During a recent CNN interview, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller experienced a technical issue, causing a pause after he incorrectly stated the President’s “plenary authority” under Title 10. While CNN attributed the issue to a technical glitch, the pause raised eyebrows among viewers. Body language experts analyzed Miller’s nonverbal cues, noting signs of cognitive processing and potentially a moment of self-restraint. These experts suggested the pause could be attributed to cognitive overload, or a moment of deciding how to best bring his response back on track rather than a technical issue.
Read More
During a recent CNN interview, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller appeared to suggest President Trump possesses “plenary authority,” which implies the president’s power is essentially limitless. This comment, made while discussing the deployment of federal troops to cities, caused Miller to abruptly pause, and the interview was subsequently edited to remove the phrase. Legal experts note that “plenary authority” isn’t explicitly granted to the president under the US Code, and Judge Immergut previously ruled the president’s justifications for deploying troops were baseless. Some analysts suggest Miller’s statements reveal the administration’s view that Trump can unilaterally decide when to invoke emergency powers, and that this is an intentional strategy to polarize the public and consolidate power.
Read More
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 More
During a CNN interview, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller raised questions when he stated that President Trump had “plenary authority” concerning the deployment of the National Guard in Oregon before abruptly cutting himself off. “Plenary authority” implies absolute power, conflicting with the U.S. system of separation of powers and checks and balances. Miller’s comment, and subsequent silence, came amid discussion of a legal challenge to the administration’s use of the National Guard, and comparisons to authoritarian rule. The incident led to speculation about the implications of the comment and whether Miller realized the ramifications of his words.
Read More
During a CNN interview, White House aide Stephen Miller paused mid-sentence while discussing the President’s authority to deploy National Guard troops, leading to speculation of a technical glitch or a deliberate stop. Miller’s use of the term “plenary authority” sparked controversy, as it suggests the president has broad, potentially limitless power. Despite the on-air issue, the interview resumed with Miller re-asserting the President’s authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy federal resources, though he emphasized the administration would abide by the judge’s ruling. This incident raised questions and drew criticism, particularly concerning the scope of executive power in domestic troop deployments.
Read More
During a CNN interview, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller reportedly claimed President Trump had “plenary authority” regarding the deployment of the National Guard. This statement, which suggests the president has absolute control, was made while discussing the administration’s response to court orders concerning the National Guard in Portland, Oregon. The comment was then followed by an apparent pause and omission of the word “plenary” in a later response. This assertion of broad presidential power has generated controversy, given the historical reluctance to involve the federal military in civilian affairs and the legal checks and balances in the US government.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker