suggests that the president asked giuliani to help him write a ban that would be constitutional. i think they will lose on that. i think this decision is way, way over broad, but if it goes to the supreme court from the ninth circuit and gets affirmed 4-4, the president loses. if it comes from the first circuit or some other circuit where the lower court rules in favor of the president then the same 4-4 vote he wins. so i think he has to start thinking of options other than the obvious option of simply appealing this stay to the supreme court where i think they would lose. >> all right. we'll continue the conversation after a quick break. much more to get to over the next hour including the latest reaction from the white house and the washington sit attorney general that brought the case and the lawyer that successfully argued it. we'll be right back. with t-mobile one, taxes and fees are now included! get 4 lines of unlimited lte data for 40 bucks each. that's right - all unlimited. all in! and now, for a limited time save more than you pay in taxes on all smartphones. so switch

giuliani, do you deny those statements were made? >> judge, no. i would note that judge robart himself said that he wasn't going to look at campaign statements. >> eric: president trump thinks the courts need to stop playing politics. >> i don't want to call that biased, so i won't. we haven't had to decision yet, but courts seem to be so political. and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right. that has to do with the security of our country which is so important. >> eric: we will do politics and a second bite hearing the back and forth between the department of justice lawyer and the appellate court judges, any indication on what they may be thinking? >> kimberly: i agree with many of the legal experts. i said this last night on o'reilly that this line of questioning was inappropriate. they are supposed to examine the executive order. they were bringing up inappropriate lines of questioning by saying things like well, rudy giuliani called at this. and president trump said this. irre

giuliani said he wanted a muslim band and asked how he can do a muslim ban, but not call it a muslim ban. judge ordered the trump administration to stop blocking travelers trying to reach the u.s., delivering the latest and largest blow to the extreme vetting process. the judge issued a restraining order saying american officials cannot block entry to anyone with a valid immigrant visa. muchsay it was unclear how teeth this ruling had because the state department initially revoked visas in the wake of the executive order on friday. rep. cohen: was that the new york judge they are quoting? arrat junior's ruling. christie saidris it was a terrible ruling. done and they could have waited until they had input from general mattis, secretary mattis and secretary kelly, just like what happened .esterday with flynn i don't know that tillerson was involved, the call from australian. where was tillerson with mexico and australia? couldn't he have waited until they had a team together? to have. a good thing you can benefit from having advisors. host: this is the los angeles federal judge that o

the grain of what america is all about, which is it embodies a religious test, that is how rudy giuliani set it up and that is how president trump talk about it, and it doesn't focus on the areas that need to make us safe. three judges on the panel said they showed no evidence our safety is at risk from -- rather they have shown no evidence that this executive order would make us safer. >> dickerson: rudy giuliani i think he said he was moving away from a religious test but let me move on to just working with donald trump in general. the majority -- the democratic leader in the house nancy pelosi said as long it is a president continues down this path, she innocent with the various policies he is promoting there is, there is nothing democrats can work with him on. is that your view too? that is submit nothing, can't work with him on anything? >> let me say this, we will be guided by our values. our values guide us, we are in the going say no to president trump on things we might totally free with, easy example. he calls for closing the carried interest loophole, something democrats have

it's damning to the administration that have that statement by rudy giuliani. i have been on a number of cases and it's rare to have a smoking gun and you have to infer intent. here you have an explicit statement that confirms that they tried to make or transform an act about territories. that will not bode well. >> maybe they were trying to turn an unconstitutional thing into constitutional. that is credible and praise worthy. you want to turn something unconstitutional into constitutional. you focus on danger and terror instead of religion. >> it sounds like you are renameing it to make it legal. that's what it sounds like to me. anyway. where do we go from her in. >> there is a couple of potential options. they can go back to the drawing board with the executive order. the department of justice could appeal to them which means 11 out of the court judges in the ninth circuit would look at the case and the department of justice would hope for a favorable out come for their side and there could be an appeal to the supreme court. there have been analysts saying

everything that steve bannon pursued was a muslim ban, rudy giuliani called it correctly and it's not rooted in the facts of national security. the individuals from the seven countries have not conducted fatal attacks inside the united

