Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
More lunacy from this wacknut, Stephen Miller. 
"Senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows shows over the weekend, and his comments about voter fraud have earned him justifiably dim reviews. The Washington Post's Philip Bump and Fact Checker Glenn Kessler dealt with those claims in depth.
But amid all the baseless and false statements about electoral integrity, Miller did something even more controversial: He expanded upon his boss's views of whether judges are allowed to question President Trump's authority. And at one point, Miller even said Trump's national security decisions "will not be questioned."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.13a6bfa15b14 |
Further from this specious WaPo article:
Miller is basically arguing that it doesn't need to be constitutional -- or, more specifically, that anything Trump decides to do when it comes to national security is inherently constitutional, regardless of whether it targets a specific religion or anything else.
Uh, no, he's not "basically arguing" that at all. I happened to catch Miller on TV yesterday, and he said nothing of the sort.
Then the WaPo article goes on to try make some fake news. The article quotes Sen Flake, as if he's responding to Miller's comments. He wasn't. He was responding to a question from CBS's J Dickerson about Trump's EO. Here's the quote from the WaPo BS article:
Given all of this, there can be no certainty about what the courts will eventually rule. But the Trump administration is taking things further than merely saying a few judges have overstepped their bounds in this one case. Miller seemed to be serving notice Sunday that the administration thinks the courts should play no role in reviewing any of Trump's decisions related to national security.
That makes even some Republicans uneasy.
"I mean, obviously, the president wants to keep the country safe. I recognize that. I think everybody does, and I applaud him for trying to do so," Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said on "Face the Nation" after Miller's appearance. "But, obviously, it needs to be constitutional, and it needs to be wise."
Here's the
transcript from Sunday's Face the Nation show, which shows Dickerson asking Flake if what he thinks about the 9th Circuit's decision on the travel ban EO:
DICKERSON: And we go now to Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, who sits on the Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committee. He is in Phoenix this morning.
Senator, on this question of the travel ban, you were against it when it first came out. The White House has clarified some issues, particularly with respect to green card holders. So, what is your view of it now?
SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: I do think that it is constitutional. It is not a Muslim ban.
It is focused on countries, rather than religion or individuals. Having said that, I have been clear that I don’t think that it is a good idea. I think that the message that it sends to our allies abroad and the countries that we need to work with is not a good one.
But I do think it is constitutional. And I hope that we will pause and reflect and see where we need to go from here.
DICKERSON: Do you think the president should start over and issue a new one?
FLAKE: Well, we will see.
I mean, obviously, the president wants to keep the country safe. I recognize that. I think everybody does. And I applaud him for trying to do so. But, obviously, it needs to be constitutional, and it needs to be wise.
We need to look and see where the real threats are, and base this on threats, and not so much just what was promised in the campaign.
Dickerson isn't even asking Flake about Miller's comments, and Flake is responding to a question about Flake's opinion on whether or not Trump should issue a revised EO. But Wapo spins Flakes comments to make it appear that Flake is talking about what Miller said earlier in the show.
WaPo has ZERO credibility. ZERO. But Bob, if you want to slavishly believe whatever they write, when its absolutely transparent that WaPo is reporting not the news but pushing their opinion somehow disguised as "fact checking", you go right ahead....
...but you'll do so with my pity.