On Monday, NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer provided Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson a nationally televised platform to tout his fight against President Trump’s immigration order temporarily restricting immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries. Without challenge, Lauer allowed the Democratic politician to accuse Trump of having “violated the Constitution in very fundamental ways.”
Starting off the softball exchange, Lauer wondered: “I know you argued this on several fronts. You talked about the broad Constitutional principles involved. But you also made a more local case for this, saying that this order would have an adverse impact on the state of Washington. Which sides of the argument, or side of the argument, do you think had the most impact with the judge?”
Ferguson touted the political mobilization effort to influence the judge’s decision: “...we had declarations from businesses like Expedia and Amazon, the University of Washington, Washington State University, talking about the impacts to their employees, to their students, to their businesses. And we feel strongly that made impact in the court on Friday.”
Lauer briefly cited the Trump administration’s argument “that Judge [James] Robart’s ruling, quote, ‘second guesses the President's national security judgment.’” The host pressed: “Should the President have broad authority when it comes to the issue of national security?”
Ferguson claimed: “...the federal government is actually arguing is unfettered authority. In other words, no one can question it, not even a federal judge....We have...a checks and balance system in our country, and the President does not have totally unfettered discretion to make executive orders as he chooses.”
In response, Lauer fretted: “At the moment, the Justice Department can go back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today with more evidence and more information. Do you think this will hold up, and if it doesn't, what are you possible next moves?” Ferguson seized the opportunity to level his most explosive charge: “Look, in a courtroom, it's not the loudest voice that prevails, Matt, it's the Constitution. And the President violated the Constitution in very fundamental ways. And that's impacting thousands of people across our country, and frankly, that's not right.”
Without the slightest push-back, Lauer simply concluded the interview.
While the NBC morning show was eager to promote one of the President’s partisan critics objecting to an executive order, back in 2014, Today initially ignored the news that 17 states were suing the Obama administration over the former president’s executive order granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. When a federal court maintained a stay on the controversial action in 2015, the broadcast similarly missed the news.
Here is a full transcript of Lauer’s February 6 interview with Ferguson:
7:17 AM ET
MATT LAUER: Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson won that temporary suspension of the travel ban. Mr. Ferguson, thanks for joining us, good morning.
BOB FERGUSON: Good morning, thank you, Matt.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trump’s Travel Ban Battle; Washington State Attorney General Speaks Out]
LAUER: I know you argued this on several fronts. You talked about the broad Constitutional principles involved. But you also made a more local case for this, saying that this order would have an adverse impact on the state of Washington. Which sides of the argument, or side of the argument, do you think had the most impact with the judge?
FERGUSON: It's always hard to know exactly what the judge was thinking, Matt. But I think it's fair to say, we had declarations from businesses like Expedia and Amazon, the University of Washington, Washington State University, talking about the impacts to their employees, to their students, to their businesses. And we feel strongly that made impact in the court on Friday.
LAUER: In their appeal, the Justice Department argues that the President has, I’m quoting here, “unreviewable authority to suspend entry of any class of foreigners” and that Judge Robart’s ruling, quote, “second guesses the President's national security judgment.” Should the President have broad authority when it comes to the issue of national security?
FERGUSON: Well, there's two different questions there, Matt, right? Should the President have brought authority? Sure, we don't dispute that. But the first part of what the federal government is actually arguing is unfettered authority. In other words, no one can question it, not even a federal judge, and the federal government argued that in court on Friday. And I was proud that my solicitor general Noah Purcell, who argued for the state, responded by saying that argument is frightening. We have a balance – a checks and balance system in our country, and the President does not have totally unfettered discretion to make executive orders as he chooses.
LAUER: Yeah, and obviously this is a temporary stay. At the moment, the Justice Department can go back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today with more evidence and more information. Do you think this will hold up, and if it doesn't, what are you possible next moves?
FERGUSON: I'm confident this will hold up, Matt. I would not file this complaint unless I thought we would prevail. So our next move is simply to defend this and we're confident. Look, in a courtroom, it's not the loudest voice that prevails, Matt, it's the Constitution. And the President violated the Constitution in very fundamental ways. And that's impacting thousands of people across our country, and frankly, that's not right.
LAUER: Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson, I appreciate your time this morning, thank you.
FERGUSON: You bet, thank you very much.