giuliani subsequently said he did not give any information directly from act did agents. generally as a matter, if they give information dissemination on the end those people transfer it, that's just bad. if you learn the information about the fbi's investigation was leaked to former fbi agents who can potentially funnel it to others, i assume you would need to equip those former fbi agents as well. do you have the authority to interview individuals outside the government if you did not to be necessary. and can you assure us that their review of these allegations and partake other will follow the facts wherever they lead? >> on the latter i can do it sure you will be a thorough review. on the former, we do not have the authority to compel individuals who are no longer justice department employees to speak with us. we hope to have that authority. the ig empowered to enact that the chair, the ranking member of this committee supported had that authority and got removed at the last minute but the justice department on the senate side in the final version did not include that

maybe rudy giuliani is a secret member for the aclu for all the help he's doing for their cause. another of the judges pressed trump's lawyers on whether they denied giuliani's statements. >> either those statements were made but they're not but if they were made to not be a serious policy statement -- >> trump's lawyer backed down in his answer. >> well, those are in the record. >> the record is of course the foundation for arguments in this case. the judges are basically pushing trump's lawyers to accept the reality that one of their own advisers, a former prosecutor, said this all grew out of a muslim ban. now, on the other hand, to be fair, the white house has stressed giuliani went rogue and they say the order isn't a muslim ban. then the hearing moved from the government's legal powers to its powers of reasoning. this is where the legal and political debate meet because we're going to hear a lot about why president trump picked those seven countries to ban. tonight a lower court judge citing that in court when trump's d.o.j. lawyers couldn't justify the threat of immigrants

everything that steve bannon pursued was a muslim ban, rudy giuliani called it correctly and it's not rooted in the facts of national security. the individuals from the seven countries have not conducted fatal attacks inside the united states while others from countries that were not included have been involved in terrorist attacks, fatal terrorist attacks inside the united states. so it's not rooted in the facts and it has a discriminatory element. it flows right out of the campaign. it's a pretty clear picture. >> i want to play you a little of the homeland security secretary john kelly today testifying before congress about what in his view he should have done differently regarding his executive order. take a listen. >> in retrospect i should have -- this is all on me, by the way -- i should have delayed it just a bit so that i could talk to members of congress, particularly the leadership of committees like this to prepare them for what was coming. >> senator, do you buy that, that the fault lies with homeland security secretary kelly? >> well, no, he came into this picture a long

whatever rudy giuliani said during the campaign. how can anyone take any of that seriously when there was an executive order going through the court of law. you don't know what was in donald trump's head or rudiey giuliani's head. they came up with an order that was completely lawful. charles: they are saying in their opinion the president had a plus limit ban in mind. we know that will carry the day. i'm not sure what the next move is going to be. but this look like the biggest obstacle. the public intent, the likelihood that they say this order wouldn't have success if it went through the judicial food chain. i think this muslim ban part will be the story. >> the problem is that this whole thing is written based on the due process clause of the constitution rather than analyzing the finer point of the different parts of the immigration law it's actually pretty complicated. intent does matter to a certain extent, if there is a pretext that's not clear that the president's assertion doesn't pass the smell test, a court could go agai

giuliani, you deny those statements were made? >> the judge, i would note that the judge himself said that he wasn't going to look at campaign statements. >> that is a different point. i understand the argument they shouldn't be given much wait. but when you say, we are all on the fast track here. both sides have told us this is moving too fast. either, those kinds of statements were made or they were not. if they were made but they were made not to be a serious policy principle, i can understand that. but if they were made, it is potential evidence, a basis for an argument. i just want to make sure i know what is on the table. >> those are in the record. i think my point is a little narrower. in the expedited procedure of a tro, taking this extraordinary action of halting this order, that the president determined was in the national security interest of the united states, is an unwise course. it should be stated. >> if you thought there was a problem, it was too preliminary, if we let this go forward too preliminary injunction he

