Report: Steve Bannon Had to Be Reminded He Wasn’t the President Amidst Travel Ban Infighting
54 replies, posted
[URL="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/report-bannon-had-to-be-reminded-he-wasnt-the-president.html"]New York Magazine[/URL]
[QUOTE]Chief White House strategist Steve Bannon tried to order Department of Homeland Security secretary John Kelly to not issue a waiver exempting green card holders from President Trump’s travel ban executive order, according to [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?utm_term=.73202f843d07"]a new report[/URL] in the Washington [I]Post[/I]. Per two Trump administration officials who spoke with the [I]Post[/I]’s Josh Rogin, Kelly ultimately rebuffed the attempt, telling Bannon that he only takes orders from the president. The president never weighed in, and Kelly went ahead and issued the waiver, which was made public on Sunday night. That waiver ended two full days of confusion and chaos around the question of whether or not permanent U.S. residents from the seven predominantly Muslim nations included in the ban would be allowed to reenter the country. The White House itself then confirmed that green card holders were exempt from the order on Tuesday.
According to Rogin’s sources, Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and then Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson also banded together during a 2 a.m. phone call among White House staff on Sunday to oppose the haphazard way the president’s executive order had been conceived and implemented by the White House’s [URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-aides-distrust-confusion-leaks-234550"]growing[/URL] [I]Breitbart[/I] wing, Bannon and White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller. Then during a larger meeting later on Sunday, Trump reportedly decided to temporarily suspend the issuing of executive orders until a better process — one that included more input from more White House officials — could be implemented.
If Rogin’s reporting is accurate, it indicates that Bannon seems have lost an important early power struggle, though not for lack of trying. Last weekend, CNN [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html"]reported[/URL] that the DHS had finished a legal analysis of the travel ban order on Friday and concluded that it did not apply to green card holders, but that the White House, and more specifically Bannon and Miller, had overruled that conclusion. On Friday and Saturday, Trump administration officials ended up sending mixed signals as to whether or not permanent residents were to be allowed onto planes to the U.S., as well as whether or not they would face extra screening, or have to apply for a waiver somehow, to gain re-entry to the U.S. As a result, many of these travelers were stranded and detained, ultimately for no reason.[/QUOTE]
I'm really hoping we're not gonna have another Gerald Ford with Bannon becoming president.
Fuck this guy. Seriously.
Everything about this is disgusting. Fuck Steve Bannon and every thought that's ever seeped into his psychopathic shit-pile of a brain.
He's a regular worm tongue, that one. Trump really does just form his opinions based on whoever last told him one.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51777478][URL="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/report-bannon-had-to-be-reminded-he-wasnt-the-president.html"]New York Magazine[/URL][/QUOTE]
Why did you cite a really random source instead of the article being cited in that source for the claim they're making?
If you had done so, you would have noticed that the cited WaPo article put up a correction that says:
[QUOTE]UPDATE (Feb. 4, 6:13 p.m.): The article has been updated to reflect comments from White House press secretary Sean Spicer. The article previously stated that Stephen K. Bannon visited Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly’s office on Jan. 28. Spicer said Bannon did not make such a visit. He also said that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Bannon did not participate in a 2 a.m. conference call on Jan. 29. The article also previously stated that President Trump approved a pause in executive orders pending new procedures. According to Spicer, it was White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, rather than the president, who approved the new procedures, but not a pause.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sgman91;51777516]Why did you cite a really random source instead of the article being cited in that source for the claim they're making?
If you had done so, you would have noticed that the cited WaPo article put up a correction that says:[/QUOTE]
the press secretary is doing his job by not making the administration look disorganized?
what's your point? doesn't really change the possibility that all of the above had occurred
[QUOTE=lum1naire;51777524]the press secretary is doing his job by not making the administration look disorganized?
what's your point? doesn't really change the possibility that all of the above had occurred[/QUOTE]
Sure, but our only evidence is two anonymous "officials." The WaPo article specifically states that they didn't even ask the White House to confirm or deny the allegation before posting the article.
[QUOTE]If Rogin’s reporting is accurate, it indicates that Bannon seems have lost an important early power struggle, though not for lack of trying. [/QUOTE]
Get fucked Bannon
Is Bannon de facto the president?
[editline]4th February 2017[/editline]
The first genuinely racist president since Grover Cleveland. Nice.
[editline]4th February 2017[/editline]
Unless you count Nixon
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51777543]Is Bannon de facto the president?
[editline]4th February 2017[/editline]
The first genuinely racist president since Grover Cleveland. Nice.
[editline]4th February 2017[/editline]
Unless you count Nixon[/QUOTE]
in what fucking universe would you not count nixon??
nixon literally started the war on drugs specifically to target black people
[QUOTE=Judas;51777587]in what fucking universe would you not count nixon??
nixon literally started the war on drugs specifically to target black people[/QUOTE]
or jews
or hippies
i mean, he's recorded so to say it's purely that is distinctly not true?
[QUOTE=sgman91;51777516]Why did you cite a really random source instead of the article being cited in that source for the claim they're making?
