travel ban that was set by the lower court, the trial court judge, will stay in effect. the president says he will win and move on to. "hardball" with chris matthews starts right now. donald trump see you in court. the security of our nation is at stake. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews. federal appeal court temporary kill killed president trump ban on seven countries. we sought to overturn ruling of the judge. visitors will be allowed to come to the united states as the court case continues.

moments ago president trump tweeted his reaction. see you in court. security of our nation is at stake. let's go to airy melber. it seems to me, the three judge court, has thrown the book at the president. they said this is a muslim ban. they said we have never had trouble from those people in the country. he asserted the fifth amendment, due process rights to those involved in this case including those effected by the travel ban. your thoughts. >> frirst of all, because the state-runs universities that do all sorts of things in the state and with people abroad, they are -- they say the president

have great power but are reviewable power. that's a funny word we have been hearing about that from the early proceeding, do you review it or not. they say we do. they point to areas that are more intense or more threat oriented than blanket rules, in the george w. bush lost that case because a different court, the supreme court with republican appointees decided that those rates still attached. this ruling is early in the fight. there's a tendency to say this will tell us where it goes. this second inning but the president administration is down. >> why did they go into argument, this court rs, to say no one called any terrorism here. why did they make this point

against this ban if they are not ruling against the idea of the ban? >> you are articulated well. we're hear were one critic. the court here with a unanimous decision, as you point out the ninth circuit court, what they said they are not second-guessing policy judgment. that's not their job. they are looking at whether there's a rashal link here. whether this order still holds up or not tail orred enough to do what it days it is here to do. we know that some people assert that it grew out of the muslim ban, and can others deny that.

what the court is doing is reviewing the justice department's evidence and whether this is related to that or not. we have a co equal branch of government to look at it. there are decisions that are on the book that history has not been kind to even though they rested on security judgment. there was a proceedduresal ruli there is a court saying the balance at harm went in the favor of the challenges that washington state and its citizens would be hurt by instituting this ban than by

pausing it like they have the trial. >> i agree with it. thank you sir. >> thank you. let bring in senator from mj new jersey. your reaction to this ruling. saying see you in court. >> remember, this is not the only panel of judges is that have been coming out against ruling against this ban. so this is good day for the united states of america. because we're asserting continuing to assert the reality that donald trump doesn't want to accept that he is not above the law. that he want uncheck due bans like this. and in my opinion make our country less safe and not more. >> do you think it's -- president rule we should not have been -- because we have not been hit by seven countries. they specify that as argument against the appeal. >> i was reading that on my

iphone. they have to establish possibility for success. but let's be clear for in terms of the safety of our country. let's you and i be clear. these are seven countries he picked in we we have not since 1975 -- coming in as a citizen to become a citizens of this country. it's not happening. conservative think tanks pointed out there's a slim chance of you being hurt by someone from these countries. by tailoring this a way of saying things like let's make exceptions for christians,

the -- we'll make exceptions for christians. in addition to that it gives a strength to those enemy of ours that are trying to character this as a war on islam rather than a war on evil and terrorist and trying to do us harm. >> you said it's a good day for america. -- >> i think it would be a good day for america because it's safer. >> democrats and republicans are vested in the security of our country. when you know that our enemies are using the ban as a demonstration, their effort to establish that this wor war on islam -- we know people donald

trump trying effect refugees coming into our country, they have to go to severe vetting, soldiers working with them empowering us in our mission have to go through four, five, six years worth of vetting before they come into the country. let's not stir up fear to get america to turn aware from core value and who we are as a country. our values make us stronger. -- >> hold on. state attorney general bob ferguson begun press conference. >> -- different offices strapre

across the state. these filings which have been done under intense constraint. this has been team effort from the law firm. i could not be more proud of the teamwork that's been involved. i'm going to turn to noah who will say a few words. he summize what the ninth court did. >> thank you. what we argued to the court was that it's role of the court it say what the law is. and serve what the executive branch. that's what the court has done in this opinion that seriously considered all the government's government and rejected them. it's important to recognize this has been having on people's

lives we have been hearing from people all over the country what difference this has made. i want to thank attorney general ferguson for having bravery for bringing the case and authorize us to do all this, and support, people across the office, people in the office ann, carry, kelly wood, chris, wendy, we have an outstanding office. people do public service every day. we're not in the limelight like this. but we're not used to it but we're proud to have been able to play the role. the opinion is complete victory. it uphold district court's injunction in every respect.

