[Cooper:] Reaction to yesterday's terror attack continuing from the White House today after letting loose with a string of tweets, including one slamming New York senior senator, Democrat Chuck Schumer. The president then proceeded to say this about the justice system in America.
[Donald Trump, President Of The United States:] We need quick justice and we need strong justice, much quicker and much stronger than we have right now, because what we have right now is a joke and it's a laughingstock. And no wonder so much of this stuff takes place.
[Cooper:] Saying a joke and a laughingstock. Later this afternoon, his press secretary said in short, he didn't say what you just heard him say. CNN's Jim Acosta asked her about it. He joins us now. So, the president had obviously the strong words on Twitter and on camera about the New York attack and the U.S. justice system. What more can you tell us?
[Jim Acosta, Cnn Senior White House Correspondent:] That's right. Contrast what the president said today, injecting politics into the aftermath of a terrorist attack, the one in New York City. Contrast what he did in Las Vegas, Anderson. You were out there, you remember in the days after that attack in Las Vegas, the president said, hang on a second. We can't politicize this tragedy. We can't talk about gun control right now. He did the exact opposite today. He seized on the issue of immigration and said we need to get rid of chain migration, which is when people come into the country, they can sometimes bring in their relatives, and also talked about getting away from this diversity lottery system, saying that it does not have the proper vetting and screening measures in place when in fact, that program does have screening and vetting measures in place. He also blamed that system, as you said, on the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, despite the fact that that was signed into law as a program by former President George H.W. Bush. So, the president playing a lot of politics with terror today.
[Cooper:] And we just heard the president saying that the justice system in America is a joke and a laughingstock. Then, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders basically tried to clarify some of those comments or basically just flat out deny them.
[Acosta:] That's right. I tried to ask Sara Sanders during the briefing why did the president say that the U.S. justice system is a joke and a laughingstock. Here is what she had to say. She denied that the president said that. Here's how it went down. Why did the president call the U.S. justice system a joke and a laughingstock during his comments
[Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House Press Secretary:] That's not what he said.
[Acosta:] He said that the system of justice in this
[Sanders:] He said that process. He said the process has people calling us a joke and calling us a laughingstock. Look, I think as I told Margaret, he's simply pointing out his frustration of how long this process takes, how costly this process is and particularly for someone to be a known terrorist, that process shouldn't move faster. That's the point he's making, that's the frustration he has.
[Acosta:] Now, you heard Sarah Sanders there, Anderson, say that people are calling us a joke and a laughingstock, that's what the president was referring to.
[Cooper:] That's just not what he said.
[Acosta:] That's just not what he said. You go back to the quote: we need quick justice, we need strong justice, much quicker and much stronger than we have right now because what we have right now is a joke and a laughingstock.
[Cooper:] Let'me just play that. It's on video. Let's just play it.
[Acosta:] Perfect, yes.
[Trump:] We need quick justice and we need strong justice. Much quicker and much stronger than we have right now, because what we have right now is a joke and a laughingstock, and no wonder so much of this stuff takes place.
[Cooper:] Now, I mean, Sarah Huckabee Sanders knows what the president said. She just is pretending he said something else.
[Acosta:] She was pretending that he was saying something else, Anderson, and it's disappointing because we count on Sarah Sanders to sort of give us the straight scoop in the briefing room. That is just not what happened today, and that it goes straight to the credibility of those questions that we talked about when Sean Spicer was the White House press secretary. You can't have the White House press secretary come into the room as Sean Spicer did and say, it was the largest inauguration crowd in the history of the United States as Sean Spicer did. That is a kind of statement that shatters the credibility of a White House press secretary. And so, when you ask Sarah Sanders as we did today, why did the president call it a joke and a laughingstock, the U.S. justice system? For her to pretend that he said otherwise was just not playing straight with us, Anderson.
[Cooper:] Right. Especially, I mean, it is on video. It's one thing to lie about something that wasn't actually recorded and then, you know, it's easier, I guess. But when it's actually to say you believe what Sarah Huckabee Sanders just implies that everybody who doesn't is just an idiot because we heard what we heard. Anyway.
[Acosta:] Right. Yes, I was reaching for my cue tips, Anderson, to make sure that my hearing was OK.
[Cooper:] Yes. Jim Acosta, appreciate it. Thanks very much. Joining us now is former Obama White House ethics czar, Norman Eisen. Also, constitutional law scholar and George Washington University law professor, Jonathan Turley. Ambassador Eisen, what do you make of what, first of all, what the president said, not what Sarah Sanders said he said, but what he actually said?
