White House defends travel ban as problems mount over N Korea, Flynn

“This is a judicial usurpation of the power. It is a violation of judges’ proper roles in litigating disputes. We will fight it,” Miller said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

Another ploy by dictatorial power mongers: take exactly what they are trying to do and put it on their opposition, in this case the judicial branch. No, Mr. Miller, it is you violating the Constitution, and any and all judges' responsibility to uphold the Constitution against tyrannous threats, which is precisely what you and the admin you represent are. And yes, a single judge can do this. One single judge, let alone every judge in this case that has already ruled against you, unanimously, Republican or Democrat. This is a war between your admin and our three-branched government, and the upholders of our Constitution are on to you.

Get over it

No, Mr. Miller, it is you violating the Constitution,

Actually no "he" isn't, it's Trump who signed the order and it's Trump who ultimately is responsible.

Also folks need to step back and take a deep breath and quit flaming the fires with rhetoric that is divisive. Trump can write all the executive orders he wants, and the courts will keep him in line. He can respond or tweet all he wants, but that will not stop the judges from doing their jobs either.

Trump will eventually have to learn that running the country is nothing like he has undertaken before, and the checks and balances that the US system has in place will be playing a major part over the next 4 years. People need to get used to it, and keep their cool.

and slammed judges who’ve stood in his way.

Let me guess..by "destroying" their careers ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ompXn4CcCtM

Sucks to be Miller. Here's what he had to say 'bout Trump's off-the-rails claims of voter fraud:

We can talk about it more in the future. The reality is, we know for a fact, you have massive numbers of noncitizens registered to vote in this country. Nobody disputes that. ... I’m prepared to go on any show, anywhere, any time and repeat it and say the president of the United States is correct, 100 percent.

Of course Stephan will talk about it in the future, on any show anywhere, and repeat Trump's lies: That's how the "big lie" works - say something enough times and your average citizen will just give in to make you shut up. The reality is that it is not a fact - it is a lie, and Stephan likely knows that, but he's part of the Trump machine now.

George Stephanopoulos wouldn't have any of it, shutting him down with

You have provided zero evidence of the president’s claim that he would have won the popular vote if 3 to 5 million illegal immigrants hadn’t voted, zero evidence for either one of those claims. Thanks a lot for joining us this morning.

The problem these interviewers have is whether to allow Trump's messengers access to airtime to propagate their lies, or whether to just shut them out and go with people who speak facts. I'd heard Kellyann Conway is rapidly becoming person-non-grata; Miller is likely next.

Scott Ryan - get over what? That the US president lies continuously about anything he wants to and expects you to swallow it? Some of us are simply unable to bend that far.

NSA Flynn is caught in a lie. Even had VP Pence to lie for him. Shifted from flatly denying to "no recollection of discussing sanctions but couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up" to now officials admitting that it was discussed. That turns out to be the reason Russia didn't retaliate, not because Putin was being magnanimous.

Also, though no one has ever been prosecuted for it, there is a law against it - the Logan Act bans unauthorized U.S. citizens from communicating with a foreign government "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government ... in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States."

Doubtful that's going to get used. After all, as they say, the only thing more shocking than the truth is the lie and cover-up afterwards.

YubaruFEB. 13, 2017 - 07:52AM JST Trump will eventually have to learn that running the country is nothing like he has undertaken before, and the checks and balances that the US system has in place will be playing a major part over the next 4 years. People need to get used to it, and keep their cool.

I disagree. Checks and balances only exist insomuch as they are enforced. For example, there are many cases where the legislative branch can check the President, but because it's presently stacked with GOP invertebrates, they don't. And they aren't checking the President because they know with how gerrymandered districts are, they will probably get re-elected no matter what they do, so party loyalty is more important to them than showing the slightest shred of integrity to their constituents. Now judges don't usually face re-election, but the same principle is at play - their check on the President only exists if they're willing to use it.

We don't currently know just how far judges will go to exercise their check on the President, and many of us are legitimately worried about that. There are expert historians in the 3rd Reich who see troubling similarities between the time of its rise and now. So the people have to keep constant pressure on the government. America is no more special and no more resistant to tyranny than any of the other countries that have fallen into authoritarian dictatorships over the years. It is only by the power of the people that we choose not to fall down that road.

