This is something the president predicted was right was never a legal basis for this, correct . President trump won the legal argument today. And the Supreme Court came out on his side and lifted the stay that the Appeals Court put in place. But the legal argument was never the strongest argument against the ban. Its the policy argument. Really bad policy. Tucker will you concede that there was a legal argument against it, that the left as a group made and it was that a single judge in hawaii had more power over americas Foreign Policy and control of americas borders than the president did and the Supreme Court today said thats absurd. It wasnt just hawaii, tucker. There were a number of court cases in a number of courts that stayed this travel order. And it was a close call legally. It was a close call for the Appeals Court that upheld the stay. It was also a close call for the Supreme Court. Tucker the president has got a right to make judgments like this and enforce them with law. T
Thats why we have a president. You will concede that. I think thats a valid argument and thats the argument that was made. Thats one of the arguments that persuaded the Supreme Court today. Although, keep in mind, that the court only lifted the stay. It will hear the merits of the case in october. But, yes, you are right. But, as i said, the stronger argument against this travel ban is its really bad policy. It doesnt accomplish the goal which is notomake america safer. Tucker it doesnt. You would argue the counter case that the more immigrants that we have from say somali coming into the country the safer we are . What point are you making. What i would argue on Policy Grounds this ban is both too broad and not broad enough. Let me explain. Heres why its too broad. It denies muslims from six predominantly muslim countries. Tucker let me stop and correct you. It makes no reference to religion at all. It doesnt badge muslims. It bans people who live in six countries the Obama Administra
Wasnt plausible, Wasnt Believable but it was at least relatively co teernt. To recap, Michael Cohen and his surrogates on tv had been claiming for months that Michael Cohen, the president s attorney, facilitated as cohen put it 130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels who says she had an affair with the president 12 years ago. Now, the money came out of cohens pocket allegedly taken from a Home Equity Line of credit we were told. The president had not repaid it. In fact, mr. Trump knew nothing about it they claimed and despite coming as it did in the closing days of the campaign the payment supposedly had absolutely nothing to do with the election. Nothing to do with skel change an embarrassing story 11 days before the election. On wednesday night Rudy Guiliani went on fox and said this to sean hannity about the daniels payoff. Its not Campaign Money. No Campaign Finance violation. They funneled it through a law firm. Funneled through a law firm and the president repaid it. Oh, i didnt know h
is when he s guilty he wants high-level people in the law and order wings of the u.s. government to say he isn t. yeah. to come out and do it in a very public way. i think the comey example is maybe the most parallel. so comey is telling him privately, look, sir, you are not a target of this investigation, at least not right now. but because comey won t go out and say it publicly after multiple requests, the president fires him. then insists on making that a part of sort of the firing letter. he doesn t even sort of try to hide behind the pretenses. he says thanks for telling me three times i wasn t under investigation. because it just so vexes him that jim comey won t go out and say that. maybe we are seeing the early signs of that with barr. this is not a session situation yet. but it certainly is parallel to some things we have seen in the past. that s right. the comey example is spot on. that is perhaps one of the largest reasons why he was fired. the president asked him
and so that s one of the things that questions of being raised about the timing of this. you know that the president spoke to the president of ukraine in late july. and this whistle blower comes forward on august 12. again the timing here is a very big concern and one of the reasons why there s so many questions that remain. evan, i ve got another question for you. rudy giuliani on cnn a short time ago. what did he say about the president speaking with ukraine s president? that s right. one of the big questions that remains is exactly what went on in that conversation. we know there was read out of the conversation that the white house put out. what else might have been said perhaps that is what caused this whistle blower to come forward. take a listen to what giuliani said. whatever was said in the conversation between the two presidents. were you finally answered my question. now that we re 12 minutes in. did the president we really believe his son wasn t under investigatio