we could not be more pleased how careful and thoughtful the opinion is. the judges did their job kafr carefully and well. that's all i'm going to say. >> i solicitor general who argued at the trial court level and court of appeals and one thing i appreciate is the fact this case is had -- there's been an opportunity for the public to see who worked on the case, like the people here today. i want to call me low di, i created that unit, as you may know, up until then, if someone called with a civil rights complaint, we did not handle

civil rights in state of washington in a similar way, which have something that needs to be remedy. so we created unit, these are people that are part of that team. i did not anticipate that the case like this that would be pressing service, i'm so glad and proud that we had a team of excellent attorneys and excellent staff in that unit with the background and work ethics prepared to bring this case. calling melody. thanks, bob. >> from p the beginning when we started talking about hour to respond to this case, the people on my team recognized that basic fairness, civil rights, issue, i'm proud of them for stepping

up to get the results that we're talking about today. i want to introduce marcia, pa tri ya, and in addition this support staff members have been nothing but patient as we have asked for call kinds of urge last minute things over the weeks. i want to say thank you to the folks in the office. we have had support and off fers of help. and moral support wile where did this. this wonderful office to work it because of the people in this office. thank you for being colleague and allowing us to do the work for you. >> shane has played a key roll

as well. >> let's go to senator booker. here is nbc hallie. i want you tory act to this. listen. >> we'll see you in court. it's a political decision and i look forward to doing. >> we have a situation where this security of our country is at stake. it's and very, very serious situation. we look forward to seeing them in court. >> do you think undercut early day of your -- >> this just case down. we will win the case. >> have you conferred with you're attorney general on this. >> no i haven't. >> how is it you find out about the decision. >> just like you did. >> via the news. >> decision we'll win in may opinion very easily.

>> let go back to booker. we have a unique political situation, the attorney general who nomination you opposed is going to calling the shot. what do you make of his -- do you think he going to look out for the rights and fifth amendment due process concerns of the court? >> no. he anti-immigration he accepted -- they have been targeted as terrorists organization. this someone adamant about denying immigrants rights within this country. there are bipartisan bills in this senate right now about counter violate extremism, and fight against online propaganda being used by other actors

trying to destabilize global security like the russian. in donald trump is concerned about security, i had republican senator that talked about the russian attacks, russian cyber attacks from this country, with all the stuff -- real work we have to do to fight isis to fight terrorism and fight efforts that are going on trying to destabilize democracy and right here at home. you have to look at facts. when i was mayor, in god we trust, everyone else wring brin data. there are easier ways of coming through the vetting proess is.

we have processes that i called for us to look at, visa waivers, and other ways that terrorists could explore far more than this. >> there is important stuff. i have been reading p up on what you have been concerned about, i think you're the only person that notice this, the trump administration inside the way they are putting together agencies and task force have decided to against to quijanos on alt-right groups, is a real problem. tell me what you tli is the reality of the nexus of having people like steve bannon of the alt-right in the white house deciding we're not going to go after those groups which a danger to us. islamic is a only threat in

this. >> -- dropping our efforts on countering violent extremism, which to me is outrageous when you look at the data of what's happening in our country and when it comes to terror activity. you mention the worst domestic violence ever, timothy mcvail -- i want to keep all-americans safe, whether school shooting in connecticut or a terrorist attack in by new jersey and 9/11. we need to take all terrorism

seriously. -- for donald trump to ignore what we have seen in recent days the kind of terrorism we have seen if in country, just happened in canada where a mosque was rated and where people were killed, that's unacceptable to me and he will have a fight on his hands with the article i branch of the senate, job it is to balance and check the executive especially when it comes to issues of the national security. >> i want to go back. when you look at president, president trump, look at record on what terrorism he going to not focus on, domestic terrorism, when you look at steve bannon and newly instituted confirmed attorney general, jeff sessions, do you think the trio of trump, banyno

