Supreme Court Lets President Trump Proceed with Border Wall, But Legal Fight Continues; President Trump Calls For New Investigations Into Obama Admin.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening. We begin tonight with breaking news on President Trump's signature issue, the border wall with Mexico. As you know, he's been trying to use money from the Pentagon budget to build it. Late today, in the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote gave him the green light, at least while a lower court challenge to it proceeds. Our Pamela Brown joins us now with reaction from the White House. I would certainly imagine the president has got to be very happy about this ruling.</s>PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Oh, that's right, Anderson. He immediately hailed it as a big win for him. This is what he tweeted not long ago saying: Wow, big victory on the wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction allow southern border wall to proceed. Big win for border security and the rule of law. This is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court along ideological lines and the president's favor, allowing those funds from the Defense Department to be used to build the wall. You'll recall, Anderson, that the president directed those funds to be used for the wall after he didn't get what he wanted from Congress. As you'll recall, that led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history and the president ended it when he called for a national emergency and diverted certain funds to be used for the wall. So, after that, groups immediately challenged it in the courts. A lower court agreed with the group's challenging it, saying that Congress has the power of the purse and that the president didn't have this authority. The groups argued violated the law what the president did. But today, the Supreme Court overruled that, saying that the government showed that these groups challenging it didn't have sufficient standing. That the government did a good job showing that. And so, this is certainly a big win for the president, at least for now. This is not over yet, though, Anderson. As you pointed out, this can still play out in the lower courts, but the wall continued to be built with those Defense Department funds. We should note, though, that some of those funds will go toward replacement fencing, as well -- Anderson.</s>COOPER: Right, and it's replacement fencing which is all that's been build or that's been done so far, which is just -- I mean, they have been characterizing it as a new wall but replacing existing fencing.</s>BROWN: Yes, that's right. The president tries to frame it certainly most of it has been this replacement fencing. The president argues that this is all about protection because the fencing was crumbling and it needed to be replace for the -- there to be a secure barrier there to prevent people from trying to cross. But, you know, on the campaign trail, politically, Anderson, this hands the president a big talking point because now he can tell his supporters that he promised in 2016 on the trail he would build the wall and that the wall is being built even if a lot of these funds are going toward replacement fencing -- Anderson.</s>COOPER: All right. Pamela Brown, thanks very much. More now on the legal and political dimensions. Joining us is Elliot Williams, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama administration, Karen Finney who served as senior spokesperson on the 2016 Clinton campaign, and Scott Jennings, former special assistant to President George W. Bush and longtime political leader to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Both he and Karen Finney are CNN political commentators. Elliott, the president certainly understandably views this as a big win. Do you see it as a win for him because as Pamela said, litigation challenging had to pay for it is still on going?</s>ELLIOT WILLIAMS, PRINCIPAL, RABEN GROUP: Yes, litigation challenging it, but look, in effect, if now the construction can be completed, if he ultimately loses in court, some of this construction will have already been in place. I think the loss here is for the relationship between the president and Congress. Congress explicitly made a determination not to fund this project of the president, which is largely a political project of the president. Forty-eight hours later, the president went again and went ahead and proceeded with an executive order to get this built. So, really, the question here, Anderson, is, is this a reshaping of how presidents of the United States are going to regard Congress and disregard them as this president has largely done throughout administration, or is this an aberration that ends with the presidency of Donald Trump? That remains to be seen. But I think that's the bigger question and problem here and it's something that haunts this administration. It's just an utter disrespect for Congress as a co-equal branch of government.</s>COOPER: Scott, certainly for the Republican side, this is clearly a win. There is no, you know, there's no other look at it any other way.