NY Times editorial bombshell

[TragicMonkey]

'Lodestar' is an anagram for 'dares lot'. I bet there are other clues hidden in the text.

 

[theprestige]

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

LOL

 

[JoeMorgue]

The 25th Amendment is pretty much worded in a way that guarantees it's never going to happen in the only scenarios anyone would ever want to use it.

 

[CORed]

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.

The old joke, "How do you know if a politician is lying? His lips are moving.", was a humorous exaggeration until Trump came along. In Trump's case, it's disturbingly close to the truth.

 

[JoeMorgue]

'Lodestar' is an anagram for 'dares lot'. I bet there are other clues hidden in the text.

The whole thing is viral marketing for the next Dan Brown novel.

 

[lobosrul5]

The whole thing is viral marketing for the next Dan Brown novel.

Yes, I can see "Robert Langdon" muttering to himself... lodestar... "dares a lot"... "who dares wins".... the SAS is running the USA!!!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What in the world is a cut-out?

A trusted intermediary.

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?

Theprestige seems to be grasping at straws.

 

[theprestige]

Does anybody have a copy of the job description?!

Yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

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...

That's really not true. For example:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-o...t-of-the-resistance-1536182473-htmlstory.html

 

[Giordano]

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.

Come on- do you really think that the NY Times would have been so casual about confirming the identity of its author given the visibility of the Op-ed, its impact, and the inevitable rabid attempts to discredit it? They have extensive procedures to confirm even far less important stories/pieces and a large legal department to ensure that they do so properly.

 

[Belz...]

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

The bombshell is a inside confirmation of what we thought we knew before. And also a pretty clear indication that the world is flirting with disaster daily.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

That doesn't follow from anything I said.

 

[kellyb]

That's really not true. For example:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-o...t-of-the-resistance-1536182473-htmlstory.html

They're mad at the author, not the NYT.

 

[Belz...]

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

Right. Like evolution. It's true or it isn't. 50/50.

Teach the controversy.



I don't know but I trust newspapers to correctly identify their own sources better than some random bloke on the internet (no offense).

 

[Giordano]

The 25th Amendment is pretty much worded in a way that guarantees it's never going to happen in the only scenarios anyone would ever want to use it.

Actually it works very well if the POTUS is unconscious, etc. The cabinet determines the POTUS is unable to perform their responsibilities; the President is unable to rebut this determination.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That's really not true. For example:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-o...t-of-the-resistance-1536182473-htmlstory.html

That article expresses anger towards the author, not the NYT. (ETA: echoing kellyb)

 

[theprestige]

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

On the other hand, "unfitness" can be applied to the impeachment process in a wide range of ways, thanks to the phrasing, "high crimes and misdemeanors". That's why I think it's a better match for what people are wanting, which is to remove the President under any pretext. Impeachment admits a lot more pretexts than the 25th.

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.

No. The test for inability is explicitly described in the amendment. Congress is invoked to resolve disputes about the outcome of the test, because while the test is clear, it is not immune to dispute.

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.

Certainly. Likewise, "made to pass the test of ability under duress" would fall under the "unable" category.

But the two questions are very different. "Is the president unable to act in the role, despite appearances?" is a much narrower question than "is the president acting in the role so badly that he should be removed?". Thus, since both questions require two thirds of Congress to support the desired outcome, impeachment is a much better fit for pursuing that outcome. One obvious reason this is so is that for the impeachment process, Congress doesn't have to explore the President's inner motives, only the external results. If the President is behaving badly, Congress can impeach him on that basis alone. If it's a 25th Amendment dispute, Congress has to actually answer the question of mental health, instead of simply examining the outcome.

 

[Ziggurat]

The bombshell is a inside confirmation of what we thought we knew before.

That is precisely why you shouldn't simply accept it as true. It's potentially a textbook example of confirmation bias. Without any way to independently verify that information, let alone a name of someone staking their reputation on it, it's not actually confirmation of anything. Your state of knowledge hasn't actually changed at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

They're mad at the author, not the NYT.

Primarily, yes. But you don't seriously think she thought the NYT was right to publish it, do you?

 

[trustbutverify]

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.

Trump's cabinet is the "deep state"? Wow.