People need to get used to it, and keep their cool.

Most Americans will give a fully extended, single digital response to that suggestion.

“We’re going to focus on public safety and saving American lives and we will not apologize.”

With the intent being to keep fear alive in trying to convince Trump's followers they need him, a 'strong leader', to take even more control. Trump and Bannon know the 'big lie is the best lie,' especially when you have hordes of true believers following you.

This quote from Russian-American journalist Masha Geffen comes to mind:

Lying is the message. It’s not just that both Putin and Trump lie, it is that they lie in the same way and for the same purpose: blatantly, to assert power over truth itself.

Jack Goldsmith at Harvard Law has an interesting theory that Trump's White House Counsel is either incompetent or that Trump's team wants to lose the travel ban case. Goldsmith leans toward the latter, and makes a convincing argument. If Trump loses the case and there is a terrorist attack in the future, whether or not it is committed by refugees from these seven countries, Trump will say, "I told you so." Won't matter if it's logical. After terrorist attacks, people tend to ditch rationality and go for a gut response. At that point, Trump (actually, Bannon and Miller) will try to push through even more draconian executive actions.

I don't think that Bannon and Miller are stupid (I cannot say the same for Trump). I think they are using confusion, chaos, and outrageous comments from the executive branch as a strategy. That's pretty sick. And scary.

Oh my...

http://commonsensenation.net/dumbass-9th-circuit-on-left-coast-would-allow-911-hijackers-to-sue-to-enter-usa/

Jack Goldsmith at Harvard Law has an interesting theory that Trump's White House Counsel is either incompetent or that Trump's team wants to lose the travel ban case. Goldsmith leans toward the latter, and makes a convincing argument. If Trump loses the case and there is a terrorist attack in the future, whether or not it is committed by refugees from these seven countries, Trump will say, "I told you so." Won't matter if it's logical. After terrorist attacks, people tend to ditch rationality and go for a gut response. At that point, Trump (actually, Bannon and Miller) will try to push through even more draconian executive actions.

That is so plausible.

There is a strategy when you want to get someone to admit to something, that you accuse them of something way worse, that contains the thing that you want them to admit. Often, in defense of not having done the way worse thing, they'll say 'but I only did [the smaller thing]'.

The Trump strategy seems similar. He has basically insulated himself from any possible blame for terrorist attacks for the rest of his presidency, by putting forward a policy so absurd that it was pretty much guaranteed to be struck down.

I hate to say this about Trump, but it's genius.

Interesting theory, plastic, but I think it credits Trump and his team with far more cleverness than they deserve (certainly, they won the election but only due to a confluence of issues that have never and, likely, will never again occur).

Trump hates above all to appear incompetent, and that is exactly how this mess has allowed his opponents, both within his party and without, to frame him. If a terrorist attack does occur, it will, based on historical example, not be from one of his blacklisted countries (imagine another Saudi attack!). Even more likely is another massacre from an NRA-lovin', good ol' American patriot. Then what is he going to say? Also are ancillary problems; for example, how is Gorsuch supposed to answer the inevitable questions regarding Trump's trashing the judiciary? Gorsuch is in a real pickle: remain faithful to his beliefs (however one may consider them, at least he is no nihilist) or risk Trump's wrath. And what if his extra-credit attempt at constitutionality also receives an F from his judicial minders? Where will he go from there?

This fiasco would have lead to multiple rolling heads in any normal administration. Perhaps it ultimately will here as well. Buckle up.

“This is a judicial usurpation of the power. It is a violation of judges’ proper roles in litigating disputes. We will fight it,” Miller said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

100% agreed.

Another ploy by dictatorial power mongers: take exactly what they are trying to do and put it on their opposition, in this case the judicial branch.

How so? Who said, a judge has the right in this case of powers that are bestowed onto the president to determine or challenge the president on who can come into this country or who can't if the president feels that there is potential reasons for blocking people for a certain length of time, if Carter and Obama can do it, Trump should be able as well. Now I will say, the role out on this could have been handled a lot better and the public should have been informed, but other than that, under Trump's discretion, he has every right.

