The Christian Broadcasting Network

Browse Videos

Share Email

News on The 700 Club: February 21, 2017

As seen on "The 700 Club," Read Transcript


Well, welcome, ladies and gentlemen,

to this edition of "The 700 Club."

President Trump is expected to come out with a new executive

order on immigration very soon.

In a few moments we're going to take a look

at what that could be, with Jay Sekulow of the American Center

for Law and Justice.

Meanwhile, President Trump has made his choice

for his new national security adviser,

and it's a selection that's being widely praised

by Republicans and Democrats, including

even some former members of the Obama administration.

Gary Lane brings us the story.

GARY LANE (VOICEOVER): President Trump

will be joined at the White House

by his new national security adviser, HR McMaster.

He's a man of tremendous talent

and tremendous experience.

GARY LANE (VOICEOVER): McMaster is an active-duty Army

lieutenant general, a veteran of the Gulf War and Afghanistan,

and commander of US troops in Iraq.

He's a soldier-scholar who earned

a PhD in military history from the University of North

Carolina.

A military strategist, he wrote the popular book, "Dereliction

of Duty," a searing criticism of political decisions made

during the Vietnam War, decisions which he believes

should have been challenged by the US generals

executing the war.

As national security adviser, he replaces Michael Flynn,

who was fired from the job after misleading the vice

president about his phone call with the Russian ambassador.

McMaster will remain a member of the Army

while he serves as national security adviser.

--what a privilege it is to be able to continue serving

our nation.

GARY LANE (VOICEOVER): Both Republicans and Democrats

praised Trump's choice, including John McCain, who has

often been critical of Trump.

The Arizona senator tweeted, "McMaster

is outstanding choice--

man of genuine intellect, character, and ability."

And on a key issue of national security 30 days

into the Trump presidency, the fight against ISIS

is intensifying.

Defense Secretary James Mattis has just

returned from Baghdad, where he met

to plan strategy with military officials

and the Iraqi prime minister.

But I assure you, we are going to stand

by you through this fight.

GARY LANE (VOICEOVER): US and coalition airstrikes

are now helping Iraqi forces in the final battle

to drive the Islamic State from western Mosul.

And here at home, another item of business for the president

this week--

immigration.

He's expected to sign a new executive travel

order temporarily banning immigrants

from seven countries with links to terrorism.

They're the same countries as in his previous order.

The president's initial travel ban

was blocked by a federal judge, and then

upheld by a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court.

GARY LANE (VOICEOVER): The difference

this time, the new order will reportedly

include tighter language, but will be less restrictive.

Green-card holders and people with visas from those seven

countries will be allowed into the United States.

And Syrian refugees will be considered

on a case-by-case basis.

Gary Lane, CBN News.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice

is with us.

And Jay, what do you think-- what

major changes are they going to put in this order, do you know?

I think there's going to be three.

One is going to be the issue of visas and green-card holders.

Those that have lawful status within the United States

will be able to continue to utilize their visas.

That was a question that arose in the last executive order.

It took a White House memorandum to clarify

that in fact, visa holders and green-card holders

were not subject to the order.

But that was a White House memorandum.

The Ninth Circuit said a memorandum is not

binding like an administrative agency's determination,

like an HHS memorandum, so to speak.

So that will clarify that issue.

The second issue, I think, from what

I'm hearing, is that the Syrian refugee ban--

or at least, hiatus, if you want to call it that--

is going to be put back within the context of those seven

countries.

So they'll be under the same footing as the other seven

countries, not an outright prohibition

for an indefinite period.

The third thing-- and I think this is also

going to be significant-- there's going to be

a very clear start date here.

We're going to know when this order goes into effect.

That was part of the problem, was people were in transit.

So you're going to have a clear start date.

Those were some of the recommendations that we made.

I haven't seen the order, but what

I'm hearing from my sources is that those kinds of changes

will be in the order.

And that should make it pretty much

bulletproof for a challenge, although I

do expect that there will be a challenge.

Well, you helped draft it, right?

Is that right?

Well, we gave suggested language.

Whether that is in the order or not, we'll see,

but we gave language that we thought,

that if the case was to be challenged,

that this was the kind of language

you would want to have.

And I suspect that some of that type of language,

if not the verbatim language, but some of the similar context

will be in there.

It's now been reviewed by White House counsel, Office

of Legal Counsel, and the Justice Department,

so I think it's a positive development.

Now, is he going to withdraw the other

and then resubmit this?

Is that the game?

So, yes.

This will supersede the existing order, which will then moot out

the current litigation.

So the Ninth Circuit case, which has already

been stayed-- in other words, it's

not moving forward pending this--

the Justice Department in a filing

said that a new executive order is coming.

It will supersede this one, so hold this case in abeyance.

It will.

Then this case will be dismissed as moot.

I suspect Washington State and Minnesota will

file another lawsuit, and we'll be back in court again,

and we're going to be filing briefs in that as well.

But it's going to make it a much more difficult challenge.

Now, what the Ninth Circuit does--

you and I have talked about this for 30 years.

Who knows what the Ninth Circuit will

do in a situation like this?

But at the end of the day, if it goes

to the Supreme Court of the United States,

I feel confident that we could see a unanimous victory.

Well, couldn't he file in a different jurisdiction

to get out of that Ninth Circuit?

Well, the problem is, the groups that are challenging it

are forum-shopping.

They know that their most likely success

is in the Ninth Circuit, and particularly with some district

court judges out on the West Coast.

So, here the president is not in a position--

the administration is not in a position to be the plaintiff.

They'll be the defendant, because the order

will be challenged.

So that's how this will move forward.

So they're defendants in this suit,

rather than initiating a suit.