. >> rude giuliani back in 2001, before the 911 attacks who didn't necessarily say we love sanctuary cities but advocate for taking it easy. obviously times have changed since 2001, but supporters of sanctuary cities were floating that around saying hey, giuliani was for it but that was 16 years ago. >>> the annual conservative political action conference or cpac gets underway, this is what we saw last year at cpac. it's always a big gathering, tomorrow secretary of education, betsy devos, reince priebus and steve strategist steve bannon expected to speak. president trump will speak friday. >>> is live at the national harbor, getting ready for the conference. >> reporter: it's an interesting vibe. shawn and jim. you flashback to 201 they held a presidential straw poll at cpac. if you remember, donald trump didn't come in first, secondly. he came in third behind ted cruz and marco rubio. so in a lot of ways, this is an organization still coming to terms with donald trump. we have people here last year that were insisting to -- when all was said and done, ted cruz was going to be the r

in things that went on in the administration and things failed to do. >> another error from rudy giuliani, he had one in the campaign as well. alan to you, talking about whether it's political or not. trump claims the decision is political but have to point out unanimous decision, from three judges, carter, bush and obama appointee. is this ruling based on politics do you think? >> i don't think so. i don't think it's a particularly strong ruling. court went out of its way to get to the merits and presented a relatively weak argument on the merits but trump administration has been outlawyered in every court and done a terrible job presenting their case legally. now they have several options. appeal to the supreme court, probably the stay will be denied. go to end bank and probably denied. best option is either to withdraw this flawed executive order and substitute a new one worked on by new attorney general to satisfy constitutional muster. >> or leave it. >> bring in a new one and start in a different circuit. if affirmed by 4-4, it's more likely a victory. but i don't think going to do

this was under giuliani. and it took a little while but by the late 90s they were full. and they were full in part again, because of this grassroots thing happening in williamsburg and nearby creative communities where you had lots of young people who were interested in going into the maker business as theycall it . so it was a synergy in cases like that. there has been as many of you probably know some zoning drama in brooklyn, particularly in williamsburg which i'll describe in a bit. one of the problems that brooklyn faces but i think is true for all of new york city and in fact cities around the country that are similarly crowded is that the zoning makes it impossible to really expand and create more opportunities for more people. there are a lot of people would like to come to new york and its going to be very difficult to do that with the prices that they are having as high as they are. >> right here in the front, will work our way. >> i'm with the dustin city journal, great speech. i've always thought that brooklyn was much better off and i wonder when you talk ab

rudy giuliani said he was tasked with finding a legal mechanism to put into effect a muslim ban.i'm not making this up. he said it. >> just read the executive order. it has nothing to do with religion. >> but the intent of the order is going to wind up becoming part and parcel of the litigation. i'm sure you want nothing to do with that. to your own point, if the ob techive here is to stop the places where the threat comes from, why aren't any of the countries that had ownership on some level of what happened here on 9/11 included? >> well, because terrorism is not an issue that stands still. these are not threat groups carved in time. the islamic state did not create their new caliphate in saudi arabia, they didn't create the caliphate outside the countries that we listed. this is really important. we are 16 years down the line. it's not about what happened 15 years ago. it's about where baghdadi is creating his new proto empire and where that threat is going to go next when we hit harder in places like mosul. it's about trying to prevent what's going to happen next and about wh

could it be if you followed a pattern of his behavior, not what he said, what rudy giuliani said, what he said before, follow how trump works. it's what will work. that's what he does. could it be he's doing this to get through the night? going to do some kind of ban, my people up in erie, pennsylvania, youngstown, ohio, were counting on him to do something, so i'm going to do something. of course i'm not just worried about those seven countries. the guys who attacked us on 99 /11, egypt with the brains and the thug s came from saudi arabia. it could be it's just another day in politics for donald trump and how do you know that's not true or the other is strew ortr doesn't like muslims? how do you discreetly think through all that and come out and say i'm a judge, i'm going to tell you what he was thinking. i don't know the answer to that, do you? how do you know what anybody elis thinking? >> i can't read the president's mind. what i can cite is the things he said publicly which it provides a shocking amount of evidence really right off the bat of how this was intended. and our argume

amy: i want to go to rudolph giuliani. he was speaking on fox when he made this comment. >> i will tell you the whole history. when he first announced it, he said muslim ban. he said, put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally. i put a commission together with judgment casey, congressman mccall, pete king, a whole group of other expert lawyers on this post up what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. the areas of the world that create danger for us. which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. perfectly legal. perfectly sensible. that is what the ban is based on. it is not based on religion. it is based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country. amy: this is december 2015, not a surrogate for donald trump, but donald trump himself calling for a total and complete shutdown of the entry of muslims to the united states. pres. trump: donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united st