are going to look at from -- do you think it's going to work? >> i have grave concerns. you say alt-right. let's be clear, it's a bigotry, you name it, one of the groups that gets the most hate crimes in america, the most hate crimes is targeted in our nation, are gay, lesbian, and transgender who have records of being murder because of who they are and how they choose to love. and jeff sessions fought against hay crime bill in congress. who tried to fight against gay and lesbian student group trying to get a room in public facility. i is a concern about slihift as

way from -- i call for a lot more action to be done. this muslim ban is an example of him not focusing on the roots of the problem that make us unsafe and not understanding what the enmy is trying to do. he playing into their hands. >> senator from new jersey. thank you for coming on. kelly, thank you for coming on. you talkled to the president. how could you describe his tenure? >> it's a moment that being at the white house i was awaiting for the press secretary to see if there would be an official

comment from the white house, we saw the president tweet and a door open and i took the moment to say hello, and we chatted with him for a few minutes. this was unplanned. he reiterated that he believes this is a issue that will be revolved to his favor at the next step. that very much mirrors the tweet he said about see you in court. he said it's a political decision. he found out just as everyone else did. i asked if he had opportunity it o confer with jeff sessions has been influencer on immigration policy throughout the time of the campaign now will be part of that team in the white house and the administration. he said no, he had not talked to jeff sessions and i asked about

choosing a solicitor general. that job is unfilled at this time. we heard the president earlier in the week critical of the argument going back and forth via conference call. to the president demeanor, he seemed relax, certain this will be resolved his way. i asked if undercut his -- >> no, it's just a ruling, just a decision and he believes they will win. he was willing to do that. and he is projecting kind of confidences about this. i asked what is next. he sha he said he having dinner with

rex tillerson. chris. >> i think he may be lead to believe in the supreme court in the 4-4. we're hearing that is a possibility he could win. may be his calm when collected manner reflects his advise that he is going to win in the supreme court. >> -- strongly that is the power vested only in the president in national security and he stressed that. at the same time we were not getting crafted opinion from it the white house this was interaction where the president was able to give us bummer sticker opinion that it's kind of thing that reflects the style of the president on twitter on what he says when we got a bit of it.

>> joining me is democratic senator connecticut. let me ask you, when you talked supreme court nominee, you talked to him and he spoke about the moralization that the president's words have had on the judiciary. was he talking about -- generalized comment that had nothing to do with you or with gorsuch? >> he was talking about the attacks by president trump on the independence of the judiciary. the series of personal insults that the donald trump directed at the district court judge and the system, and he invited moto make the comments known, it's

all the more important that judge gorsuch promptly and publicly condemn which he has not done and also in light of this ruling clearly the court are resisting this bulliy and they are going to stand strong for the rule of law. >> you have been close to politics for a long time. were you surprise that the supreme court nominee was willing to voice the man who just nominated him and said it's okay to spread the word what i said about the president. >> i have been around politics and courts since may stay for 20 years and before that, the answer is yes, this kind of remark is highly unusual. but i was not surprised because he made the same remark to at

least three of my colleagues two republican ands a fellow democrat and two of them repeated it publicly. i think that he feels that this kind of attack is abhorrent and outrageous. he must do it publicly otherwise he will seem to be ineffect agreeing with the president. he can to the do it behind closed doors in a private meeting, it isn't enough to do that. >> who do you think of senator schumer, he said this is -- they are in co hoots, who do you make of that theory. >> i think that senator schumer is one of the smartest and wisest person i know so it could

make sense. that's the reason why publicly he has to stay this kind of attack is abhorrent, it threats the independence of the judiciary. he has to show his independence right now and he failed to co do and he must do it publicly. so ver clearly, he has chosen this path rather than a more public one and that's inadequate. >> you have beehive activated. >> what you should do is ask senator blumenthal about his vietnam record that did not exist after years of saying it did. ask him about his vietnam record. he misrepresented that just like he misrepresented judge gorsuch. >> he took issue with nur

characterization of what judge gorsuch said. here is spicer. >> the way that senator blumenthal characterized him, that's not what the judge said. he was making two distinct argument. but as a whole he doesn't like attacks in general on the judiciary. it was a disstingt argument. to take what he said about a generalize is exactly what he was intending not to do. >> that was resolved by you years ago. let's talk about the current debate. sean spicer who has to say what the president wants him to say. is saying he is not talking about what trump -- he was

