NY Times editorial bombshell

[William Parcher]

Pence has used the word "lodestar" repeatedly throughout the years, and also spoke at McCain's funeral.

I think the two most likely explanations for the use of the word are: 1) the op-ed was written by Pence, 2) it was used deliberately as a red herring to protect the identity of the author.

There is another rational explanation. Pence's repeated use of "lodestar" caused other staffers to learn a new word and what it means. Then they can use it themselves at any time.

With this explanation it's not Pence and it's not someone launching a red herring or pretending to be Pence.

 

[CORed]

Whomever wrote it should stop being such a pussy and work to invoke the 25th. In the article they identify Trump as completely unable to perform his duties, and if the author is to be believed as a senior official, he or she swore an oath to protect the constitution of the US.

What is being described in the article is that Trump officials are actively sabotaging the President. However bad the President is, this is a real problem, and however funny we think it is, it's treasonous behavior.

If Trump is unfit (he absolutely is), he should be removed.

Per the 25th amendment, it is the responsibility of the Vice President and the Cabinet (department secretaries) to notify Congress if the President is unfit. We don't actually know whether the author of this piece is the VP or a cabinet officer. If so, you are absolutely correct that they should be working in that direction. However, if it is a White House staffer, or an executive branch officer below cabinet rank, they aren't really part of that equation.

Also, it's not really treason (as the US Contstitution defines treason).

 

[William Parcher]

The NYT knew this op-ed would be a big deal, and they know who the author is.

Could the NYT somehow be tricked into thinking they know the true original author when they really don't?

 

[lobosrul5]

Per the 25th amendment, it is the responsibility of the Vice President and the Cabinet (department secretaries) to notify Congress if the President is unfit. We don't actually know whether the author of this piece is the VP or a cabinet officer. If so, you are absolutely correct that they should be working in that direction. However, if it is a White House staffer, or an executive branch officer below cabinet rank, they aren't really part of that equation.

Also, it's not really treason (as the US Contstitution defines treason).

Unfortunately the wording in the 25th is "unable" to perform his duties, not unfit. Besides which, if his cabinet did so then Trump would relieve them all, and they could no longer work covertly to thwart his worst impulses. And all for naught. Since there is about a 0.000001% chance that congress, needing a 2:1 majority in both houses, would actually remove him.

 

[Giordano]

There's also the dog that didn't bark evidence here. Trump and Sanders have been calling the writer of the Op-Ed GUTLESS and a coward rather than claiming it is just made up.

Exactly!

The people who write these denials are highly trained in weasel wording. The exact wording of these rebuttals is always fascinating and often helps reveal what is actually true. Any time a rebuttal calls an accusation outrageous, crazy or even ridiculous, rather simply calling it untrue, makes me more confident that it is accurate. Sure, the POTUS needing keepers to prevent him from doing seriously dangerous things is crazy and outrageous, but... untrue??

 

[theprestige]

Could the NYT somehow be tricked into thinking they know the true original author when they really don't?

Is that a rhetorical question? The answer is obviously "yes".

 

[LSSBB]

Yeah, I'd nix all the treason talk. IMO, it's no more treason, or even illegal, than when a secretary orders flowers and a gift in their bosses name to go to their bosses spouse because their boss forgot the anniversary, or when Radar O'Reilly performs actions to make up for Col. Blake's incompetence. Only it is more manipulative, it's more extensive, and it involves policy. It's Trump's White House, it's Trump's folks. He picked them, he lets them do what they do, and can fire them if he so chooses. If he's an empty suit, sorry folks, he's an empty suit. With a big mouth.

 

[kellyb]

There is another rational explanation. Pence's repeated use of "lodestar" caused other staffers to learn a new word and what it means. Then they can use it themselves at any time.

With this explanation it's not Pence and it's not someone launching a red herring or pretending to be Pence.

McCain had used it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senator-john-mccain-his-remarkable-life-and-times/

"I was raised in the concept and belief that duty, honor, country is the lodestar for the behavior that we have to exhibit every single day," he said.

Then Kissinger did at McCain's funeral:
http://time.com/5384954/john-mccain-final-act/

“Honor was John’s lodestar,” former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said. “It was his way of life.”

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There is another rational explanation. Pence's repeated use of "lodestar" caused other staffers to learn a new word and what it means. Then they can use it themselves at any time.

With this explanation it's not Pence and it's not someone launching a red herring or pretending to be Pence.