No, Mr. Miller, it is you violating the Constitution, and any and all judges' responsibility to uphold the Constitution against tyrannous threats,

Give me a break! What a bunch of stinking manure! You have a left wing judge or judges thinking they know more about executive legislation? This is just madness!

which is precisely what you and the admin you represent are. And yes, a single judge can do this.

Hmmmm....for now, but this is far from over.

One single judge, let alone every judge in this case that has already ruled against you, unanimously, Republican or Democrat. This is a war between your admin and our three-branched government, and the upholders of our Constitution are on to you.

Good lord, heaven help the left, they are way out of the bounds of help.

I don't think that Bannon and Miller are stupid (I cannot say the same for Trump).

You can't get to where the man is in life remotely close if you are stupid. He not be slick talking like the previous president, but dumb, not even close.

I think they are using confusion, chaos, and outrageous comments from the executive branch as a strategy. That's pretty sick. And scary.

To be fair, both sides play to their base.

A full post by an alt-right extremist, whining because a judge upheld the constitution.

So much for the alt-right loving the constitution.

I think it credits Trump and his team with far more cleverness than they deserve

I actually think Bannon and Kushner might be cunning enough to try something like that. Their histories as well as Trump's show they've played (pardon the metaphorical mash-up ahead) hardball with sharks and come out ahead. They're win at any costs people, each trying to power and money grab while Trump's in the oval office.

If Putin's their ideal leader and they model their approach after him, get ready for nastiness ne'er before seen, on the big screen, on cable or in real life. Game of Thrones meets House of Cards. These are not nice people.

dumb, not even close

You are right - he is way, way beyond dumb.

The Chump's Muslim ban is based on lies and idiocy. No terrorists (not a single one, in other words) has come into America from any of the seven countries from which the Idiot-in-Chief tried to ban Muslims. It is shocking to think that the White House is controlled by liars, idiots, racists, and neo-facists. Make America Great Again, indeed. More like, Destroy America with hatred, lies, and idiocy.

A full post by an alt-right extremist,

There are alt-right extremists on JT? Something new.

whining because a judge upheld the constitution.

I think annoyed and bewildered is a more proper term.

So much for the alt-right loving the constitution.

I don't know about this so called Alt-right stuff, but I know the radical left couldn't give a darn about the constitution

If Putin's their ideal leader and they model their approach after him, get ready for nastiness ne'er before seen, on the big screen, on cable or in real life. Game of Thrones meets House of Cards. These are not nice people. The But when Putin annexed Crimea and the right pushed Obama to take action, he did nothing and now the Dems losing their minds egging on Trump NOT to trust Moscow. Liberals are indeed the quintessential embodiment of living hypocrisy.

PT, Bannon's only experience is in the relatively simplistic field of right-wing journalism, where all you have to do is out-right your competition.

Most alt-lefts sites do the same, of course you have legitimate and decent liberals journalists, but nutty far left sites and their pundits are a plenty.

Kushner has a huge chip on his shoulder due to his father's conviction but also no experience other than offering his FIL's toadies shoes to lick.

I remember one AG that had a chip on his shoulders and said, "we are a nation of cowards" any comments on that? What I'm trying to say is, is it wrong to hold a grudge, forget the left right paradigm for a moment, if someone unjustly convicted my father, I'd hold a grudge as well.

I'm afraid they have no idea what they've gotten themselves into - it's as if the Bad News Bears switched sports and decided to begin with the Superbowl.

Funny when the shoe is on the other foot it is astounding how the alt-left keep coming unglued. It's going to be a long 8 years and at the very minimum 4 at least.

if someone unjustly convicted my father

There's been no suggestion it was unjust.

This is a judicial usurpation of the power. It is a violation of judges’ proper roles in litigating disputes. We will fight it,

There is a dispute being litigated at the District Court level. How is this usurpation of power?

The judges are ruling on the questions before them by applying the law to the facts presented.