talking generally. you're state is just to clear it up. >> there's no question that judge gorsuch in our conversation was talking about donald trump's attacks on the judiciary. and that's been confirmed by judge gsh gorsuch spokesperson after the speeting yesterday. it could be confirmed by the white house staff who was sitting in the meeting and it was a remark made to at least three of my colleagues in other meetings for this to be a factual question is bizarre. >> you tell me whether i'm wrong or not. i think this is going to make judge gorsuch look better as candidate for the supreme court, much stronger nominee and i think he going to be confirm.

am i wrong. >> you may be wrong. here is the reason. this kind of ineffect am guty, privacy rights and women's health care, he declined to be specific. when i questioned him as well on whether individual rights should be elevated above corporate interests, he declined to answer the question. when i asked him about worker safety and consumer protection, he declined to answer specific questions. i know that nominees are often expected to avoid those questions they could come before the court. here, he is nominee of a president who established a number of clear litmus tests

that make this case unusual. this go around may only deepen the doubt about his nomination. >> in terms of row v. wade, which was established by the court, and the case of citizens united, and rivalry with individuals, good stuff. thank you for your comments. let turn to fine man, you two get heavy weights get to resolve what we have been talking about. he gets to the question which effect all of these court nominee, where do you stand on row v. wade, do you accept woman's right, he didn't want to anticipate the questi answer the question. -- >> i know we're talking about

the ninth circuit decision tonight, but i thought that was news from senator blumenthal. my understanding is that schumer and others thought gorsuch was going around wanting to quoting, ooerg to be quoted. this is really reaching. >> that's not senator schumer. >> relationship of the rule of law of the president and national security. are we welcoming diverse people and do we believe in the rule of law. they say on page 14 of this decision, here, there's no precedent to support the claim

that what the president is do diagno ing here is unreviewable. that runs -- in other presidencies the others have come -- richard nixon thought of defying the courts. at the beginning of this presidency, the basic fundamental concept has been set. i disagree on airy, the ninth circuit put the wood to president trump from beginning to ends. the the right -- the court ruled in favor the states. -- >> the seven states listed go back to what congress said and obama said. but this court ignored all of

that on every account wents against the president who said these were so-called judges. >> law didn't matter. >> i think agree with him because the -- they went after the fact, they ignored the fact it was president obama which signed it with people traveling through them. -- he ignored that shot about -- trump stuck it to him, if you have something wrong with you, he has devil's basketball card on everybody. the senate said, this guy hasn't

convinced us he believes row v wade, we're not going to hocus-pocus about corporations are people like us, and citizens united nonsense. we're not going to go there. >> the fact is that judge doesn't need the votes of democrats to be confirmed. because there's a path to use to confirm him only with republican votes. there are no vine of erosion among republicans. >> you're talking about -- >> mitch mcconnell is ready to use if he needs to. but he said he going to get this guy confirmed. he is in a position to do that. >> do democrats get liberal judges will come marching in. >> we're a long way from that. >> choosing to go in that

direction. i understand what senator blumenthal was saying, i think it's possible that some are going to support him in part because he showed little support of independence against the president. which he has to address. >> who do you think hillary clinton, here her message on her tweet. 3-0. 3 to 0. >> this ninth circuit. that includes washington, oregonor, arizona, hawaii, this is statement by the ninth circuit about the rule of law and diversity. to some extent they are using thing legal read to get there. they are trying to find another circuit to bring up the case to the divided 4-4 presupreme cour.

4-4 means trump wins. >> it's so confident that he can win among a 4-4 court, that means -- >> if the original order was written in a careful way. so it is possible to do this in a way that uses his national security cord and doesn't raise some of these issues. >> he doesn't like this administration's approach to terrorism. he doesn't think it looks at domestic white supremacist terrorism. islam islamic terrorist, no more

looking at alt-right crazy that can blow up the building down there. he ties it in with the -- opens immigrants. he wouldn't touch the bannon thing but bannon amended the alt-right, trump, bannon, and sessions, these guys are not going to go after that group. >> the trump administration gave away the game by saying we are going to favor religious minority in these states, meaning the christians. >> yes. >> that's what they change religion part of this case on. the court is saying they are calling the trump administration

different way from cory booker but to the same degree. >> the only thing they didn't mention in rudy giuliani in this decision. >> there are other courts of appeal they may rule differently. >> it was -- i think thank you, so much. it's great to have you on. let's bring in legal analysts. katy, you first. first of all, talk about the ninth circuit. also, where it goes fm here the president seems confident.

