Donald Trump continues to be a poor character witness for himself as the government struggles to convince court after court that the president’s efforts to ban immigration from several majority-Muslim countries are not unconstitutional. “Simply because a decision-maker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them from the ‘reasonable memory’ of a ‘reasonable observer,’” Judge Theodore D. Chuang wrote in March, shooting down the government’s argument that his campaign call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” should not have any bearing on his actions since taking office.

That argument has been undermined not just by Trump, but by a number of his associates. Rudy Giuliani famously told Fox News that Trump had asked him for advice on how to accomplish a Muslim ban “legally.” When Judge Derrick Watson ruled that the president’s revised executive order was still unconstitutional, he pointed specifically at comments made by one of his senior advisers, Stephen Miller, who boasted (also on Fox News) that “fundamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country.”

But the clearest evidence of Trump’s original intent was, until yesterday, displayed prominently on his campaign Web site. “​DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION,” the text at the top of the page reads, before explaining Trump’s call for a “complete shutdown of Muslims” as justified by the “obvious” hatred of Muslims toward Western values. There is no distinction made between the vast majority of Muslims who do not wish Americans harm—not to mention the millions of Muslims currently living in the U.S.—and the small number of violent extremists.

On Monday, shortly after a reporter asked White House press secretary Sean Spicer whether the new, revised travel ban reflected the Trump campaign’s 2015 statement, the campaign’s Muslim-ban page suddenly disappeared. (Google, of course, has the statement cached here.)

“I’m not aware what’s on the campaign Web site, you’d have to ask them,” Spicer said, insisting that the White House has been “very consistent” in ensuring that the travel ban—which targets immigrants from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen—is constitutional.

Of course, the White House has never been consistent on this point. In late January, Trump attacked the media for reporting that he had ordered a Muslim ban. “To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” he said in a statement at the time. But he quickly went back to referring to it as a “ban” in public.

The national gaslighting effort appears to be having little effect on the nation’s courts, however. Later on Monday, when a 13-judge appellate panel heard the Trump administration’s oral argument challenging Judge Chuang’s injunction, the judges reportedly seemed skeptical, given Trump’s history—although some were more incredulous than others. “Can we look at his college speeches?” Judge Paul V. Niemeyer asked, suggesting that Trump’s decisions as commander in chief should not be judged against his past comments. Then again, Trump’s statement calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims” isn’t ancient history: it was online until Monday.