So it looks like Republicans will play the "activist judge" card every time they lose in court because it's apparently impossible for them to accept that they are on the wrong side of the Constitution at times. They will do to the judiciary branch what they did to science.

So it looks like Republicans will play the "activist judge" card every time they lose in court because it's apparently impossible for them to accept that they are on the wrong side of the Constitution at times.

I think the only person that is wrong are these liberal activist moon bat judges that think they know better about National security than the president or his military advisors that have been thoroughly advised on the legality of this ban.

They will do to the judiciary branch what they did to science.

I think the liberal judges got that part down. Can't wait until they get smacked down to reality.

think they know better about National security than the president or his military

What in the world does Trump know about the military? Please provide info without creating fake news. And whattaboutobama isn't an answer.

Trump was a student at a military secondary school, sent there because his rich daddy couldn't control him and because his rich daddy could afford to pay the high admission costs. As you've posted many times, he avoided military service. He has ZERO MILITARY EXPERIENCE.

Are you saying that in less than a month he has more than a basic understanding of the military? Maybe if he'd stop watching SNL and The Apprentice, he might learn something. But then he's over 70, and at his age he might not be able to learn new things.

If Obama had put a travel restriction order on aliens from outer space it would have been constitutional. If Trump does it, it'll be unconstitutional.

Huckabee: Judge's decision made America less safe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19S8JuDQYmU

Huckabee is right. The judge is wrong.

Huckabee: Judge's decision made America less safe

Huckabee, Schmuckabee. This man is irrelevant. He's an evangelical who slams Beyoncé but sells his soul to an amoral charlatan president and to phony diabetes cures.

Less safe? Please provide a single example of how the already rigorous vetting procedures for refugees from these 7 countries have compromised America's security. That's the bottom line. There is simply not enough rationale for this executive action to warrant the harm that it causes. Including, ironically, to national security.

And please try articulating a point of view in your own voice rather than just pasting links to YouTube.

If Obama had put a travel restriction order on aliens from outer space it would have been constitutional. If Trump does it, it'll be unconstitutional.

Nope. If Obama had done something unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional. When Trump did something unconstitutional, it was unconstitutional. That's the thing about the constitution - it's a document against which factual determinations can be made to determine whether something goes against it. It has nothing to do with the person doing the action.

"Please provide a single example of how the already rigorous vetting procedures for refugees from these 7 countries have compromised America's security"

You're not gonna like this, Monkey:

Vetting Syrian Refugees: Mission Impossible

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-r-wagner/vetting-syrian-refugees-m_b_8593438.html

Stranger - You're not gonna like this:

Judge Jeanine: 'The Supreme Court Will Give Trump the Win'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5e-eckiZyU

Stranger - You're not gonna like this:

Judge Jeanine: 'The Supreme Court Will Give Trump the Win'

Why wouldn't I like it? It's all hypothesis right now. All I care about is the final determination.

Stranger: "Why wouldn't I like it?"

Because you know deep down the Supreme Court will rule in favor of common sense and the president of the United States. ( Yeah, I know common sense and the president of the United States would have been an oxymoron 3 weeks ago, heh heh)

Super - Har! But you do admit that Justice Jeanine Pirro is correct in saying that non-U,S. citizens do not have a constitutional right to enter the United States, right?

Because you know deep down the Supreme Court will rule in favor of common sense and the president of the United States.

Deep down I know the court will rule in line with the law, and back up their ruling with references to that law.

It may go Trump's way, or it may go the other way, but I have no expectation on which way it will go specifically.

Stranger- It had better go Trump's way or the security of the U.S. will be compromised further than it already is. And I don't agree with Trump on everything, believe it or not,but he is most definitely right in this case.

Oh my...

Tucker Carlson sounds off on nightly news' Trump hysterics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80N83K2qAUw

It had better go Trump's way or the security of the U.S. will be compromised further than it already is.

Your comment is based on a false premise - that security in the US is compromised.

The fact is, it's impossible to prevent all attacks of terror without removing all freedom. The fact that the US has not seen a significant terrorist attack in almost 16 years, even while poking its nose all over the world, shows that they do a pretty good job of security. Homeland security and the CIA watch out for the country, and the NSA looks into everyone's everything.

