Giuliani: Trump Told Me He Wanted A “Muslim Ban”

rudy_giuliani_by_gage_skidmoreThe Trump Administration has maintained that the new executive order on refugees is not a Muslim ban.  It is a compelling argument given the fact that only seven Muslim countries are singled out.  Yet, Administration lawyers will have to deal with countervailing statements from President Trump that he wants to give preference to Christians as refugees.  Now Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), a close confidant to President Trump, may have magnified the problems with an interview where he discusses how President Trump asked him to craft “Muslim ban.” 

Guiliani told Fox News that Trump told him that he wanted to enact a “Muslim ban” and turned to him to help: “When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban. He called me up and said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’”

Giuliani formed a “commission” of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) and others.  Guiliani said that they decided that the legal way was to “focus[]] 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, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

The interview is yet another headaches for Administration officials and an unexpected boon for challengers of the law.  Here is Guiliani publicly stating that Trump really did want a Muslim ban when he asked for the order to be legally drafted.  Usually confidants of  a president studiously avoided disclosing such communications, particularly when it clearly undermines the legal position of the president.  

In fairness to Guiliani, he was trying to explain that, despite the initial reference to a Muslim ban, the commission chose to focus not on the dominant religion but the inherent danger of certain counties.   However, he has giving an added source for the alleged motivation behind the order for those who say that the order is little more than thinly veiled religious ban,

In the end, neither the Trump nor Guiliani comments should be determinative in the analysis of the ACLU challenge.  The Court will analyze the order according to the justification advanced by the Administration as it did in 1972 in Kleindienst v. Mandel. In that case, the Court voted 6-3 to uphold a refusal to allow a marxist Belgian scholar to enter the U.S. to give a series of lectures. It was an abusive and wrong decision by the Administration in my view but the Court did not get into the wisdom but the constitutionality of the decision.  While the court affirmed that it could review such decisions, it also held that it was enough that the government based the decision to exclude Mandel on  reasons that were “facially legitimate and bona fide.”

Thus, the public statements will likely be cited by the challengers but the standard remains highly forgiving to the President and his executive order.

119 thoughts on “Giuliani: Trump Told Me He Wanted A “Muslim Ban””

  1. Is the term “WOP”, which was used to describe Italians a few years back, a slur? I learned that it means people With Out Papers. With Out Papers means no visa or paperwork allow entry or stay in the country. I heard some guy on the web here call Giuliani a WOP. I think he was born here.

  2. I hope every last bit of the Democrats and Chuck Schumer’s playbook to stall approval of Trump’s nominees and block all of Trump’s initiatives backfires on them spectacularly in 2018. The Democrats are the party of “flailing” idocy and denial….still. To prove their stupidity, the Democrats will put Keith Ellison as head of DNC. Just watch.

  3. The war on terror is now purely for the purpose of draining the public purse as well as any remaining civil rights by absurd military and security spending and fear mongering that has about as much basis in protecting anyone from terrorists as the Iraq war had in protecting anyone from weapons of mass destruction.

    The give away paid for by the American citizens from their hard earned taxes will not only enrich the MIC, it will ensure Austerity in the USA, it will help enormously in arguing for cuts to SS and medicare (we just can’t afford to keep our CONTRACTS with citizens when we need perpetual war and boarder security to keep you safe from a 1 in 20 million chance of being hurt by terrorist) and both Obama and Trump will be handsomely rewarded in all manner of lucrative ways.

      1. I have observed that Obama is ex., but that’s when the rewards start rolling in (somewhat the point of the sentence you refer to). He is going to enjoy the same speaker fees that H Clinton does, or close. He is going to set up his own “foundation” that foreign countries, giant transnational corporations can donnate to. Hell Goldman Sachs alone must owe him upwards of a 35 million – pocket change by comparison to what he had funneled into their coffers by his bail out policies when President.

        Trump will probably get his in many different ways. In his case, it looks like he thinks the fig leaf of waiting till after his tenure is for suckers.