>> then you should ask mayor giuliani. that's his opinion. >> reporter: the administration is still pushing back on the notion it botched the rollout of the executive order which led to chaos at airports across the country. >> we knew it was coming. it wasn't a surprise. then we implemented it. >> reporter: paul ryan criticized the execution of the order but not the policy itself. >> i think it's regrettable there was some confusion on the rollout of this. no one wanted to see people with green cards or special immigrant visas like translators get caught up in all of this. >> reporter: the white house is stand big the firing of acting attorney general sally yates who balked at carrying out the executive order, saying she betrayed the department of justice refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the united states. we're hearing from sources on capitol hill that will secretary of homeland security jon kelly did meet this evening with the chairman of the homeland security committee over in the ho

giuliani said, what mr. trump said. i mean, rudy essentially gave up the game, said i want to ban muslims but i want to have some sort of legal hook. the other problem is they're saying that day want to do this based on danger. the seven countries that they just dropped the 90-day ban on which is causing real harm to real people, there are families who can't visit sick loved ones and get medical care and things like that. those countrieses are not countries that have sent one terrorist to the united states that has carried out a terrorist attack on u.s. soil. there are oather countries that have but they're not on the pli list. the argument this is about danger and location doesn't stand up. >>> i'm milissa rehberger in new york. moments ago vice president mike pence swore in former exxonmobil ceo rex tillerson as the next secretary of state and president trump was on hand for the swearing in. take a look. >> welcome to the white house. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> thank you very much, mi

rudyhe advisor to trump giuliani saying trump asked him to craft a muslim ban.ly promised he would enact a muslim ban and asked rudy giuliani to come up with a muslim ban. that could be part of the next court case if there is indeed another order to follow. she actually seemed relatively optimistic that we land in florida -- she said maybe he is listening. it would be significant surprising -- >> she is a much more positive person that i am. i think that shows he is not listening to protesters. it is notable that he is going to try to do another round in court. there is a segment of the white house who really likes of this argument. they preferred that there are protesters out there. they preferred there is a fight. they take on the media and the white house press corps by saying completely untrue facts and i think some of the people like the battle with the press because they want to say to their core supporters, see, the press is always against us. they want to point out that they ,re fighting against the people so they are getting the fight that they want. ca

you deny that the statements attributed to then candidate advisorsmost recently inal giuliani? do deny those statements were made? >> i would note that judge robart himself said that he wasn't going to look at campaign statements. liz: judge robart said he's not going to rely on campaign statements or statement made by rudy giuliani about a muslim ban. the executive order doesn't use those words. that's what the justice department is organizing. governor mike huckabee, president trump said he did not want to call the court bias. he was talking to law enforcement officials. but he did say the court seems political. do you agree with that assessment? >> absolutely. he's dead on. they have one job and that's to determine whether the president has the legal and constitutional authority to do what they have did. they have no business getting into whether they agree with it or not. that's not their job. their joins not to issue policy declarations. their job is not to he central wait if they like the president's policies or implementation. there is only one issue before them. dose ha

this is nbc, the same network that sliced the rudy giuliani quote in half where he said trump wantedk into a ban and he said we made an explicit attempt that this is not about religion, it's about dangerous countries. they cut the whole second half of the quote out to make it look like rudy giuliani was proposing a muslim ban. spicer has to stand there at the podium and say all these hundreds of thousands of people are coming in from populist muslim majority countries. liz: let's go through it again it's important for the viewer to hear it. 2002. 5 dozen, 6 dozen democrats said yes to a visa ban after the 9/11 attacks. 2013, hillary clinton said she is worried about jihadis. 2015, as you point out, the 7 terror hotpots were identified and enacted into law to stop the flow out of that. the democrats and chuck schumer after the paris attack said maybe we should pause refugees. the democrats are for it. >> they asked the democrats yesterday about obama being for it, and they said we liked obama. they say they trusted obama. he's cosmopolitan. he went to cairo and talked about the holy q