Trump has simply played on your fear to make you think things are worse than they are. He's a master manipulator, and between his talks and your Youtube conspiracy theorists, he's driven you into a frenzy of fear.

And finally, the premise of your comment was that the court needs to go Trump's way to increase security, ignoring the fact that no terrorists have come from any of the countries covered by the ban.

Unless Trump gets this law passed we will see terrorists not coming from those 7 countries to continue to not come from those 7 countries. Or something like that.

Anyways, for the Judges, their job is not and has not been about whether America is more safe or less safe

Their job is and has always been whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional

Earlier, I already put up Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War being declared unconstitutional. Technically, one could argue suspending habeas corpus made America safer because it's a Civil War (which is an even worse situation because, instead of the enemy being abroad, the enemy is already here). But he was still declared unconstitutional because, even though it may have made America safer, he was on the wrong side of the Constitution

So it's not the Judges' job to determine whether it made America more safe or less safe - their job is to determine whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional - regardless whether it's more safe or less safe.

Wanna make America really much safer? Declare martial law. Martial law by definition makes America safer by restricting people's freedoms. Just do it through the Constitution and amendments. That way, it's constitutional. See how this works?

Stephen Miller is the Terik Aziz of the Trump administration.

His statements over the weekend were over the top and supported by Trump.

Stranger: "And finally, the premise of your comment was that the court needs to go Trump's way to increase security, ignoring the fact that no terrorists have come from any of the countries covered by the ban."

You're not going to like these pesky facts, Stranger, but...

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, bolstering the administration's immigration ban:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-convicted-of-terrorism-from-trump-7-mostly-muslim-countries/article/2614582

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, bolstering the administration's immigration ban:

If true, it will definitely give Trump's challenge to the ban of his ban some ammo.

But, I looked at the source of this information, and while they make the claim, they don't provide the report that would back up their information.

I did a deeper search on this, and while I could find countless articles on right-wing websites, they were all just reposts of the site you posted. I couldn't find anything from a credible news source that made the claim.

At the moment, it appears to be an unsubstantiated claim. It may be true, but they haven't supported the assertion yet. If Trump's team uses it in their next court challenge, they will be expected to support their claim with actual facts. So if they don't use this claim in their next court challenge, it will show that the facts weren't there to back up the claim.

@Strangerland

At the moment, it appears to be an unsubstantiated claim. It may be true, but they haven't supported the assertion yet.

How so? It took me 5 minutes to find the source data. Or do you mean the names have not been linked to the nationalities? The names and convictions are all there so they can presumably be cross checked and verified with public court records.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Terror%20Arrests.senate%20judiciary.pdf

How so? It took me 5 minutes to find the source data. Or do you mean the names have not been linked to the nationalities? The names and convictions are all there so they can presumably be cross checked and verified with public court records.

I could make that same chart in 10 minutes.

Nothing on it shows it to be official.

@Strangerland

Oh come on now, just google the names on the list Strangerland. These people are not just a bunch of fictional characters. Take No. 2 on the list, Robel Kidane Phillipo, he is the friend of the Boston Bombers. Here is the indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/file/846621/download

Randomly, let's take No. 193 on the list, Mohammed Abdullah Warsame from Somalia. A google search shows he was convicted for conspiracy to provide material support to al-qaida

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/minneapolis-man-pleads-guilty-conspiracy-provide-material-support-al-qaeda

Obviously, I don't have time to go through the entire list but you can see for yourself that it's not made up.

Fair enough.

Hey Stranger, why don't you go one step further in your education and take a look at some of the videos I've posted links to? Here's a good one concerning Trump's temporary travel restriction order:

Judge Jeanine: Entry to US is not a right for non-citizens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zpqA7FsM9c&t=1s

why don't you go one step further in your education and take a look at some of the videos I've posted links to?

Because I prefer to get my news from non-conspiracy theorists with no code of ethics who can and do make up whatever they want, or spread lies that others have thread.

You know, discretion? Or maybe you don't know.