CNN "The Lead with Jake Tapper" - Transcript: Interview with Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

[16:17:58] TAPPER: As the White House celebrates its big Supreme Court travel ban win, Democrats and civil rights groups are outraged and promising to fight the ruling. One of those Democrats is Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison. He's the vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee and one of two Muslim Americans in the U.S. Congress.

Congressman, thanks for joining me.

You called the ban bigotry against Muslims.

REP. KEITH ELLISON (D), MINNESOTA: Thank you.

TAPPER: How do you respond to the fact that two of the seven countries on the ban, Venezuela and North Korea , are not Muslim majority countries? ELLISON: Well, in the case of North Korea, there is not too much

immigration directly from North Korea to the United States. Those folks usually come from South Korea. So that's kind of a red herring.

And then in Venezuela's case, it is not a -- it is not a ban, it is just certain elites that are targeted. So, that leaves you with those other five countries. They're all Muslim countries, majority, and they are banned because of that fact.

And I believe that that is in line with what President Trump said when he was a candidate. He said he wanted a complete and total shut down of Muslim entry into the country. He didn't get the complete and total shut down but he got something and he is celebrating that fact right now and that's sad because our country stands for religious freedom and liberty and we don't hold people's religious faith as a factor when we decide whether they could come to our country or not.

At least we shouldn't. The Supreme Court said they could for now. But I don't believe that that ruling will stand the test of time because none of the other bigoted rulings that I've seen in the course of American history have stood the test of time like Korematsu or Plessey or Dred Scott. All those ugly, bigoted rulings usually find the dust bin and I think this one will too.

TAPPER: So, let me ask you, in 2015, President Trump signed a law that contained provisions that restricted travel to the U.S. for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria. In 2016, the Obama administration added extra restrictions for travelers from Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

Now, clearly, this Trump travel ban is much more severe. But it does beg the question, it does prompt the question: aren't there legitimate national security questions about travelers from these countries?

[16:20:05] ELLISON: You know, let me tell you. I really regard that as a Trump talking point, because the truth is that the President Obama never said we're going to ban people based on a religion. It was all rooted in factors that had to do with legitimate national security interests.

This one did not start that way. It was not the origin of it and it's not the purpose of it. So, to try to say that it is somehow equivalent or the same, I simply could not accept that as a false equivalency. And why don't we take Trump by -- at his word? He said it's a Muslim ban. Now, everyone is falling over themselves to say that it's not a Muslim ban, but he said it was.

I believe Trump on this.

TAPPER: Well, I'm not -- certainly not going to back what President Trump said about banning Muslims entering the U.S., but when they did craft the travel ban, one of the things they did lean on was previous acts by the Obama administration, that's what the Department of Homeland Security did, I'm not saying they are the same thing and obviously their origins are very different. But there is a tremendous amount of overlap when it comes to the countries affected, the added restrictions on travel under the Obama administration and the ban on travel in the Trump administration.

I get that they are different. I get the origins are different. I get that the men, Obama and Trump, are different. But does it not prompt the question that maybe there are some serious national security questions about these countries of which there is an overlap?

ELLISON: The fact is, is that we should not use religious faith as a factor. We should not use the religious faith of the people. We should root our decision-making in national security. Now, that is not what happened here.

So, that's the point I'm making, Jake, is that, you know, just because two things may look similar does not mean they are similar. They are rooted in entirely different purposes and origins and that makes a big difference because now we're going to -- because, look, Trump got what he could get, right? He couldn't get one and he couldn't get two.

Number three, he rings the bell with the Supreme Court. Well, where do we go from here, right? Do -- are we going to see an expansion, if you listen to his rhetoric, we would see such a thing as that. I mean, so I think the purpose is important and I think that we shouldn't lose sight of that.

And more than that, I think it sends an ugly signal to people who -- who look at our country as a beacon of freedom and a beacon of inclusion and I think that at the bottom line is that this -- this ruling today is the Supreme Court simply rubber stamping this Trump Muslim ban and I call it that because he called it that.

TAPPER: I get that, but again, when Obama adds restrictions on visitors, travelers from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, just empirically, do you have a problem with that? Forget Trump for a second. Forget what he said for a second.

ELLISON: No, you know, Jake -- I don't think we can forget Trump for a second because this is about his travel ban. But I will tell you this, that where in there are legitimate national security problems that are demonstrable and measurable, that I think the president should use those factors to safeguard the American people and that is clear.

But I will just say, Jake, that is not what this is all about and I think that we've got -- we cannot simply ignore intent, purpose and we can't ignore the way that this president has approached this entire issue. I think that it makes a lot of difference who would be exercising the discretion here, somebody who believes in our constitutional norms of equal justice for all and equality before the law or somebody who is really just sort of said that they are not about that. So, I think these things are important.

And I know folks would like to wish away Trump here, but we can't, he is the president, this was his measure in the beginning, and he's going to continue to be the president for at least the foreseeable future.

TAPPER: You've been decrying President Trump's bigotry. Obviously, you used to follow somebody who continually expressed sexist anti- LGBTQ and anti-Semitic bigotry, Lewis Farrakhan. You've condemned Farrakhan's bigotry --

ELLISON: I would disagree with that. I would disagree with that, sir.

TAPPER: What are you disagreeing with?

ELLISON: Sorry, that comes up in this context.

