Transcripts For CNNW CNN Newsroom With John Berman And Poppy

Trump has responded in four or five tweets in the last 24 hours, including this one, just this morning, saying that harley should never be built in another country and he also says that they surrendered, they quit, and he threatened them with new taxes, saying they will be taxed like never before. Now, this policy has been one that the president has been kind of alone on, in large part, a lot of his party really disagrees with the idea that the solution to the problem of other countries putting tariffs on American Goods is for the United States to put its own tariffs up, and in a kind of colorful Statement Issued last night, republican senator ben sass says this about President Trumps policy. He says this will go over like a vespa at sturgis. The problem isnt that harley is unpatriotic, it is that tariffs are stupid. Theyre tax increases on americans, they dont work, and apparently were going to see more of this. Hes predicting that other companies are going to make very similar choices, like harleydavidson, in order to avoid these retaliatory tariffs that other parts of the world are placing on American Goods and products. The president is really doubling down here, sending out multiple tweets. This is a company, harleydavidson, just at the white house a year ago, in a huge photoop on the south lawn with President Trump and their bikes, now it is clear, poppy this relationship has soured. But it remains to be seen how much of this republicans can take. Paul ryan, who were going to hear from, this harleydavidson is in his state, and hes also not too happy about this policy, poppy. Abby phillip at the white house, thank you very much. Our chief Business Correspondent Christine Romans is here. Ben sass with the one liner, st sturgis being the big biker rally in south dakota. Looking forward to see what paul ryan has to say, targetingn the European Unions part, it sends a message to Republican Leadership that it is not easy to win a trade war as the president said. It is difficult to win a trade war and certainly this is not something that harleydavidson is going to wait to see how it is going to work out, they have to make harleydavidsons. This is what the tariffs look like, adding 2200 per bike to export and so what the company is saying is they will ship some production from the u. S. To a place to be determined, so they could be closer to selling into that european market, second largest market, and they can avoid the tariffs. Earlier this year we heard from the company they would be adding some production in thailand, a factory theyre calling plan b. The president called them out for this morning. Right. That plan b was because the president pulled out of the tpp, the Transpacific Partnership was a trade deal that would have been very good for harleydavidson, would have lowered barriers on harleydavidson bikes made in the u. S. To that really important and fast growing asian market. Growth in the u. S. Has slowed. Baby boomers are not buying as many bikes as they used to, right. There is a generational shift happening overall. Youre seeing a company that wants to be close to the big fast growing customers in asia and the tariffs specifically tariffs on their bikes will be difficult for bikes made in the u. S. And sold there. The president said Something Interesting, he said, harley must know they wont be able to sell back into the u. S. Without paying a big tax. Is that factual . Thats not what they want to do. They dont want to build the bikes some place else and send them here, right. They want to send to the markets that are growing very quickly, the European Union and sell them there without a big 31 tariff. Thats an empty threat. Empty threat. Thank you. Joining me now, republican congressman Warren Davidson from ohio, sits on the Financial Services committee. Nice to have you. Thank you for being with me. Thank you, poppy. What is your reaction to the president s threats to harleydavidson this morning . I dont know. I dont know if hes a shareholder or a Board Director so i dont think hes go heing to ta to take over the company. Elaborate for me. Do you like what youre seeing . Ben sass doesnt. It is alarming . I think it is alarming. Harleydavidson has to look out for the best interests of harleydavidson and shareholders. I love riding my harley. Lots of americans do. I dont think thats going to change. I think theyre going to keep making the bikes they sell in america in america and there say lot of demand for their bike around the world and they have a huge opportunity to grow that market. My hope is they can do it from the United States of america, tax reform was a big step in that direction. But there are other factors. And this plan isnt something that just spun off as tariffs, you couldnt spin this off that fast, and it may be a contributing factor, but i think theyre not going to make something this permanent over a temporary tariff. Wow. Who is to say it is temporary. Christine romans went through all the numbers here and how much it would cost them to keep the production here with the new eu tariffs that are a response to the president s tariffs. Republican senator ben sass says the problem isnt that harley is unpatriotic, it is that tariffs are stupid. Theyre a tax increase on americans, they dont work. Is ben sass right, did the president overshoot here, did he miscalculate . I agree, look, before i came into Congress Just two years ago i was in manufacturing. I