>> that's an important point because you nailed it, it's a liberal night circuit. it was all three judges that agreed. tonight before midnight, the state have to file before injunction. you have going to have an evidentiary hearing. i wonder if he is going to get a subpoena to testify. because the intent is going to be relevant for purpose of judge robart's decision. >> let hear from the other fellow there. >> thank you. i think katy is right. you may hear from rudy giuliani. one of the things i thought was

interesting, the government had argued that you only have to look at the statute and the states are saying you have to bring in what rudy gill any said, and look at what think said. it's telling because that's something that sally yates said when she told her employees that she was no longer going to defend the order. it is because she said if you look beyond the face of this order there's reason to believe it's discriminatory. >> would that have to imemployee th -- imply that the president's purpose is to do harm to -- it could not be that the purpose was protect us from a series of

country which have been singled out because they didn't have vetting procedures to look out for terrorism. how do you jump, obama came back and did it again, i'm going to go with executive order that bans travel until i get it straightened out. it's based about what they think about trump what they think they said before what they think rudy whiserred in his ear. whether the judge can read the mind of anybody. he is politics. he does what will work with is constituency. how would is judge though he wasn't playing a political move but out to screw a particular religion. that's all i'm asking here. >> you don't have to read their

minds, look at what they said. >> that doesn't mean -- trump changes his mind every 15 minutes. >> when you look at what order does it give preference to christians over muslims. >> that's post 120 days in countries regarding refugees. not regarding immigrants of the first 90-day ban. >> but two things, first, the government, something that's odd about the case, the government have affidavit from the director, homeland security director about why this was important, they didn't do any of that. even if they had, the president going to take action to protect national security they have to

be constitutional. so far, that's not -- i. it has to do with prima facie. >> it doesn't say muslim, the countries are not muslim. it's is strong ban isn't it. >> i lost -- back to you, it doesn't include 95% of muslims. >> there's a long history in jurisdiction prudence you don't have to -- just because you don't effect everyone doesn't mean it's not discriminatory. these are 90 to 95% muslims. you can point out, the court today didn't rule on the

religious discrimination aspect -- >> it did include green card orders. thank you for coming on. with me on the phone is the principle in this matter. solicitor general, mr. purcell. where does the case go now? >> chris, it goes back up the federal government. and try it there. or we would love them to do is rip up the executive order and find a way to protect national security without violating the constitution. >> you had serendipity in

your -- the handle to case because it was a 3-0 ruling. you think that would have been the case in other circuit courts? >> the law is on our side. and i think a lieutenant ot of counting -- you have district court judge and three appellate judges, they did a careful and thorough job, we could have won the case with many -- these are not easy questions. but we think the law is on our side and we trust the judiciary to apply the law to facts that we have alleged. >> i love to argue and play

devil's advocate. the question i have, in this rule by the circuit court, they talked about the fact that there's no evidence, the government pointed to evidence named in the countries have perpetrated terrorist acts in the united states. if you go with that, life follows precedent. we were not hit by anybody from egypt until 9/11, if it we had ban before that, maybe history would have been different but you cannot predict nationalality of people who are going to strike us next. how can they say we'll be struck by them again if we never been struck by them before.