TAPPER: Well, you're decrying bigotry, and Louis Farrakhan is a pretty clear bigot.

ELLISON: Right. And I agree that that's true. And I think I made myself very clear.

But, look, that's going back to the false equivalency. You know, I don't have any support for the individual you just mentioned stands for, nor do I agree with Trump's bigotry either. But then again, any time somebody tries to say that something is unfair and bigoted, if you're going to say, well, one time you sort of said something or somebody said you said something and then --

TAPPER: But you are a follower of --

(CROSSTALK)

ELLISON: No, I wasn't --

TAPPER: You were a follower of Farrakhan, sir. You --

ELLISON: Jake, I'm sorry. That is not true, Jake.

But I just want to say to you, if anyone who raises concerns about bigotry then is put in a position to have to defend themselves, then we never get to talk about bigotry and I hope that's not what your purpose is, Jake, because you've stood for an equal society. But if you're going to try to put me on the spot and have to explain myself -- I didn't pass a Muslim ban.

TAPPER: No, I didn't --

ELLISON: This is not my --

TAPPER: You didn't let me ask my question. My question was, "The Washington Post" fact checker in March gave you four Pinocchios for your claim that you have no relationship with him and I want you to take a listen to Farrakhan talking in an interview about how you only --

ELLISON: That's wrong. That's not true.

TAPPER: And Farrakhan -- well, "The Washington Post" fact checker did give you four Pinocchios about that. That it's true.

ELLISON: They were wrong. TAPPER: They were wrong.

ELLISON: Jake, I have not -- it's untrue, Jake, I'm sorry. And I'm disappointed that that is why you called me on your show today.

TAPPER: I didn't.

ELLISON: You know, because the Supreme Court --

TAPPER: That is not why I called you -- yes?

ELLISON: Jake, the Supreme Court has ruled that the president's ban on Muslims and Muslim countries and what started in his campaign rhetoric, that that is OK. And now, Jake, you want me to have to justify myself --

TAPPER: No --

ELLISON: Based on facts not true and always political. And so --

TAPPER: That is the question -- the question I had for --

ELLSION: -- it's a shame, Jake, because we can't have a real conversation.

TAPPER: It is a real conversation.

ELLISON: We can't a conversation about bigotry because -- we can't have a conversation about bigotry because you're going to say, well, what about you? Did you ever in any way or anyone -- know or see anybody who was ever bigoted and therefore, you have no moral standing to claim -- to decry bigotry. Jake, that's just not true.

TAPPER: I'm not saying that at all.

ELLISON: And I'm sorry we're having this conversation.

TAPPER: Well, the question I have about Farrakhan which you haven't --

ELLISON: Jake, I came on here to talk about the Muslim ban.

TAPPER: I understand that. The question I have for you --

ELLISON: And now, you're trying to put me on the spot. It's not fair.

TAPPER: The question I had for you that I've been trying to ask is, Farrakhan said in 2016, you met with him in his hotel suite in Washington, D.C.

ELLISON: That is a false -- that did not happen.

TAPPER: It did not happen. So, Farrakhan is lying?

ELLISON: That is untrue. I'm not -- I don't know if he's lying or not. I could tell you I was in no such meeting. I was in no such meeting. I've made that clear.

You know that, Jake. I have denied this because it's not true. But here I am on your show having to talk about this when the Supreme Court just upheld what the president said was a Muslim ban from the very beginning.

And so now I have to defend myself when that is not what the context of this discussion is about at all, Jake.

TAPPER: It was just a question I wanted to ask --

ELLISON: So, now, I was no such meeting.

TAPPER: OK. So, Farrakhan is lying about it. That's fine. If you're telling me that Farrakhan is lying --

(CROSSTALK)

ELLISON: Look -- maybe he is.

TAPPER: That is all I know.

ELLISON: But I could tell you this, Jake, I could tell you I was not in a meeting. What somebody subjective intent was, I will not speculate. I could tell you I was never in any such meeting as that. It's not true.

TAPPER: OK.

ELLISON: It's simply not true.

TAPPER: I wanted to get you on the record about it and that is --

ELLISON: And I wrote about this -- and I wrote about this months ago, Jake.

TAPPER: In 2017 --

ELLISON: And I think you know that.

TAPPER: You wrote about it in the Washington --

ELLISON: No, I was not in any such meeting with that individual. I simply wasn't.

TAPPER: OK.

ELLISON: If say lying -- I don't know. I mean, I wasn't in the meeting. I could tell you that.

TAPPER: He says that you and Congressman Carson met with him in a suite in his -- when he came to visit. You're saying it's not true. I will take you at your word. I certainly believe you more than I believe Louis Farrakhan.

ELLISON: I've said it repeatedly. TAPPER: OK. "The Washington Post" fact --

ELLISON: Well, I hope so. But, Jake, this is not the first time I've denied this and I think you know that.

TAPPER: Congressman, it was just a question, you were talking quite a bit about the bigotry in your view of President Trump, the bigotry in your view of this travel ban, I thought it was worth asking about somebody -- a bigot with whom you used to associate, though, you have distanced yourself and condemned him since.

ELLISON: No. Jake, I worked on the Million Man March and I was proud to do so. That's it.

TAPPER: All right. Congressman, thank you for your time and I appreciate it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source