spent the past 15 years on the receiving end of bad trade policy. I think the president is exactly right to target bad trade practices. We have been on the receiving end of bad trade practices. I do disagree with some of the tactics and frankly i feel like the president has been given bad advice by some advisers. Like who . I think Peter Navarro is steering him in a wrong direction. You see that coming to a head in the administration right now between, you know, secretary mnuchin and peter navarrnavarro. Prior to that, a big part of the resign. It is the key reason, right . Im interested in what role you think congress has in this. You tweeted Something Interesting on june 10th, you talked about the power that has been given to the presidency in terms of tariffs. And so unilaterally making the decisions as we have seen from the trump white house. You said congress should quit ducking their duty on this issue and many more. To me that sounds like you agree with republican senator bob corker that congress should pass legislation that would tie the president s hands on unilaterally being able to impose tariffs like this. Am i reading that right . I differ from bob corker. I dont want to take actions that undermine the president s effectiveness in his on going trade negotiations. But over the years, frankly, since the 16th amendment passed, which created the income tax, congress has progressively ceded its authorities on tariffs. A tariff is a tax. And so if congress has had that authority, and has given nearly all that authority to the presidency. So President Trump is acting entirely within his authority, legal authority, and so once we get our deals right, we made them more productive and effective, we have improved them, i feel like it is important to pass this bill. The global trade accountability act which i got the lead bill in the house, and mike lee has the lead bill in the senate. So, congress should have a say, bottom line, congress should have a say on these tariffs . Absolutely. And when you look at why, if you look at there is some grades of steel that are no longer made in the United States, for example, there is over 20,000 companies that have petitioned for exceptions to these tariffs because their components cant be made with u. S. Based steel. Because there is no tariff on the component they make, like with nails or welding wire, for example, theyre losing total market share. Theyre losing half their bisquick usiness quickly. There is six people in commerce working on that. Were trying to work to make sure we get more people available f we go down this path, that we at least provide relief. We hope theel production comes back, but right now we know there are American Companies that are being harmed by the existing tariffs. Yep, we just talked to the representative from one midcontinent in missouri that might shutter because of these tariffs. Congressman, were out of time because we have to get to breaking news out of the Supreme Court. But i appreciate you being here this morning. As i said, were following breaking news out of the Supreme Court. Joining me now, cnn justice correspondent jessica schneider. What can you tell us . Reporter in the first opinion of the day this morning, the Supreme Court has sided with faithbased Pregnancy Centers when it comes to a California Law. This was a case that really pitted abortion rights activists against the issue ofree speech. Now, the Supreme Court here has sided with these faithbased Pregnancy Centers in saying this California Law may in fact go too far, but the Supreme Court hasnt gone as far as striking down the law. So what exactly was the law that was at issue . California had passed a law saying that all of these pro life or faithbased pregnancy s had to have notices up. They had to distribute information to any of the women who sought care, telling them that california itself provided some low cost Abortion Services as well as crepti icontraceptiv services and many groups that operated these centers had a serious concern with this law, saying it was a violation of their free speech because they said california was mandating them to tell patients something that they just did not endorse. Telling them to tell patients about the availability of Abortion Services as well as contraception services. So right now the Supreme Court in the first opinion of today, were waiting for potentially more, the Supreme Court has sided with those prolife Pregnancy Centers and said this law may in fact go too far, it may in fact violate free speech, but sent it back down to the lower courts to once again look at it and make the final opinion. But, poppy this would be a win for those faithbased groups. We have several of them outside the Supreme Court today. We have groups on both sides, rallying here, so this in fact, a win somewhat for these prolife Pregnancy Centers that said that California Law just went too far in telling them what to post in their centers. Jessica, thank you very much. Lets go to asha rangappa, our legal analyst on all of this. You think about the limits on faithbased organizations, and also what they cannot be forced to do, i think of the hobby lobby decision, this is different, but what is your big takeaway on what the court is saying . Well, poppy, at the end of oral argument, it did look like this law was going to be in trouble. The court was concerned about three things. So first they were concerned that this law, which is called the reproductive freedom