</s>SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, there is a lot of dimensions to the victory, Anderson. Number one, it's a political victory when the president came under some attack for not building the wall so he'll be able to check the box. Number two, it comes at a time when the most recent Gallup poll shows immigration has gone back to the top of the list of the issues that the American people care about the most. So, this is kind of riding the wave of public opinion right now showing the president being responsive to that. Number three, I think it validates the president's position. He said the border issues are a crisis and national emergency all along. Since he declared national emergency, and everybody howled about it, what has happened? Thousands of more people have come. We all seen it's an actual emergency. So he's validated on that. And one final political win here -- I think the Supreme Court decision based on my Twitter feed is going to bait the Democrats into saying some pretty dumb stuff at this week's CNN debate. They have become extremists on immigration, and I think it's going to get worse on your debate stages this week, Anderson.</s>COOPER: Karen, do you expect that to be the case? Because, certainly, you know, Tom Friedman of "The Times" wrote about his surprise at how -- I mean, to the left, some of the last debate comments about immigration were.</s>KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, a couple things. Number one, I don't think you're going to see that and remember when we're talking about the border and we're talking about the border wall, there is a whole other part of that conversation we are then talking also about kids in cages and family separation policy. And so, if we're going to go back to that conversation, part of that conversation is not a politically good conversation for the president. I think, quite frankly, over the last couple of weeks, part of his going after the squad has been to move away from the conversation because you have so many members visiting those conditions.</s>COOPER: Right, but, Karen, if he ran on build the wall and Mexico would pay for it. That's not happening. But he ran on build a wall. He can say the Supreme Court is going to let me do it and I'm going to do it.</s>FINNEY: Absolutely. Look, it's a victory for him and we've seen that in his Twitter feed tonight. He should take the victory lap. I think obviously this ongoing question between the relationship between Congress and the president and the power of the purse that is going to continue. And I think to some degree also, the back and forth between Congress and the president on this part of it gets a little murky given there is politically so many other fights between Congress and the president right now. But you're right. It gives him a great political talking point. But again, that issue of the wall and the border is not without a flip side that is not good for the president to be talking about.</s>COOPER: Yes, that I hear you on that. Scott, to Elliot's point about kind of being a new model for things, do you -- is there any Republican concern that, you know, there is an executive order this is a national emergency if a Democrat comes into office and says climate change is a national emergency and does it by executive order, I mean, does this set a new president?</s>JENNINGS: Oh, there is huge concern about that. I mean, this is one of the down the road, you know, I told you so that could happen if Democrats win the White House. I have no doubt that guns, you know, the truck that sits in my driveway, you know, all kinds of things --</s>COOPER: They're going to go to your truck?</s>JENNINGS: On executive orders. Hey, I don't have one of the new models with all the fancy whatever pollution controls. I mean, I'm just telling you, they will declare a national emergency on anything. So, absolutely, there is concern about that. In the moment, politically, though, I mean, there is no question. This is one of Donald Trump's best days.</s>COOPER: Yes. But, Elliot, certainly, I mean, this president has used the idea of executive orders in ways that, you know, if he was a Democrat or Barack Obama, the Republicans would be very upset about it.</s>WILLIAMS: Oh, the intellectual dishonesty is staggering in terms of what Republicans will tolerate from this president of the United States and look, let's talk about the underlying policy of the wall. Remember, Anderson, I worked at ICE for five years. The policy is flawed because most people that are unlawfully president of the United States under stayed their visas. So building a wall, while I can certainly agree that there is a room for barrier fencing in the debate over border security, but most of the people here didn't cross the southern border. So, what you're doing for scoring political points. And that's what this is about. This is about whipping people up at rallies. But as a means of scoring political points, he's built this or seeking to build a big extensive wall that isn't going to solve the underlying problem.</s>COOPER: Right.</s>WILLIAMS: I would be the first person at the table to have a conversation about border security and immigration, if that's what Republicans and the president wanted to do but that's not what this is about.</s>COOPER: But, Karen, again, on the campaign trail or debate stage when it gets to be the Republican or Democrat, the argument I built -- I said I'll build the wall, Supreme Court agrees aggress with me, I'm doing it is clearer and understandable than a nuanced discussion about barrier fencing has a role but, you know, the ramifications about building a wall, and it's less effective and it's not as powerful as what the Democrats previous argument could have been, which was you promised to build a wall and Mexico to pay for it and neither has happened. They can't make that argument anymore.</s>FINNEY: No, you're right. I think there is probably one other line in there, Anderson of the president's talking points. I would envision him saying something along the lines of, you know, the Democrats tried to stop me and the Supreme Court says I win, right? So, but, look, again, from the perspective of the president, it is a great talking point. We have a talking point, though, on the Democratic side to talk about OK, but what about the people who are here? If we can all agree that there is now a crisis at the border, build your wall if that's going to keep people out, but I suspect part of where this conversation is going to go on the context of this election because it is very dire and grave, and we have all of these children and families that at some point we have to figure out how to reunify them, what do we do with the people who are here? We've been so focused on the wall we move aid way from that part of the political conversation. And I assure you, people who live on those border states, they are interested in having that conversation and they're also interested in understanding how the wall will affect the land that they live on.</s>WILLIAMS: Oh, yes.</s>COOPER: Scott, I mean, it is a more -- I don't know, it's a tougher discussion for Democrats after today.</s>JENNINGS: Oh, look, this is a very simple thing now. Donald Trump ran on border security. He is securing the border. Democrats are running on decriminalizing border crossings. They are running on free health care for people who come here illegally. They look like they are inviting the entire world to come here illegally and they have no interest in securing the border and Donald Trump is going to say, I ran on securing the border, I fought all the way to the Supreme Court. It's happening. If you go with their policies, we'll have no borders at all. And all you got to do, Anderson, is turn on your TV. It's a crisis, just like he said it was. This is as clean as it gets for a political argument.</s>FINNEY: OK. But, Scott, again, part of the crisis, there is a manufactured part of this crisis, which is, what are we going to do with these children? What are we going to do with these families? It is the case that under Donald J. Trump, we're seeing children in cages. We're seeing men and women in cages so packed they can't lie down. So, there is another part of that, too. He delivered on conservative judges. He delivered on border security, but this other part is not going to go away and I think he's going to be as much of a liability for him or much more of a liability for him than I think he imagined.</s>COOPER: Elliot, do you give him anything on boarder security? Or to your point, which is, you know, statistically correct about people over staying their visas, again, it's a more nuanced part of that?</s>WILLIAMS: How do you define border security, Anderson? Again, if, you know, the administration came, we're going to make the border safer. And so, our means of that doing will be deterring people from coming to the country by ripping their toddlers away from them. That's not actually securing the border. And again, if you wish to have a conversation about border security, it needs to be a holistic conversation. It's not just about building barriers and yes, I'm not making a moral point about walls being moral or soon. And I'll agree that San Diego, California, needs to have hard border barrier fencing, but I just think this idea that immigration is exclusively a function of boarder security and nothing else and that no other parties in government or the NGO community or whatever else need to be part of it. That is a false binary that we've been sold by the president.</s>JENNINGS: But we don't have to accept the binary, Anderson, because the Congress thinks the United States Senate just passed a massive humanitarian piece to this immigration crisis, which this president signed into law. So, he just put billions on the humanitarian crisis, and now, he's got billions for the wall, this is a great day if you're Donald Trump making an argument about a holistic approach.</s>FINNEY: Let's see the action before we start -- let's see what really happens to those families.</s>WILLIAMS: I don't think $4 billion toward a hemisphere wide crisis that deals with -- starts with corruption and crime and violence in Guatemala and El Salvador is the perfect solution or total solution to fixing what again extends the length of the hemisphere and is a much bigger problem than --</s>COOPER: I got to leave it there. Elliot Williams, thank you. Karen Finney, Scott Jennings, as well. Coming up next, House Democrats take a big step toward impeachment while trying not to make what some fear politically would make one leap too far to actual impeachment. Later, going into the CNN Democratic debates in Detroit. See, what undecided voters are saying. The state went narrowly for President Trump the last time around. The question tonight, will this time be different?