The White House, still trying to make Trump look like he s perfect, blasted out a press release containing an article from McClatchy. Titled  Trump Is Not The First President To Ban Foreigners. So Why Is This Time Different?  they removed several full paragraphs detailing out the problems legal and otherwise with the Muslim ban.What remains is a benign story that makes it sound like McClatchy agrees that Trump is just doing what every other president did.Sean Spicer s office put the first six paragraphs of the story in, then an ellipsis, indicating that some material had been removed from the original story. Two more paragraphs later, another ellipsis, two paragraphs after that, another ellipsis, and an ellipsis at the end. While one could say that they did that due to available space, they literally removed everything that was critical of Trump, and left only the parts that weren t. That makes it a little harder to justify removing material because,  We ran out of space. Four of the missing paragraphs read:A flurry of lawsuits was immediately filed after Trump s order on behalf of immigrants detained or barred from entering the United States. U.S. District Judge James Robart, a Republican appointee, temporarily blocked the order from taking effect on a nationwide basis Friday following a half-dozen rulings by other federal judges that had backed more limited challenges. Such a temporary stay is granted generally only if a judge believes that side will prevail on the merits of the case, according to legal experts.They say that while Trump s executive order may rely on the same law as his predecessors , it differs from theirs in two important ways.First, it s much broader, banning all people from multiple countries, including those whose status had already been determined. Second, the order could be deemed unconstitutional because it discriminates against people based on their religion; the order calls for special consideration for followers of minority religions from the affected countries, a certain reference to Christians.The difference with Trump s order, said Erin Corcoran, an immigration law professor at the University of New Hampshire Law School, is that usually presidents cite more specific, immediate national threats than Trump s order did and target those who may come to the United States in the future, not those who already have legal status or are en route.The third ellipsis in the press release omits these paragraphs:Steve Legomsky, who served as senior counsel to the secretary of homeland security on immigration issues and as chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and emeritus professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, said Trump used the power in  a very different way than ever before  in part because he didn t isolate a subcategory of people.Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee who was to serve until Trump s nominee to lead the Justice Department was installed, was fired after she refused to enforce his executive order because she felt it was intended to disadvantage Muslims. I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,  Yates said in a letter.  At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.Previous presidential orders didn t draw court challenges or trigger such a major national debate as Trump s order.And the ellipsis at the end omits this:Harold Koh, a former legal adviser at the State Department who s now an international law professor at Yale University, said, however, that the courts would likely narrow the order as the litigation went on. It s a mark of how this process has been going,  he said.  You could end up having one that s a shadow of the original order. All of that highlights the major differences that exist between this order and others that past presidents have issued. Any evidence that these seven countries represent a specific threat to the U.S. is being kept under tight wraps. In fact, the Department of Justice told the 9th Circuit that the president had intel that nobody else has, and made his decision based on that.They did not provide that intel to the court, though, despite the fact that courts often have to review classified info to make a proper ruling on a case. There are even rules and regulations in place to govern that kind of thing.Right now, Trump says that he s considering several options for the Muslim ban, including appealing to the Supreme Court and just issuing a new order. In fact, White House lawyers (surprise, surprise) are supposedly drafting a new order that they say will better comply with the law.The White House s press release does include links to McClatchy s story, but they re probably banking on people not clicking the links, or maybe hoping people don t understand what they re reading. Regardless, the dishonesty of this administration continues unabated.Featured image by Andrew Harrer-Pool via Getty Images