I didn't say my suppositions were exhaustive, just the two I find most plausible.

 

[kellyb]

Is that a rhetorical question? The answer is obviously "yes".

The NYT editor claims to have gotten in direct contact with the author to confirm authorship. It could not have been a trick. All you can do is speculate that the editor of the NYT is lying.

 

[Distracted1]

I wonder if the "unnamed senior official" released this information to the NYT in order to seek public support from other "senior officials".
Perhaps he/she is hoping for corroboration.

 

[kellyb]

Yeah, I'd nix all the treason talk. IMO, it's no more treason, or even illegal, than when a secretary orders flowers and a gift in their bosses name to go to their bosses spouse because their boss forgot the anniversary, or when Radar O'Reilly performs actions to make up for Col. Blake's incompetence. Only it is more manipulative, it's more extensive, and it involves policy. It's Trump's White House, it's Trump's folks. He picked them, he lets them do what they do, and can fire them if he so chooses. If he's an empty suit, sorry folks, he's an empty suit. With a big mouth.

Could it qualify as "sedition", tho?

 

[Giordano]

Per the 25th amendment, it is the responsibility of the Vice President and the Cabinet (department secretaries) to notify Congress if the President is unfit. We don't actually know whether the author of this piece is the VP or a cabinet officer. If so, you are absolutely correct that they should be working in that direction. However, if it is a White House staffer, or an executive branch officer below cabinet rank, they aren't really part of that equation.

Also, it's not really treason (as the US Contstitution defines treason).

I suspect that lodestar very much wants to have the 25th amendment issue brought into active consideration but was unable privately to convince enough of their colleagues to do so. think that this editorial was intended to blow open the ongoing secret "gentleman's agreement" so that the question of Trump's incompetence now has to be publicly addressed.

And absolutely this is not treason in any way. The POTUS is not a king. In fact there are probably many situations in which other civilian officials in the executive branch can ignore or countermand a request or order of the President without violating any laws.

 

[theprestige]

Unfortunately the wording in the 25th is "unable" to perform his duties, not unfit.

Why "unfortunately"? The purpose of the 25th is to spell out the procedure for temporary transfer of presidential authority in situations where the president is unable to act in that role. If he's dead, or kidnapped, or unconscious, etc.

Unfitness is handled by the impeachment process. There's nothing "unfortunate" at all in providing two different solutions to two different contingencies.

 

[Giordano]

Could it qualify as "sedition", tho?

'incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority."

I don't think so because the term "lawful authority" applies to the government of the USA as a whole, and the heart of the question is if protecting the USA from a deranged and incompetent individual is really opposing the lawful authority. In any case the courts have held in the USA that "sedition" falls under freedom of speech in the absence of a call to violence.

 

[lobosrul5]

Why "unfortunately"? The purpose of the 25th is to spell out the procedure for temporary transfer of presidential authority in situations where the president is unable to act in that role. If he's dead, or kidnapped, or unconscious, etc.

Unfitness is handled by the impeachment process. There's nothing "unfortunate" at all in providing two different solutions to two different contingencies.

Unfortunately, as in CORed is wrong. The impeachment process (the remove from office part anyhow) also takes a two thirds majority in Congress, so its not as if this is an easier "workaround".

 

[Ziggurat]

And absolutely this is not treason in any way.

True. Treason is a pretty specific thing, and this isn't it.

But it was still a stupid and counter-productive move. There's just no good spin on this. In no scenario is this sort of anonymous self-congratulatory revelation of an internal conspiracy a step forward.

 

[theprestige]

The NYT editor claims to have gotten in direct contact with the author to confirm authorship. It could not have been a trick. All you can do is speculate that the editor of the NYT is lying.

Or the author handed the text to a cut-out, who forwarded it to the New York Times under their own name. The editor would get in direct contact with the cut-out, who would claim to be the real author. The editor would have no way of knowing it was a trick.

 

[kellyb]

In any case the courts have held in the USA that "sedition" falls under freedom of speech in the absence of a call to violence.

I think NYTanon is good to go, then, if that's really the case.

I think "intelligence community" lawyers are going to argue that it's not the intel community's job to undermine anybody's freedom of speech by outing the author.

 

[Belz...]

There's also the dog that didn't bark evidence here. Trump and Sanders have been calling the writer of the Op-Ed GUTLESS and a coward rather than claiming it is just made up.

Yeah that's what I was refering to. This time they instead decided to smear the leaker rather than deny it. Odd.