>> brian: i was shocked that rudy giuliani would actually sway a court. i don't think you should look at campaign rhetoric and have that play a role, but you have to wonder if you have a jimmy carter judge, you have a george bush judge and a barack obama judge, those are the ones that put them there. on a telephone, we're doing those question markets 1966? you hear some of the questions, you can definitely see a point of view in the questions. you can hear it when we do this every day. i'm not used to hearing that from a judge. >> meghan: harris, one of the things that surprised me was general kelly wasn't saying the rollout wasn't as good as it could have been. it is there anyway to put the genie back in the bottle? >> harris: i think there's comfort in that because somebody stepped up and took accountability for something that there wasn't so much video of, no matter what you look at, you knew there was something going on at the airports. sunday night, this was something that piqued my interest this week. as we have a storm coming on the east coast, i'm

. >> you can ask me or ask rudy giuliani. this as a muslim ban. it is a interference with our religion -- and violation of people's rights. the court focused on the president trump administration what the court have done is call him out. you're making this up. you have offered not a scintilla of evidence to show this. we have had experts come forward and offer submission to the court say the executive order undermines hurts our national security. >> that's and policy argument. >> it's a policy argument. >> here is the court's saying something that stopped. nobody in the seven country have hit us therefore is -- we were hit on 9/11 by an egyptian leading from. saudi arabia somebody has to make that decision. >> that's exactly the kind of power he wanted in the president and that our constitution and the laws deposit with the the president. this suspect just donald trump's judgment. he relied upon obama's -- attoey's that this is just muslim ban is flatly discredited and -- their conclusion about the most dangerous places in the world -- >> i have t

caroline: the former mayor of new york, rudy giuliani, expertise, do you think? the management and leadership insights of how you bring industry and government together, and that is an important part of this. when you look at folks like rudy giuliani say what does he bring to the table, he can be one of the people who healthspring industry and government together , and that is as important as bringing in technical folks like myself and others to talk about the actual problem. caroline: let's talk about russia and all of this comes on the back of revelations that russia was behind cyber attacks in the run-up to the election. are you about relationships with the trump administration and russia as other seem to be? >> i take a slightly different and probably unique view, but here is mine. when a new president comes into august, one of the things we ought to do is say, is there a way we can work with other nations? and if so, how do we do that? what is the right relationship the united states should have with russia, china, and others? and can we do this in the peace

this was under giuliani and is took awhile by bit the late '90s they were full in part because of this grassroots thing happening in williamsburg, and nearby creative communities, where you had lots of young people who were interested in going into the maker business that's call it. so it was a synergy in cases like that. there has been as many of you probably know, some zoning drama in brooklyn, particularly in williamsburg, which i describe a bit. the -- one of the problems that the brooklyn faces -- i think this is true for all of new york city and in fact for cities around the country that are similarly crowded -- is that the zoning makes it impossible to really expand and create more opportunities for more people. look, there are a lot of people who would like to come to new york, and it's very difficult -- going to be very difficult to do that with the prices that -- for housing as high as they are. >> right here in front. we'll work our way around. >> i work for the new york city journal. a great speech. i've always thought and have argued that brooklyn would have been better of

you do have a lot of hawks like giuliani and steve bannon who is trying to drive policy and they may see the dangers of a war. you have netanyahu to visit washington and see trump and he has been militating for a long time to get military action against iran. but there's no way that israel can attack iran, they won't start a war america is force today try to win. >> thank you for your input. >>> tension building at town hall across the country. why constituents are lashing out at members of congress. >> working hard to protest, to stand up to fight for freedoms and immigrants, neighbors, our laws, democracy, when we wl keep fighting and fighting and fighting. >>> a look at what's behind the frustration next. dear predictable, there's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced, our senses awake, our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say: if you love something... set it free. see you around, giulia ♪ ♪ king arthur: ready! washington: charge! empress wu: charge! (in chinese) king arthur: charg

