Huckabee Sanders to Acosta: ‘I Know It’s Hard for You to Understand Even Short Sentences

freebeacon.com ^ | 6/14/18 | Conor Beck

[ColdOne]

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded Thursday to Jim Acosta's attempts to interrupt by taking a shot at the CNN correspondent's comprehension abilities.

Acosta asked during the daily press briefing about comments made the same day by Attorney General Jeff Sessions about the immigration situation at the southern U.S. border.

"On these children that are being separated from their families as they come across the border, the attorney general earlier today said that somehow there's a justification for this in the Bible," Acosta started. "Where does it say in the Bible that it's moral to take children away from their mothers?"

Sanders said she was unaware of Sessions' comments but that "it's very biblical to enforce the law. That is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible."

[moovova]

I love this woman.

[Fido969]

The Dems have been blocking any change to the law.

This attempt to flip the blame by the lefties is pathetic.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Where does it say in the Bible that it's moral to take children away from their mothers?

Psalm 137? Maybe someone needs to bash Jim in the head with a rock to knock some sense into him.

[morphing libertarian]

sessions was wrong. It’s not because it is the law. The law must be just and practical to follow. His response was like parents who get frustrated and tell their kids “because I say so.” when they ask why.

[rktman]

Mike drop! 🎙🎤

[ColdOne]

So do I. Enjoy watching those press briefing once again.

[Williams]

No, the law is a bit more than “because I said so”. We don’t need to justify every law every time it’s applied. That was done when the law was passed. Parents make up their decisions as they go along, which is ok by me as well. But quite different.

[plain talk]

The fact that enforcement of the law has to be defended is troubling. Sanders does a great job handling these children.

[ClearCase_guy]

The Democrats oppose law enforcement. And about half the voters don’t notice how odd that is.

[miss marmelstein]

She’s the best press secretary of my lifetime.

[Enterprise]

LOL - Acosta got pw3nd!

[Enterprise]

I wish I had been a reporter at that briefing. I would have literally LAUGHED OUT LOUD!

[SkyDancer]

Great take-down. Acosta is one insufferable idiot.

[tomkat]

             

[A_Former_Democrat]

So parents who commit crimes should be immune from jails and prisons?

Answer me that, Enemedia

[JennysCool]

That needs repeated, and bolded:

The Democrats oppose law enforcement.

Explains a whole lot.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[KC Burke]

Again and again CNN must be asked why has the nation suffered so long under policies and crimes established by the Barack Obama Administration. Trump is attempting to change these policies by working to build a Wall that kids can’t be abused by being forced to become invaders.

Why won’t the media and Democrat lawmakers cooperate with Trump’s efforts to stop this abuse?

[Phlyer]

The Democrats oppose law enforcement.

The Dims are collectivists. Since all authority is supposed to be collective (with their hands on the levers of power, of course), then inevitably all responsibility must be collective. So it's not 'criminals' fault when they break the law, it's 'our' (collective) fault. They oppose enforcement of any law that applies to individuals, because the individual does not exist in any legal sense in their collectivist utopia.

On the other hand, they are all in favor of collective guilt, hence they love reparations, higher taxes, global warming, and anything else that justifies "collective" control over individual decisions.