NY Times editorial bombshell

[Belz...]

Because publishing the op Ed is itself an act to undermine. They've just sent the White House into another paroxysm of paranoia, witch hunting, and backstabbing. The serpents are biting each other in a frenzy. Everyone knows the fastest path to rattle Trump's cage good and hard is to announce to the press that he's not in control of things. He's probably tripled his Diet Coke consumption to rehydrate from all the spittle he's lost from screaming in the last two days. Another couple of leaks and he'll need an IV drip!

Good point.

 

[theprestige]

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".

I think it is easier, actually. The 25th begins with a specific test of executive ability, and involves Congress to resolve a dispute over the outcome of the test. Impeachment skips the testing process, and goes straight to Congress. If you have two thirds of Congress willing to consider removing the president, impeachment is a more streamlined way to get that done. And if you don't have two thirds support, neither approach really matters. Unless the President unequivocally fails the test of ability specified in the 25th. In that case, the 25th is actually the preferable solution.

But that's not the case here. The case here is that people want Trump gone, and are flailing around trying to find whatever procedural excuse or shenanigans that looks likely to make that happen. My opinion is, the 25th is a red herring. If people don't like the way Trump is presidenting, just push for impeachment already. Save the 25th for its intended purpose - transferring presidential authority when the president is literally incapacitated.

 

[Cain]

At least one staffer in this White House has said (awhile ago) when leaking s/he pays attention to colleagues' idioms so that they can throw the trail off themselves. It's probably a pretty common practice.

ETA: Maybe this was cited in the other thread: "To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers' idioms and use that in my background quotes. That throws the scent off me," the current White House official added.

https://www.axios.com/trump-white-h...ing-dae05b8e-e792-41a7-bb74-c2756b542cd0.html

Still, I would have a friend write the editorial. I also wouldn't rule out that anonymous is more than one person (which may be unknown to the Times as well).

 

[kellyb]

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.

The letter read to me like it was written by someone who personally resents Trump. Like, sending that to the NYT is part of a vendetta, if that makes sense. The letter makes sense if spite is the actual point.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Time to institute polygraphing and find the subversives.

 

[Ziggurat]

The letter read to me like it was written by someone who personally resents Trump. Like, sending that to the NYT is part of a vendetta, if that makes sense. The letter makes sense if spite is the actual point.

Quite likely. The real question is what possessed the NYT to publish it as an anonymous editorial. Spite might be the actual point for them too, but they should know better.

 

[Belz...]

The editor would have no way of knowing it was a trick.

You are speculating, though. He might have a way of knowing that you're not privvy to.

 

[Cavemonster]

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.

But unfitness is not explicitly covered in impeachment requirements any more than it is in the 25th.

treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

Unfitness is a far more awkward match for those criteria than it is for a type of inability.

But further, section 4 of the 25th provides specifically for a case where the president is in disagreement with either the cabinet or congress about his inability to perform his duties and gives congress the power to decide. That would not be applicable in cases of death unconsciousness etc. So clearly the intent and text of the amendment allows for kinds of incapacity about which a President may disagree, such as extreme unfitness.

 

[autumn1971]

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

So a business entity whose whole profit margin is based on its world-wide reliability would risk everything by sloppy vetting?

Why do you hate capitalism?

 

[dann]

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

Does anybody have a copy of the job description?!

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well, at least the editorial clarifies one thing: the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats is real, and is really working to undermine the Executive branch.

Wouldn't the people this close to the president be the people he brought in?

Seems more like the "best people" either aren't that good or aren't that loyal. May need a new hiring manager to vet these folks.

 

[kellyb]

Quite likely. The real question is what possessed the NYT to publish it as an anonymous editorial. Spite might be the actual point for them too, but they should know better.

I find the whole thing fascinating, so I'm glad they published it.

The only people mad at them for publishing it are the people who've been calling them fake news since before Trump revoked their WH press pass, so...

 

[JoeMorgue]

I guess I'm having a hard time grasping exactly what the big bombshell is supposed to be here.

We already knew that a lot of Trump's inner circle don't like him and if you don't think at least some of that inner circle don't think the ship is sinking (regardless of whether or not you think it is sinking and indeed regardless of whether or not it actually is) and are taking steps to make sure they have a seat in the lifeboats you're naive to the point of insanity.

Stripped from all the "Pull Trump's string to see what crazy nonsense he spouts off to feed the media machine" language all we're left with is somebody in the White House doesn't like Trump and is intentionally making things difficult for him which... raise your hand if you couldn't have guessed that a week ago?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Quite likely. The real question is what possessed the NYT to publish it as an anonymous editorial. Spite might be the actual point for them too, but they should know better.

So, we are now holding the NYT editorial board to a higher standard than the President of the United States. Bizarro world.

 

[theprestige]

But unfitness is not explicitly covered in impeachment requirements any more than it is in the 25th.

The 25th actually spells out the criteria for unfitness explicitly.

That's another advantage of the impeachment process. While the 25th imposes a specific and narrow test, "high crimes and misdemeanors" gives Congress considerable leeway to remove the president for a wide range of justifications.

But further, section 4 of the 25th provides specifically for a case where the president is in disagreement with either the cabinet or congress about his inability to perform his duties and gives congress the power to decide. That would not be applicable in cases of death unconsciousness etc. So clearly the intent and text of the amendment allows for kinds of incapacity about which a President may disagree, such as extreme unfitness.

Certainly. It was wise of the authors of the Amendment to provide a contingency for resolving disputes between the President and his Cabinet. But impeachment is still a better fit for this scenario, since it requires only the support of Congress, and not additionally the support of the Cabinet and the dissent of the President.

 

[Giordano]

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.

Actually impeachment is limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It dos not apply to unfitness in any other way.

The 25th amendment was created expressly to deal with if the President was "unable" to perform their duties, with "unable" not defined in the amendment but left to be defined first by the cabinet, and, if rebutted by the President, to be defined by Congress. The amendment clearly is designed to include "medically unfit as in unconscious" as falling within the category "unable". I believe the drafters of the amendment, and most others, would view "medically unfit as in clinically and seriously insane" as also falling under the "unable" category.

 

[theprestige]

You are speculating, though. He might have a way of knowing that you're not privvy to.

Of course. But I'm not speculating any more than someone who believes the editor has correctly identified the real author.

 

[lobosrul5]

So, we are now holding the NYT editorial board to a higher standard than the President of the United States. Bizarro world.

The press has always (or for any of our lifetimes anyways) been held at a higher standard than politicians (until Fox News came along). Sad as it is, we expect a degree of lying from politicians. The current POTUS has just taken it to extremes.

 

[kellyb]

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.

What in the world is a cut-out?

The NYT said they talked to someone in the Trump admin who confirmed that they were the author.

Did you listen to the podcast where the NYT editor was talking about how he determined it was real?

 

[CORed]

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".

Actually, impeachment is somewhat easier, in that it requires a simple majority in the House of Representatives and 2/3 in the Senate, whereas a 25th amendment removal requires 2/3 of both house and Senate (and that after the VP and cabinet have stated that the President is unable to perform his duties, and the President has disagreed).