i wondering what a court judge knows that informs him or her as to which country is a danger to us? >> they asked over and after again for any evidence to support the type of blanket -- >> that's about what happened in the past not the intelligence we have about what's going on right now that projects into the future. what does precedent have to do with reality? >> they will take evidence and present evidence under seal to a court and the court -- it's important to remember they are not deciding the policy in the first instance, they are assessing whether it's -- they are entitled to present evidence, i'm confident the court would have said, we have

to let this go forward and we'll sort it out later. but they haven't pointed to anything like that. in fact, issued when it was. i haven't had a much time -- >> let me end with three questions about the court ruling by the appellate court. they talk about the due process clause. these are people that -- the main focus of this ban are people who are not in the country, not persons under the constitution, they're people applying at a consulate somewhere to come to visit the united states. why -- >> can i respond to that? >> sure. >> i fundamentally disagree. the way the order was written and the way the administration applied it for the first three to four days was that it applied to green card holders, those are lawful permanent residents. >> they pulled back on that, though. the court's ruling on what was the case and not what is on t case. >> they pulled back on it now but i guess i just disagree with that description of the case because when we filed this case

on monday, a week ago monday, they had not changed their position on that yet and they still haven't. if they want to change the order and make clear in the text of the order that it doesn't apply to those people, this might be a somewhat different case but they still -- the court noted that this letter from the white house counsel supposedly exempting those people, there's no precedent for that being a sort of effective way to change executive order. and beyond that, there's also a -- there's tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of visa holders from affected countries across the country. there's a ton of them at our universities, working in our businesses here in washington and in minnesota providing essential services, teaching classes that no one else can be found to teach. >> but they're here. they're here, though. they did not come from coming here. >> this is on behalf of those people. those people in many instances have lived here for many years, they have families here, often u.s. citizen relatives who are here and they overnight lost the right to travel for work, to travel to visit their families overseas. i mean, those are people who

have -- like i said -- >> i guess we have to get the facts straight because i fund administration is not applying this executive order to people who are green card holders. if they go back and forth they're still allowed to do that. >> they have changed their mind about that for five times now. >> well, okay. i think a court is probably exploiting fairly so the chaos in the strax right now over tad order. noah, thank you. with me now is alan dershowitz from harvard law school. i know you've been watching this debate and i'm trying to learn what i should have learned in law school but i didn't go. let me ask you about this. why would an appellate court talk about policy like this, saying that none of these countries, these seven countries have sent us a terrorist yet. and i wonder why in a courtroom precedent may be everything but it's certainly nothing to do with terrorism. they pop up from all kinds of places, sirhan sirhan came from the west bank or somewhere, from jordan at the time. we don't know where they're

going to come from. muhammad ali came from egypt. how do you rule on the appropriateness of a ban or an executive order when you're saying you can protect -- you can predict the future if you're a judge and presidents can't. >> look, this is not a solid decision. this is a decision that looks like it's based more on policy than on constitutionality. there are many, many flaws, and if i were trump's lawyer i would say, look, here's your situation. you're going to lose the stay application to the supreme court. this stay is going to stay in effect now for many, many weeks and months. you may ultimately win in the supreme court but you've said today that the national security of the united states depends on this order being implemented now so you have only one option, you have to withdraw the order, you have to go back to the drawing board, you have to come up with a new order that will immediately be applicable and won't be able to get a stay from any judge. otherwise you won't be protecting the security of the united states. and the response is well donald trump never admits he's wrong. so here we have a conflict

1944 we passed the war refugee act which specifically was designed to rescue a hundred thousand jews and everybody knew the purpose was to rescue jews, that didn't establish judaism as the state religion of the united states. i think the establishment argument will fail in the supreme court. i think the standing arguments may fail in the supreme court. so they have won a very, very solid preliminary victory. i think they'll win if they taken a argument to the supreme court. by the way, if they're smart, they won't appeal this to the supreme court, they'll wait for a case from another circuit which may come out the other way. then there's a 4-4 split in the supreme court it goes in favor of the trump administration rather than against them which the ninth circuit opinion is likely to do. but i don't think logic is prevailing in the white house or in the justice department these days. they're not getting good legal advice. they're not following subtle sophisticated legal proceedings, they're just trying to win and winning may end up losing in the end if, in fact, this is a risk

