LISA KENNEDY MONTGOMERY (CO-HOST): What about the judgein Hawaii who took such umbrance with some of President Trump's campaign language?
ANDREW NAPOLITANO: That is a great question. Both judges, the one in Maryland and the one in Hawaii did not challenge his use of authority under a statute. They challenged his motivation. Both of them said, I'm going to use their phrase, "This is a Muslim ban. It is not based on national security, it's based on religion.” Even if that is true, that is the appellate courts uphold that, that raises the bar so high that it would be nearly impossible for the government to jump over it. And in order to come to the characterization, they didn’t say anything that Donald Trump said as President Trump. They took his words and candidly, some of his supporters when he was candidate Trump. Something I’ve never seen the courts do to a president before.
MARIE HARF (CO-HOST): It just shows that his words really do matter. And everyone says it is Trump being Trump. Turns out it has consequences. And he's seen that now.
NAPOLITANO: He does see it now, but it is exquisitely unfair, I think, to impose the words of candidate Trump, candidate Harf, whoever it might be, on President Trump or office holder Harf, because you say things in the pit and fire of the campaign that you don't necessarily mean when you're in office.
