to get us in trouble. there is a group of former diplomat, form were national security officials who have signed on to a letter backing a lawsuit against the president s temporary travel ban. would you have signed that letter? is that something you would agree with, the suit that opposes the ban? i think this will play out in the courts. the president a president has very strong authority when it comes to immigration, to customs service at the borders. i probably wouldn t have signed the letter simply because i stay out of issues that aren t primarily national security. i want to talk a little bit about the national security council, the new york times reporting from there that we have not confirmed, let be clear, revealed that the president was angry that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the national security
bannon is wielding in the trump white house. time magazine calls the chief white house strategist the great manipulator in its cover story. the new york times writes mr. bannon remains the president s dominant adviser, despite mr. trump s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order that he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the national security council. i feel like remaining silent just so that can sink in for everyone. the president responded firing off this tweet this morning i call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it. some fake news media, in order to marginalize, lies. i don t know what that means exactly but new york times white house correspondent glenn thrush co-wrote today s article and joins me now. if you recognize glenn, it may be because you saw a version of him on saturday night live this weekend, which we will get to in a moment, glenn.
investigation. that hasn t happened. over the weekend, he announced he is putting vice president mike pence in charge of a commission to look into his allegations of voter fraud. steph? thanks, kristen. i want to stay on president trump. he was not fully briefed on the details of the executive order he, himself, signed giving his chief strategist a seat. that is according to the new york times that reported on the fighting and stumbles inside the white house and the approach going forward. back with me, the panel, rim and christine. rick, i want to start with you. this idea that president trump is angry that he wasn t fully briefed by or about elevating steve bannon and the argument it s the media saying steve bannon is in charge. i, myself, with so many people inside the white house saying steve bannon quietly running the show. people like trump get upset
trump s decision to give his chief strategist a seat on his highest level national security team. many now wonder just how much power steve bannon has in the white house. jeff zeleny reports. reporter: steve bannon is the white house chief strategist. even that title may not do justice to his influence in the west wing. he s driving decisions on every piece of president trump s agenda, domestic and foreign, including the president s immigration order and travel ban that sparked a global backlash. no hate, no fear reporter: it s his elevation to a permanent spot on the national security council that is outraging many republicans, who question why he has a seat alongside the secretary of state and defense secretary in the inner sanctum of security. the president said in a weekend memo the chairman of the joint chiefs and director of intelligence will no longer have a standing seat on the
citing, mr. trump s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the national security council. a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban president according to the new york times. trump saying he wasn t fully briefed. the order on the security council was under 3,000 words, shorter than a single newspaper. the way to get briefed on it is to read it. the president also seemed angry today about press coverage alleging without evidence that reporters don t want to cover terror attacks. all oef europe, it s happening. it s gotten to a point where it s not even being reported. and in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn t want to report it. they have their reasons and you understand that. we don t know what the reasons are. the white house releasing a list of 78 terror attacks that it