[Norman Eisen, Former Obama White House Ethics Czar:] Well, Anderson, Jonathan and I were watching the stories of these precious individuals who perish at the hands of terror in New York City, and it was so striking to see that a number of them were foreigners who had come to the United States to visit from other places. What the president did today lying, dishonoring the Constitution, disdaining American justice by calling it a joke and a laughingstock, attacking due process by saying we need quicker, stronger results as if our American courts were not good enough. He dishonored their memory and he dishonored the United States. And he served that dishonor sandwich between two lies where he first smeared a senator falsely for the visa program and then he says at the end, Anderson, no wonder there's so much of this. Come on. The amount of time that the courts in the United States are not what is causing the terror. It was a disgraceful performance in an administration that has been full of them, perhaps a new low.
[Cooper:] Professor Turley, when the president also said today that America needs far greater punishment for terrorists, is it clear to you what that means and what it exactly far greater punishment would look like? I mean, the Boston marathon bomber, for example, is on death row.
[Jonathan Turley, Professor Of Law, George Washington University:] Right, I'm not too sure what it means, quite frankly. I've been lead counsel in terrorism cases in the United States. I refuse to take enemy combatant cases in Gitmo because of the due process limitations. I don't what the president was referring to, the penalties in terrorism cases are, as you've noted, extreme. And this idea takes too long. This man will never see a free day for the rest of his life. While these cases can stay in courts a long time, these people are in jail and in this case, a conviction is hardly going to be difficult. I mean, he left quite a trail. He seems eager to admit his guilty. So, I just don't know what the president was thinking of when he wants a faster system. But I think the danger of these comment is we can't bend to the thread of people like this. We can't give up our values. That's how you defeat al Qaeda is by remaining true to who you are. And we're defined by due process and it's expensive and it takes time. But it works. And the punishment, as you've noted, quite heavy.
[Cooper:] I mean, Ambassador, it sort of harkens back to the time the president was speaking to law enforcement officers and talk about, you know, don't be so gentle with them, don't put your hand on their head when you're putting them in the vehicle, which then law enforcement, you know, agencies put out statements and said to their officers, this is not how we handle you know, this is not how we deal with systems, not people who have even be convicted, but with suspects and people. It does seem like it's the kind of thing in a barge. One thing to say, you know, it's a joke. It's a laughingstock. It's another thing for the president of the United States to be saying this.
[Eisen:] Anderson, it's so true when our nation is attacked and lives are lost here. We look to the president for leadership, to help us heal, to help us respond with strength, but also to defend the Constitution, our founding documents, and the virtues that make America great, not to attack them. And, you know, it actually was very similar to what happened with those prior law enforcement comments because the president also said he might consider sending this gentleman to Guantanamo. Well, now, we're hearing reports that in fact the man by the president's own Justice Department is going to be charged as he should be in the U.S. justice system. So, you have a repudiation there by the president's own Justice Department. My heavens, the attorney general was sitting right across from President Trump. He should have stood up and walked out.
[Cooper:] Professor Turley, what do you say to those who are watching and say, look, this guy should go to Guantanamo, you know, put him away forever and never think about him again?
[Turley:] Well, I I think people have to think seriously about the implications of what they're suggesting. First of all, Guantanamo has been a colossal failure. There had been very few trials that have come out of that. It's been a rallying cry for extremists around the world. And in many ways, it really undermines our credibility both inside and outside the country. But I think the people also have to consider in the administration what this case would mean if the president changes its course and sends him to Guantanamo Bay. You know, the legal status of these trials in Guantanamo Bay has always been somewhat precarious. For an individual like this would be the worst possible case to test those principles. Bad cases can become bad law and they should think very seriously whether they really want a case of a lawful resident being sent to Guantanamo Bay to be the next case before the Supreme Court. That's not the case that I would bet on if I was on their side.
[Cooper:] Professor, is the record of trying terrorists in American courts better than the record of trying them through Guantanamo?
[Turley:] Yes, it's much better because they get tried. Most people at Guantanamo Bay were not tried. And I can tell you, as someone who's been lead on the defense side of these cases, the idea that they're mollycoddled or that they play fast and loose with the system is simply not true. The conviction rate among terrorism cases is one of the highest of any crime in the United States. It's very rare to have people acquitted in terrorism cases. But what they do get is a fair trial. And then when we impose the punishment, we impose it on our terms, not theirs. And they get a fair trial, the type they deny other people.
[Cooper:] Professor Turley, appreciate it. Norman Eisen, as well. Ambassador, thank you. Coming up, we keep learning more about the radical Islamist suspect in yesterday's attack, including why he specifically picked Halloween and what police found on his phones. The latest on that and his background in Uzbekistan.