CHRIS CUOMO (HOST): Whatever you are doing, please just take a moment and pay attention because we have a breakthrough on a very important question. The debate about President Trump's executive order on travel is over. President Trump just said it is a ban and that the original ban that was rejected by the courts is what he really wants. His press people scolded the media not to call it a ban. Supporters dismissed those calling it a ban as fake and biased. Well, here are the facts from the president. Not scripted, not being told what to say, but what is in his head and his heart. “People, the lawyers and courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Remember, “extreme vetting,” “Not a ban”? Remember that? All a lie. “The Justice Department should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to SC [Supreme Court]. ”The Justice Department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the Supreme Court and seek much tougher version!" Those are the facts from the President of the United States. It is a ban. It has always been a ban. And it targets Muslims. That's what the president wants. Let that debate be over.
Joining us now is General Michael Hayden, CNN National Security Analyst and former director of the CIA and the NSA. I want your perspective please, General, on the nature of the threat from the countries focused on in this ban and the realities of security in America. But first, have you ever seen anything like this, this kind of contradiction playing out in the White House? They yelled at us “You fake news people. Calling this a ban when it is really just vetting.” And now the president in his own words says we were right all along. This is a ban. It targets Muslims, and he likes that.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: Chris, there's so much to be said about that. Number one -- I think David Sanger suggested just a while ago -- this will increase the odds that the Supreme Court will read intent into the current executive order. Intent that might be unconstitutional. Look, Chris, I joined a friend of the court brief opposing executive order one and executive order two, but in my heart, I actually think the president has this kind of authority. I just think that it's misapplied here, that this is a very bad policy step for us to take. And now I think these tweets are going to allow the courts to read back through the tweets into the intent of the ban itself. And Chris, can I add just one more thing? We're talking about the ban because the president is talking about the ban. But anyone who has done this counterterrorism thing for a living is not drawing any connections between what happened in London and what it is this ban thinks it's going to prevent.