accountability comprehensive care and transparency act, fact act, which targeted crisis Pregnancy Centers, these are usually faithbased nonprofits associated with christian groups that are giving pregnancy counseling. So the court was concerned that this law, which provided a lot of exemptions for other health care providers, was kind of targeting this particular group. There was also concern that there could be other avenues for the state to pursue if they were worried that these facilities were providing misleading information, for example, antifraud laws. And finally, they were concerned about the undue burden on speech, that certain things might trigger a mandate that these organizations have to give disclaimers or information about low cost abortions. So i think that, you know, well have to see what the opinion actually lays out, but there may be other avenues for the state to pursue but just not in this particular way. Asha, thank you very much. A key decision out of the high court. Were awaiting more of them to come down, this being the final week that the justices will hand down these decisions. Still to come, waiting for House Speaker paul ryan to take questions, amid concerns over the trade tensions. Also, the house gets ready to take upration reform, but can any of these bills actually pass . Were on it. Plus, please for civility, coming from the white house, Sarah Sanders calling for it as the president hurls new insults ahead. Show me the movies. male friend thanks for the invite anna front row . Nobody puts baby in a corner. Ill preorder what shes having. Wax on, wax off. Yippee ki yay movielovers. vo introducing atom tickets. anna was that too much . vo download the atom app and get 5 off your first ticket. This is cnn breaking news. Im wolf blitzer in washington. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. Were following major breaking news. The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling in the case of President Trumps travel ban, which restri immigration from several majority muslim countries. The court is deciding whether or not the third version of this travel ban is legal after allowing it to go into effect last december, pending appeal. To jessica schneider, our justice correspondent, at the Supreme Court. Set the scene for us. Were about to get the decision. Reporter thats right, wolf. Our team is reading through the opinion right now. But, of course, this was one of the most highly anticipated cases of this term. The justices heard this case in oral argument at the end of april, and now two months later, they have in fact issued a decision on this. So were reading through this to determine exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled, but this is a reminder, this was the third version of this travel ban by the trump administration, it has gone to the Supreme Court, were reading through it and, wolf, well get back to you to let you know exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled. Jessica. Jeffrey toobin, our chief legal analyst. Were anticipating the decision shortly. Seven countries involved, this is the third version of this travel ban. The administration tried to make it more pallatable. One of the interesting parts of the whole dispute is whether the court will consider things the president said when he was candidate trump, not President Trump, because as many people may remember during the campaign, he called for a ban on all muslims from immigrating into the country. Thatas one of the things the lower courts considered invalidating all three versions of the travel ban. It it has certainly become more constitutionally palatable every time it is revised. The first version had very explicit distinctions based on religion built into the executive order. The later versions appeared to be much more neutral in their orientation and that has led many people to believe that the court might uphold it as opposed to the earlier versions, but we are pouring through it right now and we will come up with a summary of what the court did very shortly. We will, john king actually, back to jessica, the decision has been announced. Go ahead, jessica. Reporter yeah, wolf. The Supreme Court has reversed the 9th circuit. This Supreme Court is upholding the president s travel ban. Were still reading through this very lengthy opinion, but we know it was a 54 decision, written by chief justice john robes, it was also joined by the crucial swing vote in many of these cases, Justice Anthony kennedy. But the bottom line here is that the Supreme Court has upheld the president s right to enact this travel ban. Remember, this was a travel ban in its third iteration now. It bans travel for certain classes of people from several different countries, and this was a hotly contested issue within the administration, also hotly contested issue at oral arguments just two months ago. The Supreme Court saying today, the president does have the authority under Immigration Laws in this country to enact this travel ban. This was something that restricted travel from several countries, not all of them muslim majority. They did, in fact, include north korea as well as venezuela. And the solicitor general, when he argued this case with months ago, he made that point, he said that the administration had done a worldwide vetting of countries throughout the world to see exactly how they handled travelers and visas and they determined that these countries just didnt meet the standards. So in fact the Supreme