to american national security. he needs to get a new order in place now. >> thank you so much, alan dershowitz, who says it's possible we'll see a reversal of fortune here. here's what the counselor to the president kellyanne conway just said about today's ruling. >> we have an excellent case when it comes to the actual merits and the merits were not litigated and the merits were not decided upon today. >> i'm joined by margaret carlson of the daily 's be and jennifer rubin of the "washington post." we don't have much time. my interview is mixed because i like presidents to be strong, even think one, we're worse off with a weaker president. i think the courts have gotten into somebody else's marmalade here, you start talking about policy and which countries to target and not target, these judges don't have kpe tones do that. they may have a legal right to move that. margaret? >> but a strong president has a road map of how to write a new executive order. i have agree with the professor. i went to law school -- >> i know you did, georgetown. but did you see this ruling, how

wide it is? they basically said it these do with due process and everybody who's a person and they didn't even ask about people in some consulate, they said everybody involved is a person and you can't do it. >> this rule is as wide as the executive order was wide. if it's narrowed and written more carefully and there's some supporting documentation, tell us why the extreme vetting that -- >> you think trump can win the ninth circuit with any piece of paper that goes by them? >> leave that out. i'm saying going forward he doesn't want the stay, he wants to say oh now i have my team. i'm going to write a new order. >> well, he's got jeff sessions to help him now. >> it was a unanimous decision on this san francisco-based court that the republicans are now attacking that the white house is now attacking, the george w. bush appointed judge did not dissent on this. he was part of that opinion. and so i think that makes it harder to undercut. >> you're with hillary on this that says 3-0? >> you can't be a strong president just with bluster. you have to be competent as well. you can't just undo your executive order because you get

a memo from the white house counsel. >> what did you think of the court ruling that these weren't seven countries that we should worry about because they haven't attacked us yet. >> well, i don't know why the court -- >> why would they do that? >> i think they said they have a right to consider the statements donald trump and his associates made about why that order was put together. >> jennifer, i can hear you chuck issing ing or whatever. i think the chucjudges got into poll i. >> i think this is bad lawyering in the united states. you should look at the justice department. they made mistake after mistake. they included green card holders, never should have done that. when they modified it, the president didn't modify it, the white house counsel wrote some little memo which the court broke down. when they had the opportunity to present evidence of irreparable harm and that's where those seven countries come in, by the way, we can talk about that in a minute, they didn't do it. this is atrocious lawyering and either that was done because they were not the loop with the white house, because it was rushed or for whatever other

reason. redrafting it would not only give them an opportunity to narrow the order but give them an opportunity to get better lawyering here. the reason they went into those seven countries was not just because of an abstract policy issue. that was because they had to make an analysis of irreparable harm. what the government didn't do is show that they would be irreparably harmed. the court practically pleaded with them, give us something, tell us something. and all they had were these seven countries that they knew had not had terrorist attacks but they pleaded with the government, give us more. they didn't. that was another straw. >> this was september 1, 2011, they could have said egypt and saudi arabia, they haven't attacked us yet, therefore what right have you got to ban people from coming there? had they banned them from coming there at that time it might have been critical. so i don't think judges can predict the future. >> maybe they should have put saudi arabia on this list. >> well, that's -- there's the judge -- a judge can say that and you can say that and i can say that but the president gets to say it. that's the question because he has to -- or she if we have one has to protect the country. >> but they're not talking about

executive power. >> i don't like weak presidents. i don't think anybody gains from a weak president. >> he promised he's going to come to washington and shock the system. this is an example of you don't just do it by coming here and doing whatever you want. >> do you think bannon want this is chaos? >> i think he sees a way in which it's helpful. >> you're an expert on bannon. >> i don't think they want it but they see a way to attack the judiciary, attack the media. >> i think he's saying yes. >> he's at home with chaos. >> the alt-right likes it. margaret carlson, eli, i'm impressed with your writing about bannon and what he's up to. jennifer, you're something. thanks so much for coming on. that's "hardball," thanks for being with us. we'll have continuing coverage throughout the evening on msnbc. we're into this one. fall this with chris hayes, appropriately titled tonight starts right now. good evening from chicago, i'm chris hayes. we were, of course, meant to air a town hall tonight exploring the challenges facing this city, we taped that town hall earlier today. it will now air tomorrow in this

hour. the reason is that because tonight we have big, big breaking news. a unanimous ruling by a federal appeals court against president donald trump's travel ban. the trump administration asked the ninth circuit court of appeals to overturn a temporary restraining order on the ban put in place by a lower court las