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 th

they want to discuss political statements made by mayor giuliani?hat does not happen in a court of law, nor should it ever. >> sean: really well said, i'm not expecting the ninth circuit which we know is radically left, they went judge shopping on purpose to come back for the administration but i would expect the supreme court and justice kennedy to do the right thing. b coming up, we have more reaction to the legal battle over troop president trump's temporarye travel ban, senior advisor to the president stephen miller, he's next with the reaction. humming up tonight. >> the fact that he is wrapping his arms around putin while putin is continuing to advanceat into korea >> sean: congresswoman maxine waters while trying to attack president trump says putin is invading korea, nancy pelosi doesn't even know who the president is, the leftist truly unhinged, will get reaction from charlie heard on this busy newsnight. charlie heard on this busy newsnight. >> the president is acting 100% lawfully to keep people out of this country from seven countries th

giuliani confirmed this information and openly break about it. he stated, "did i hear about it? you're darn right i heard about it." speakrstand you cannot to the specifics of your ongoing work, but i want to ask some basis questions about the reviews parameters. a, there is a review taking place. mr. horowitz: that is correct. we announced it on january 12. >> thank you. confirm this review includes the allegations the department of justice or the fbi personnel provided information directly or indirectly to outside sources? mr. horowitz: our announcement did say that we would look at fbiallegations that an employees and department and poise improperly disclosed nonpublic information. and we will further define the scope of that. as we now go forward and look at the issues >> thank you. now, mr. giuliani has subsequently said he did not get any information directly from active agents, but obviously, as if activematter, agents give information to someone who should not have it and both people transfer, it is just as bad. if you learn the information about the fbi's investigation

giuliani, do you deny those statements were made? >> judge clifton, no. i would note that judge robart himself said that he wasn't going to look at campaign statements. i do -- and i think -- >> that's a different point. i understand the argument they shouldn't be given much weight, but when you say we shouldn't be looking at newspaper articles, we're all in the fast track here. both sides have told us it's moving too fast. either those kind of statements were made or not. if they were made but not to be a serious policy principle, i understand that. but if it were made, it is potential evidence and a basis for argument. it want to make sure i know what's on the table. >> those were in the record but i think my point is narrower that in the expedited procedure of a tro, taking this extraordinary action of halting this order that the president determined was in the national security interest of the united states is an unwise course and it should be stayed. >> if you thought there was a problem this is too preliminary, if we let it go forward to preliminary

i think what we're looking at is what giuliani and i worked on, and that's sort of a more high vetting to high threat areas. i think from a policy standpoint, most people would agree we need to have better vetting. we don't do that right now. we didn't look at the social media of the widow from pakistan. we had warnings of the father and the new york bomber about his being a terrorist, and yet that wasn't factored in overseas when he was let back into the country. so, look, there are two sides to the story, and i'll err on the side of protecting the american people. maria: let me ask you, congressman, about your trip because you along with house speaker paul ryan and that delegation of house lawmakers went to the southern border and toured the rio grande valley to observe border security operations. we've got some pictures of you at border. tell us what you saw. >> well, we flew by blackhawk and horses on the ground and patrol boats in the river, and we saw, you know, how open, wide open the rio grande valley sector is in my home state where most of the illegal crossings take place. mo

calling it a muslim ban, of donald trump making the campaign speeches about a muslim ban, of rudy giulianierring to it that way, so all of that history will still be brought in. and there was one key finding in the court ruling in the ninth circuit where they found that the states did have standing. ordinarily when you go forward with a court case, that's a big hurdle to get through. >> the standings in the state court. >> right, the right to bring this to the states. they have already cleared that. the ninth circuit already said they are likely to succeed on the merits. so, for donald trump and his doj, which is grossly understaffed, they're facing a very uphill climb at this point. >> mara, that touches on and goes back to the segment i just had with congressman jefferies, because even if they said let's do the executive action, even if they word it in a way that does not in any way implicate that they're talking about a muslim ban -- if, in fact, that is how it is executed from the justice department with the new attorney general, the language could be one thing and the execution could

rudy giuliani and others who were involved in this were calling it a muslim ban. that's the other thing that makes it difficult for trump to square is his past rhetoric and the way that he has referred to this executive order. >> that was part of the interesting legal argument because the government was arguing that so-called legislative intent -- congress passes laws, and they go back to the debate on the senate floor. the debate in the committee. what was the legislative intent of this? what the government was saying here was you can't -- the candidate intent because candidates routinely throw their promises out the window. you can't go back to pre-inauguration, but the court here clearly was saying and some of the things rudy giuliani said were in the transition and after. let's just remind people, this was during the campaign. the administration says this is not a muslim ban, but the court considered statements, including this. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until we figure out what the hel