    1. Ah yes the overtly antisemitic muslims are the new Jews caper. The double irony was lost on you.

  4. Hmmm. This is interesting!

    The Gateway Pundit reported last week that Linda Sarsour who was one of the leaders of the ‘Women’s March’ is pro-Sharia law with ties to Hamas. We also documented Sarsour’s vicious attacks against Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel for being anti-Islam activists. Both women have suffered greatly because of Islam’s barbarism. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a victim of female genital mutilation which makes Sarsour’s attacks on her even more egregious.

    We also reported that the Council on American Islamic Relations CAIR would be filing a lawsuit against Trump’s so-called ‘Muslim ban’. We have obtained the legal complaint in full which shows the lead plaintiff is Linda Sarsour. You can read the document in full here.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. Shooting in Canada:

    “Friends and those who knew him online said he had extreme political beliefs, but was not known to be violent. Eric Debroise said he called police after the shooting and told them Bissonnette is “very right and (an) ultra nationalist white supremacist,” the French-language newspaper Le Journal de Quebec reports. “He really liked Trump and had a permanent discontent with the left.””


    “Bissonnette is “very right and (an) ultra nationalist white supremacist,” the French-language newspaper Le Journal de Quebec reports. “He really liked Trump and had a permanent discontent with the left.””

    1. It seems as if they can’t get anything right.

      “White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer alluded to the Quebec City mosque shooting while discussing the reasons for President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

      The President offered his condolences and support to Canada and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a phone call Monday after the terror attack at a mosque Sunday night that left six dead and multiple others wounded.

      White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the event was a reminder of national security threats.

      “It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be proactive and not reactive on issues of national security,” he said at a news conference Monday afternoon.

      When asked about the travel ban, Spicer used almost the same wording as when he was talking about the Quebec terror attack.

      That’s despite the fact that the the Quebec terror attack only targeted Muslims, and the travel ban affects seven Muslim-majority countries – as well as the fact that the alleged suspect was from Canada.”

    2. anonymous – so, who do we blame the shooting on, the shooter, Trump or the Left?

  6. K.H.

    I guess Obama must have been appealing to his white nationalist base when he put these same 7 nations on the list for bombing into rubble, regime changing and enhanced scrutiny?

    I wish people would stay away from race baiting but race baiting is one of the techniques encouraged by the oligarchy to turn people against each other. It works unless we stop letting it work!

    1. White nationalism is on the rise in many parts of the world. I am speaking that truth. and that is not race baiting as you say. It is simply a fact that needs not be covered up.

  7. NY Times : I read the rag today while I was in the doctor’s office. I could not believe all the negative nagging about The Donald. The Huffington Post has been similar.

    I guess the next 9/11 attack will hit NYC. Then the dorks will quite squaking.

  8. Whitesplaining. Whether or not the courts interpret this as Muslim ban, the intent is there.

    1. Suppose it is. So what? Do you really think the average American gets up in the morning, and the first thought they have is, “Oh, I sure hope we get some more Muslims in the country today!”

      If we don’t want them, why should we have to put up with them? If you want to live around Muslims, move your fanny to a Muslim country. I am sure they will fit yo with a burka, and a trip to the OB/GYN for a little “incision.” I hear it is day surgery.

      I don’t believe all that crap about diversity. And I am not ashamed to say it.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Thankfully, the rights enshrined in the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, are not subject to the whims of popular vote.

        1. I’m just curious what you believe you know about Islam. It’s not a religion. It’s a totalitarian governing ideology that includes a religion. It governs every aspect of life from war and finance and taxation to how to step in and out of the bathroom and whether or not it’s OK for husbands and wives to use microwaves to heat warm, moist towels for mutual sexual stimulation (according to the Shafii manual Umdat al Salik, it is). And it says that non-Muslims must submit to Islamic government.

          We’re inviting in en masse a population, an unknown but significant percentage of whom believe they have a superior civilization and intend to impose it lock, stock, and barrel. In fact, they’re already here. They’re just awaiting reinforcements.

