By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a CNN interview, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller stated that President Trump had “plenary authority” regarding the deployment of the National Guard in Oregon, before abruptly cutting himself off. This statement has raised concerns due to the implications of plenary authority, which grants a single official absolute power, contradicting the U.S. system of separation of powers. The use of such authority has drawn comparison to dictators and prompted protests against perceived overreach by the Trump administration. Miller’s silence and the subsequent lack of further clarification have left the meaning behind the statement unclear.
Read the original article here
Plenary authority, the dictator phrase that caused Stephen Miller to stop talking, is an intriguing story that really captures a moment of high tension and unspoken intent. The whole situation felt charged, like a secret was accidentally revealed on live television. It all circles around this single phrase, “plenary authority,” and how its mere utterance seemed to instantly shut down Stephen Miller during an interview.
It seems that the administration, or at least some within it, were keenly aware of the potential of “plenary authority”. The implications are massive: complete, absolute power. It’s a chilling concept, the idea that someone could wield such unchecked influence. What’s interesting is the insinuation that this phrase was more than just a collection of words; it was a pre-planned concept that they were waiting to use.
The frustration within the administration appeared to stem from the lack of widespread unrest. There was an expectation, perhaps, of larger-scale conflict that would provide the justification for action. This situation didn’t occur, or at least it didn’t reach the boiling point that they were waiting for, leaving them to be frustrated by the lack of “excuse.” It’s a stark contrast to the narrative they were trying to push, and perhaps it highlights a disconnect between the administration’s desires and the reality on the ground.
The way Miller reacted is particularly revealing. When the phrase “plenary authority” was mentioned, it was like a light switch went off. The sudden silence, the abrupt halt in his speech – it’s a dramatic moment that speaks volumes. It’s hard to interpret this as anything other than a signal from someone behind the scenes, a directive to shut down any further discussion on the subject.
That the interviewers were not informed of the meaning of the phrase just adds to the absurdity of it all. I have to admit, though, I was in the same boat before it all became public. When I first heard it, I also thought that there was a slight stutter. The whole situation is a perfect example of how seemingly innocuous words can carry immense weight, especially in the realm of power and control. This is something the public can’t often know, and they use this power in the shadows to execute their will.
The silence, the removal of the clip from some platforms—these actions are not just about covering up a slip of the tongue; they’re about controlling the narrative. It seems CNN’s role in all this is questionable. The removal of the clip, the apparent lack of follow-up questions – all of this adds to the impression that they’re not interested in fully exploring the implications of “plenary authority”. Their actions speak volumes and should be questioned.
Many people watching the interview live were struck by the implication of “plenary authority” and the almost comical reaction of Miller. It was a genuine “oh shit” moment. Those who were watching probably recognized that they had exposed their underlying intent to the world. Their plans suddenly exposed to all.
The lack of immediate reaction from the anchors or the control room, when Miller stopped talking, indicates something. Some feel the anchors are complicit, the reporter has no idea what is going on, and the control room will need time to solve the issue. I agree that the anchors and control room were in the dark, but it does bring up the question of how often we are in the dark about things.
The use of such language highlights a desire for power, a pursuit of complete control. They are not leaders, they are wannabe dictators. Miller’s slip was a rare window into this mindset, and a moment that left the audience shocked and intrigued. This also creates the question of what else is being “hidden” or covered up.
This whole situation serves as a stark reminder of the importance of scrutiny, of questioning the language of power, and of being alert to those who seek absolute control.