If you had done so, you would have noticed that the cited WaPo article put up a correction that says:[/QUOTE]
I think I liked the headline better. I don't think New York Magazine is that random.
re: that correction, I don't trust Spicer
[QUOTE=sgman91;51777516]Why did you cite a really random source instead of the article being cited in that source for the claim they're making?
If you had done so, you would have noticed that the cited WaPo article put up a correction that says:[/QUOTE]
Spicer, is after all, the most honest figure in the media landscape, period.
There seems to be a mess in the white house. Who's in control, Trump, Bannon or the Republicans?
[QUOTE=Medevila;51777611]why would he trust Sean Spicer over basically whistle blowers
Sean Spicer is the guy who enables lies (about frivolous shit like crowd sizes) and couldn't make up his mind over whether the travel ban was in fact a "ban" or not[/QUOTE]
You don't need to trust one more than the other to not take anonymous sources seriously after all the bullshit that we've seen over the past year, especially when the so called journalist ran with it so fast that they didn't even get a response from the people being talked about before writing the attack article.
[editline]4th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51777596]I think I liked the headline better. I don't think New York Magazine is that random.
re: that correction, I don't trust Spicer[/QUOTE]
Of course you did, it's way more sensationalist.
I wonder how Jeb's administration would have done in its first few weeks.
[QUOTE=cdr248;51777721]I wonder how Jeb's administration would have done in its first few weeks.[/QUOTE]
Jeb's views were more or less pretty similiar to trumps, if not more far-right.
Wanted a wall, didn't approve same-sex marriage, didn't like abortion, etc.
[QUOTE=Claxx;51777753]Jeb's views were more or less pretty similiar to trumps, if not more far-right.
Wanted a wall, didn't approve same-sex marriage, didn't like abortion, etc.[/QUOTE]
Regardless it wouldn't have been a fuckin unconstitutional shit show. Literally any candidate ever would have been better than the angry cheeto.
[QUOTE=cdr248;51777721]I wonder how Jeb's administration would have done in its first few weeks.[/QUOTE]
he would have gone much slower with his movements in putting what he wants into action. which is a good thing. this rush of garbage flowing out from the trump admin. has been awful, trump just doesnt seem used to not having instant gratification
[QUOTE=sgman91;51777532]Sure, but our only evidence is two anonymous "officials." The WaPo article specifically states that they didn't even ask the White House to confirm or deny the allegation before posting the article.[/QUOTE]
I'd take two officials over the least trustworthy man on the planet any day. Spicer's entire job is to lie. The Trump administration would [I]never [/I]release a statement confirming a negative report by any publication that cares about journalism.
Those "anonymous" officials have to be verified before their claims are published and the Washington Post is a respectable publication. They're not going to release something this big without attempting to substantiate it.
[QUOTE=cdr248;51777721]I wonder how Jeb's administration would have done in its first few weeks.[/QUOTE]
At least it wasn't Hillary.
On the first day she would instantly declared a no-fly zone over Syria, which (when enacted) would have given her the power to declare war on Russia and start world war three even before the inaugural crowds had dispersed.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51777864] Hillary no-fly meme[/QUOTE]
Please tell me this is satire.
I am legitimately terrified that a man like Bannon has been allowed into the highest levels of the United States government, and doubly terrified at how easily influenced the president he is supposed to be serving under is
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51777874]Please tell me this is satire.[/QUOTE]
no it's an alternative fact
[QUOTE=Paramud;51777493]I'm really hoping we're not gonna have another Gerald Ford with Bannon becoming president.[/QUOTE]
lol no, ford was the squeeky clean guy getting drawn into the nixon admin
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51777864]At least it wasn't Hillary.
On the first day she would instantly declared a no-fly zone over Syria, which (when enacted) would have given her the power to declare war on Russia and start world war three even before the inaugural crowds had dispersed.[/QUOTE]
can't tell if it's satire anymore tbh
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51777864]At least it wasn't Hillary.
On the first day she would instantly declared a no-fly zone over Syria, which (when enacted) would have given her the power to declare war on Russia and start world war three even before the inaugural crowds had dispersed.[/QUOTE]
can we make this ban worthy or something
stop living in the past and stop living with massively assumptious "BUT IF"s
unless you're joking, then I mean hey I'm just being a giant idiot-dumbass, but I can't even tell anymore :v: There are way too many people that 100% believe this to tell at this point
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51777543]Is Bannon de facto the president?
[editline]4th February 2017[/editline]
The first genuinely racist president since Grover Cleveland. Nice.
[editline]4th February 2017[/editline]
Unless you count Nixon[/QUOTE]
What about presidents that existed pre-Grover?
I mean it was normal to be racist back then, but yeah
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;51778143]can't tell if it's satire anymore tbh[/QUOTE]
We live in satire, this is our world now.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51778153]can we make this ban worthy or something
stop living in the past and stop living with massively assumptious "BUT IF"s
unless you're joking, then I mean hey I'm just being a giant idiot-dumbass, but I can't even tell anymore :v: There are way too many people that 100% believe this to tell at this point
What about presidents that existed pre-Grover?
I mean it was normal to be racist back then, but yeah[/QUOTE]
Wilson was pretty fucking racist as well. It is sometimes said his election caused a major setback for civil rights which wasn't fixed until after the end of World War II when the Civil Rights movement really kicked off.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.