OK.

And you believe-- you know, they've

claimed this is a so-called Muslim ban,

but these are the same nations that Obama targeted,

because they're rife with terror.

They didn't name Indonesia--

Yeah, so these are seven countries

of origin with known terrorist concerns,

and where countries can not verify the whereabouts

or the identifications, necessarily,

of the individuals seeking access.

Also, 85% of the Muslim world is not impacted by this.

So to say this is a Muslim ban, this religion clause argument,

which a district court in Virginia bought, is ridiculous.

It's absurd.

There's no question in my mind that at the Supreme

Court of the United States--

I've argued a lot of religion cases at the Court,

as you know, through the American Center

for Law and Justice.

And there is no way that the Court's

going to find that this is a violation of the Establishment

Clause, for goodness sake.

I mean, there's no way that could happen.

So I think at the end here, as--

I do expect litigation, though, Pat.

I think we need to be prepared.

Our teams are already working on the Establishment Clause

arguments and some of the other presidential authority

arguments, because I think that's going to happen.

Will they expedite it to the Supreme Court?

I mean, will the Court reach down and pick it up

from the Ninth Circuit?

Or will they stall around--

I think if the Ninth Circuit declares

the order unconstitutional, I think

you will see an emergency stay taken to Justice Kennedy.

He would probably refer it to the whole Court.

So you could literally be at the Supreme Court in three weeks.

Oh, that fast.

I think that's very possible here.

Yeah, it could be really fast.

Well, it's tough.

But that's the game, isn't it?

That these guys are going to keep piling on lawsuits.

Everything Trump does, that these guys-- the left

is going to challenge him and tie him up in the courts.

Is that the game they're going to play?

That is.

And in a situation like this, they've mobilized already.

They've been through-- they've had their practice run.

This new executive order is going

to make it much more difficult.

But I can't imagine, even if it's just

the seven countries of origin, which as you said,

Pat, were under the Obama administration,

Washington state's going to file a lawsuit.

They've pretty much hinted at that already.

So I think the administration this time is prepared.

Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, he's in place.

You've got more lawyers now in the Department

of Justice, more lawyers in the Solicitor General's office.

Outside groups like ours will be engaged.

So, we'll be able to defend, but this will be

a much cleaner order to defend.

And I'm actually looking forward to seeing this put in operation

successfully.

Boy.

Well, it's just-- but I mean, they can keep filing lawsuits

till the cows come home.

There's no limit.

I think they need to--

I think the administration--

I think they're doing this, Pat.

The administration needs to operate under the assumption

that any major policy change, whether it's

this one on immigration and refugee status and asylum,

or whether it's going to be the repeal

and replacement of Obamacare, or any other regulatory matter--

I think the administration needs to be prepared that the left is

going to utilize the courts.

Why?

They don't have the House, they don't have the Senate,

and they don't have the White House.

So they go to the third branch of government,

the Article III branch of government-- the courts.

That is where this is going to be battled out.

Well, if you were doing it, which circuit

would you rather be in?

They've got to get out of that Ninth Circuit.

Those people are so far--

Yeah, I wish somebody would bring the case in the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals.

That would be a better run for us.

Even the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,

where Judge Gorsuch, the nominee for the Supreme Court,

is coming out of.

There's a number of other circuits

I'd rather be in than the Ninth.

But Pat, I think we need to buckle on the seat belt.

I think it's going to be in the Ninth Circuit.

They're going to challenge this on the West Coast, yes.

And you think we're going to win it now

with these tweaks, these amendments.

Yeah.

I think we wouldn't if-- obviously, I

haven't seen the order yet.

But I mean, assuming it comes out like I expect it to,

I think we win at the Supreme Court.

I'm not confident of a win at the Ninth Circuit,

because I think the court's just too politicized.

They are making policy statements.

But I think at the Supreme Court of the United States--

frankly, I don't see how a justice of the Supreme Court

could rule against the president if this is tightened up

the way it's going to be.

By the way, we recommend also that it's

put in there very clearly that any due process rights that

apply to citizens or apply to nonresident aliens or resident

aliens would apply in this context.

All that is doing is what the law already says, but again,

making it very clear that the due process rights, when they

attach, will be recognized.

Only when they attach.

Stay with it, buddy.

Thank you so much.

God bless you.

We'll do it.

Jay Sekulow, fighting for you, ladies and gentlemen.

Interesting.

It's a shame that we have to fight so hard to protect

our borders, Pat.

The thing that's so outrageous is some puny little district

court judge would actually override

the president of the United States and the United States

Congress.

It makes no sense at all that they would have such authority.

I don't think the Constitution gives them such authority,

but they abrogate that authority.

And until they're challenged, nobody--

but for one little district court judge to say,

I'm going to put an injunction on the entire nation?

He didn't get elected to anything.

It's absurd.

Outrageous.

I can't believe there's not anything in the Constitution

that gives the president the ability to override that,

to veto that.

Well, it's there, really.

I mean, they can do it, but the only way you can do it

is impeach the clown.

Either that, or getting overturned

at the Supreme Court.

So you have to go through the judicial--

but it's glacial, but Jay thinks it can be expedited.

It goes up the line.

But, hey, by the way, I'd better retract that statement.

Your Honor, I'm not calling you a clown.

I said that wrong.

Please forgive me.

But this guy was a, quote, "Bush appointee,"

but just, there's something about it

that's inherently wrong.

It sticks in the craw of every freedom-loving American.

EMBED THIS VIDEO

Related Podcasts


CBN.com | Do You Know Jesus? | Privacy Notice | Prayer Requests | Support CBN | Contact Us | Feedback
© 2012 Christian Broadcasting Network