          From the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial:

          Last May 9 men were convicted in Minnesota of providing material support to terrorism and attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIS. Six plead guilty (two cooperated an received much lighter sentences) and three went to trial in what must have been the largest such case in Minneapolis history. Which is saying something, as the Muslim community in Minnesota has provided between 20 and 26% of all American jihadis going abroad to join terror organizations.

          Now you might say that very few Muslims actually become terrorists. But the ones who do don’t form in a vacuum. The above case is instructive in this regard. Here’s what the prosecutors wrote in one of the sentencing memoranda for one of the defendants who went to trial,
          Guled Omar:

          “Respect for the law is a particularly important factor in this case. No trial in the aggregate memory of the U.S. Attorney’s Office has been conducted in more of an atmosphere of intimidation, harassment, and incipient violence than the trial of this case. The families of cooperating defendants were harassed in the courtroom, in full view of the testifying witness; there was a fistfight in the corridor outside the courtroom; multiple individuals had to be ejected from the courtroom for not following the Court’s rules of behavior. A stern sentence is needed to promote respect for the law, to demonstrate clearly that this is a nation of laws.

          * * * * *

          As the Court witnessed in the Courtroom and surrounding press coverage, despite the gravity of the charges, the defendants had significant community support.”

          They certainly did have “significant community support.” Every day at trial there were lines to get into the courthouse. The judge arranged to have a closed circuit TV feed of the trial set up in another courtroom. Every day the deputies had to turn away the overflow crowd that couldn’t be accommodated in the two court rooms. And that support didn’t just include family and friends. It also included community leaders, religious leaders, and community organizers. Who all participated in the intimidation campaign against the cooperating witnesses and their families. They also participated in a sophisticated media strategy. It was very poorly covered by the national media. But when a reporter from the NYT or the WaPo or something would show up to cover the trial, these community leaders and community organizers would divert them from the trial to show them the “plight” of Somali Muslims in Minneapolis. They said they were shunned, and no opportunities for education or for good jobs. That was a pack of lies. They segregated themselves in a Somali-exclusive, Islamic supremacist enclave. The city had state had bent over backwards to provide them with great educational opportunities, and at least three of the most hard core members had good jobs at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. Which made them even more dangerous. When one of the defendants began cooperating he wore a wire, and caught Guled Omar saying that he could make a rocket launcher that could bring down a plane below 2K ft.

          Oh, and part of the campaign was to tell the reporter that there was really no evidence and that these “brothers” were entrapped and being railroaded. And the reporters believed them. How would they have any first hand knowledge? Instead of covering the trial where they could see for themselves they were out on the town getting duped. Admittedly they weren’t hard to dupe; I never thought I’d agree with Ben Rhodes on anything but he said the average White House reporter is 27 and knows nothing.

          The “significant community support” went beyond providing moral support in the courtroom or duping reporters. There was a legal assistant on Mohamed Farah’s team named Hassan Mohamud. He is also an Imam at a local “Dahwa Institute” and is considered a community leader. The judge set a hearing when the prosecutors informed the court that Hassan Mohamud helped prepare the defendants to go to Syria for jihad One of the two defendants who cooperated and agreed to wear a wire caught several of the defendants discussing how “Sheikh Hassan” taught them to do prayer for jihad on the battlefield. As part of his plea deal he identified “Sheikh Hassan” as Hassan Mohamud, who was aware of their intentions, was encouraging them, and he clearly wasn’t the only one in the community providing such “significant support.” The attorney for whom Hassan Mohamud worked resolved the situation by withdrawing as one of the attorneys of record.

          Essentially these defendants grew up in, and were surrounded by a community that provided for, a fertile environment for radicalization. All they needed were the ISIS recruiting videos and the Anwar al Awlaki sermons, easily available on the internet, and they were fired up for jihad.

