Terry Moran Insulted Stephen Miller? That's None of the Government's Business.
Terry Moran is a senior national correspondent for ABC News. Over the weekend, his employer suspended him over a statement he posted (and subsequently deleted) on X. In it, Moran described Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, as "richly endowed with the capacity for hatred."
"You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment," wrote Moran. "He eats his hate."
The tweet drew a fierce rebuke from Vice President J.D. Vance, who described it as an "absolutely vile smear." Vance, of course, is entitled to that opinion. But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt went a step further, declaring that "we"—i.e., the federal government—would be inquiring with ABC about disciplinary action.
This is a textbook example of "jawboning"—when the government tries to accomplish some censorship by threatening improper government action. It is exactly the sort of thing that conservatives rightly hated about the previous administration: President Joe Biden, his senior advisors, and various federal employees browbeat social media companies into taking down content that the feds deemed wrong, hateful, or dangerous. They didn't just say that they disagreed with major platform moderation policies: They raised the possibility of punitive legislation against Facebook, Google, and Twitter unless they complied.
Leavitt is free to complain about Moran's comment, as Vance did. But her insinuation that she would be speaking with Moran's manager reads like a threat, and thus like an attempt at censorship. As Jenin Younes, a civil liberties attorney, noted in a reply to Leavitt, the Trump administration issued an executive order to prevent the kind of jawboning that took place under the previous White House. To turn around and do the same thing is obviously hypocritical.
"Journalists and everyone else can say what they want about members of the Administration (and anything else) without having to fear reprisal from the government," wrote Younes. "You should delete this tweet and apologize for your attempted act of tyranny and also failure to understand basic constitutional concepts."
As for Moran's post: It probably was unwise for a straight news reporter to share his spicy speculations about Miller's motivations. Mainstream media organizations have different rules for news reporters and opinion commentators, and it's possible that Moran violated his company's social media policy. He has a First Amendment right vis a vis the U.S. government, not with respect to ABC.
That said, these prohibitions on reporters sharing their own opinions on social media seem increasingly outdated. Does anyone harbor doubts that virtually all straight-news journalists possess deeply held ideological convictions, perspectives, and biases? Isn't it better to know what they actually think? Large numbers of Americans now get their news from independent writers, content creators, and influencers on social media, Substack, YouTube, and other places—and the most successful voices tend to be upfront about their opinions. Expecting journalists to conceal their perspectives seems quaint and not exactly useful.
Moran's statement that Miller derives "spiritual nourishment" from feasting on pure hate is a tad dramatic. (Emperor Palpatine, anyone?) But Miller is, in fact, a fanatical supporter of deporting not just violent or gang-connected illegal immigrants but everyone who may be in the country illegally. He recently reportedly yelled at representatives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) because they were prioritizing deportations of violent criminals; Miller reportedly wanted ICE agents to patrol Home Depots and 7-Elevens and arrest anybody who looked like they might not be here legally.
Insults like "fascist" and "Nazi" are frequently overused to describe prominent Republican figures. But it's not exactly insane to say that Miller comes off as kind of hateful.
The post Terry Moran Insulted Stephen Miller? That's None of the Government's Business. appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
Texas Governor Will Deploy National Guard to Immigration Protests
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said late Tuesday that he would deploy National Guard troops across the state, making him the first governor to do so as protests against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown spread across the United States. Mr. Abbott, a Republican and a vocal supporter of President Trump's immigration agenda, said on social media that he would not tolerate violence as protests are planned in San Antonio on Wednesday. The protests that began in Los Angeles last Friday against federal immigration raids have spread to more than a dozen U.S. cities, including Dallas, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. While many of the protests have been peaceful, police have clashed with demonstrators at some of them. Mr. Trump has threatened to override governors who don't want to send National Guard troops to stop protests, like the president did in California, where he sent nearly 5,000 National Guard troops and Marines over the strong objections of state leaders. That has made California ground zero for Mr. Trump's immigration agenda, which includes ramping up deportations of undocumented immigrants with the help of local law enforcement agencies and, in a rare action, active-duty military forces. Mr. Abbott's announcement said that the Texas National Guard will 'use every tool & strategy to help law enforcement maintain order.' 'Peaceful protest is legal,' he added. 'Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest.' The announcement did not specify where and when the troops will be deployed. Mr. Abbott's office, the San Antonio Police Department, the Texas National Guard and U.S. Northern Command did not immediately respond to requests for comment. On Monday night, more than a dozen protesters were arrested in Austin during a demonstration at the Texas Capitol in Austin, Mr. Abbott had said. Law enforcement officials used tear gas and pepper ball projectiles, the Texas Department of Public Safety said.
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
LAPD pull CNN crew through police line as they disperse protesters
Tensions were high in downtown Los Angeles, as authorities tried to quell a fifth day of anti-ICE protests. CNN Senior Investigative Correspondent Kyung Lah was reporting on the ground.
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
