welcome back. three federal judges on the 9th circuit court expected to rule as early as today on president trump s refugee and travel ban. during a 60-minute phone hearing last night, the judges sparred with attorneys on both sides, government lawyers trying to make the argument that the president has blanket authority in cases of national security and should not be impeded by the courts on this. that urged pushback from the judges. district court s decision overrides the president s national security judgment about the level of risk. and we ve been talking about the level of risk that is acceptable. as soon as we re having that discussion, it should be acknowledged that the president is the official that is charged with making those judgments. talk briefly so, are you arguing them, the president s decision in that
the ban. who gets hurt most? is the government hurt the most by keeping the stay in effect that stops them from enforcing the travel restrictions, or are the states hurt more by keeping the ruling in place? that s the immediate question before the court but as you heard, craig, they got into a lot of other questions that touch on it, such as did the president act legally, did he act under the constitution? is this a discrimination against muslims. bottom line the question is, is this temporary stay on enforc g enforcing whether it s legal and constitutional. pete it also seemed as if, one of the judges was especially interested in some of the things that the president has said, and some of the things that his surrogate has, some of his surrogates have said as well on the campaign trail. right that, goes to the question whether it s
agree to upholdhenjunction on his immigration and travel ban. take it from him, he said, he s a smart man. it s as plain as you can have it. i didn t and i was a good student. i understand things. i comprehend very well, okay? better than i think almost anybody. for more let s go to kristen welker now. let s talk more about what the president said in front of that group of police officers, kristen. reporter: craig, he had very sharp language for this judicial process, and frankly, for the judges who were currently weighing his travel ban. he said that he doesn t want to accuse the judges of being biased, but then he suggested that a ruling against him is political. take a listen. i don t ever want to call a court biased so i won t call it biased, and we haven t had a decision yet.
night in amazement and i heard things that i couldn t believe. not clear precisely what things he couldn t believe there, matt, but in general what do we make of the president being so openly critical of a court that s hearing a case regarding one of his key issues? it is so inappropriate lp . t let s be fair. it is within the bounds of the president s responsibilities if he wants to criticize a court s decision or if he wants to say what he thinks the court ought to do, that s perfectly well and reasonable. i think there are lawyers that would say that goes counter to his interest and won t help his case but i don t think anyone would argue he doesn t have the right to do that. but where he has crossed the line and not just once but repeatedly, going back over the weekend in tweets, is trying to delegitimize the court, trying to say the so-called judge and trying to question the role of the judiciary in our government, and then to repeatedly attack these judges as recently as a
3-0 or 2-vot1 vote. the bottom line a decision has probably been made. we don t know what it is. pete williams we ll let you get back to looking at the that website i guess that s how we ll find out when it s posted. former spokesman for eric holder former director of the office of affairs for the department of justice. always good to have you matt. president trump this morning really tore into the court action on his travel ban. this is just part of what he said before that group of law enforcement leaders. if these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they d do what they should be doing. i mean, it s so sad. when you read something so perfectly written and so clear to anybody, and then you have lawyers and you watched last