          Is this a common story? No, of course not. Most Muslim immigrants will never go down this path. The vast majority will blend right in. But this is a fairly common story for those who do become jihadis. Naturally every case is different, but many of the elements will be there. Unless we are extremely careless it won’t be the first generation to come in that we need to worry about, but the second generation whether brought in as children or born here.

          To prevent this sort of thing we need to do several things. A strict ban on Sharia outside the Mosque or home. Not one iota of Sharia can be allowed to play any public role. We need to get the Saudi influence out of US Mosques. Right now the Saudis fund in whole or in part 80% of US Mosques, and they have radicalized them. Not a single Saudi-funded Mosque in the US (actually I’m not aware of any Mosque) has a program to teach children that ISIS is not Islamic. Because as far as Saudi-funded Mosques are concerned ISIS is just as Islamic as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And we need to ban the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization.

          There are a few other odds and ends, but those are the three major steps we need to take if we are going to let in Syrian refugees and resume immigration from the seven countries covered by Trump’s EO. But I still think it’s a bad idea. I’ve been all over the web this morning and liberals think they have a talking point as none of the 9/11 terrorists came from those countries. They think that’s some sort of gotcha. That’s not why those seven countries made that list. They’re on that list (it’s Obama’s list, BTW) because we can’t even know if visa applicants from those countries are even who they say they are.

          1. In case it’s not clear, the prosecutor in the Minnesota case felt compelled to put those two paragraphs in the sentencing memorandum because not only did the defendant flout the law, so did his friends, family, and the community at large that was “significantly supporting” him. Which is why they urged harsh sentences. I don’t think the judge needed much urging; I doubt he’s ever ejected so many people not only from the court room, but from the courthouse and threatened them with arrest if they returned.

            The judge had “searched the world,” he said, for a deradicalization program but came away convinced nothing would work. That, all the deceptions, and possibly the spectacle their community had put on convinced him nothing but harsh sentences would do. At least for the ones who didn’t plead guilty (of those two who plead guilty and cooperated, one got time served, the other a 30 month sentence, and the four who plead guilty but didn’t cooperate they received from 10-15 years). Those who went to trial two received 30 year sentences, and Guled Omar who blatantly lied to the jury was sentenced to thirty five years. Even though they said they were remorseful, they clearly weren’t. Two of them flashed the IS one finger salute to their families as they were led out of the courtroom.

            Several Somali community leaders wrote letters urging the judge to show leniency. I doubt at that point he was willing to take advice from them; “Some people seem to think these are misdemeanors” he said. But in the letters some said that lengthy prison sentences would only serve to radicalize. It wasn’t clear from the letters if they meant the defendants in prison, or others who witnessed America oppressing their “brothers.” No doubt both; clearly they meant it would act as a recruiting tool.

            Everything is a recruiting tool, they claim, along with their leftist fellow travelers. Weakness is the real recruiting tool, and strength is a deterrent. Terrorists would love to have you think that defending yourself against them by fighting them, vetting them/restricting entry into the country, or locking them up (and they don’t care if it’s GITMO, a Minnesota state penitentiary, or the Colorado Supermax where the Blind Sheikh is locked up). is a recruiting tool. No, not doing those things is the recruiting tool as it just makes it that much easier to attack us.

    2. nope. You’re “assuming” that these countries are Muslim, to further your agenda, when there are Christians, Jews, and everybody else living there. And besides, I think that Trump set the whole thing up to see if the AG would follow thru. I think she was planning on staying at the AG’s office, and he had no other way to get rid of her. That’s why he didn’t consult her.

      1. Update: told ya so, sessions knew she was working for Ovama. They had no other way to get rid of her. They needed grounds to fire her. He never needed the law. The whole thing was a setup to get her to refuse an order. Man, how dumb is that? Hahahaha

    3. Yes, the intent was there from the start. The intent to act within the law.

      “He called me up and said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’”

      You can keep ignoring that fact, if you like, but that doesn’t make it go away. Whatever Trump may have initially wanted, he wanted it to be legal. And that’s what he ended up with.

      The words “Muslim Ban” are entirely irrelevant.

Comments are closed.