votes which
past. it s not in the past anymore. right. that s a great point. cecilia, to the point about just look at what s on the sheet of paper, i mean, it is the case that absent everything else context-wise, the president has a lot of latitude in immigration law, particularly and probably if you took away the context that this was essentially making good on a muslim ban promise, you would probably have a much better shot to have it ruled constitutional. well, i think on its face, the executive order actually is very problematic, and probably couldn t withstand first amendment scrutiny. but what he s done today is to make it very difficult, and i would say impossible for the court to ignore what he s sailing. as steve just said, he s reaffirmed what he has been saying all along. and again, the test under the first amendment is, what would the reasonable observer think. looking what the president has done. you can t ignore what he s saying to this day. he calls his own department of justi