NY Times editorial bombshell

[BrooklynBaby]

I think it is pretty clear that since we have no idea of the identity of the subversive and no way to cross examine said subversive, there is no reason to believe anything in the fake news op-ed is true. But, it won't hurt to start polygraphing people to see if we smoke out the ones we already know are there. Maybe this will prompt someone to go into Sessions' office, play some loud rap music to wake him up, and scream in his ear that there is a problem that needs attending to.

 

[Giordano]

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.


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.


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.

Nope: the opposite. Impeachment is very narrow and the 25th Amendment was expressly created in recognition of that and the need to deal with "unable."

Impeachment (and conviction):
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

25th Amendment:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."

 

[kellyb]

I'm not sure that it does. While it plays directly into the "resistance" belief that Trump is unfit, it also plays directly into the Trump base belief that there's an unelected bureaucracy that's trying to undermine the results of the 2016 election. It's not a given that the first message will be more important than the second message. It will certainly help polarize things, but the overall effect is hard to gauge.

Trump's lunatic base already believed that 100%. It's not going to serve to get them to the polls for the midterms, especially since it paints a picture of all those other non-Trump republicans being in agreement that Trump is bad.

I don't see the behavior of his base changing at all, in any way as a result of the letter.

 

[Venom]

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?

The writer is confirming what we've suspected, not what we already knew. There was no shortage of skeptics brushing off rumors of discontent in the top brass of the Whitehouse, "liberal fake nus", let alone a conspiracy to sabotage Trump's more extreme efforts.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If there's only one anonymous source with no confirmation, then yes, an article is suspect. Most journalists know this. Most readers should too.

Uh, yeah. But that's not the case here is it? There are other sources saying the same thing and I know you've been exposed to that information.

 

[Giordano]

I've been having the same types of problems this morning with quotes. My apologies to The Prestige too!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps.

[...]

Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.

New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty
​

Despite the obvious problems with Duranty's work, the NYT published it anyway, and it took them another fifty years to admit their mistake. Appeals to the editorial integrity of the New York Times, and to the reliability of its due diligence, do not impress.

Are the editors the same people who were the editors more than 30 years ago?

 

[Ziggurat]

Did you listen to the NYT podcast with the editor, explaining how he confirmed it came from someone in the admin?

You seem to be confused about what the problem is with anonymous sources. The problem isn't that the reporter (or in this case, the NYT editor) doesn't know the identity of the source. They typically do. The problem is that readers do not, which means readers cannot assess the credibility of the source. That the source is someone within the administration doesn't automatically grant them credibility.

All you're left with is speculating that the NYT editor lying after that.

Not in the least. The question isn't whether the editor is lying, but whether the author is lying. I cannot evaluate the reliability of the author based on the NYT knowing who the author is.

 

[theprestige]

Did you listen to the NYT podcast with the editor, explaining how he confirmed it came from someone in the admin?

The NYT editor gave confirmation that the letter is some sort of "legit". Someone in the admin was willing to claim authorship.

Which is not the same thing as actually being the author.

All you're left with is speculating that the NYT editor lying after that.

Or that the editor believes he found the author, but was misled. Or that the editor believes his source is probably the real author, and that this is sufficient due diligence to justify publication.

All you're left with is speculating that the editor actually found the real author.

I'm not sure why it's important, though.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

How is a high-level member of Trump's administration an "entrenched bureaucrat"?

Also, bonus points to you for throwing shade on the veracity of the op-ed just over an hour after you claimed it was evidence of your conspiracy theory:

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.

Why throw just some **** at the wall when you can throw all the ****!

 

[JoeMorgue]

You know I hope we can get to a point where every piece of new information presented accomplishes something then verifying what the tribes already thought they knew.

So this is evidence of Trump being a monster who eats babies, proof of a deep state assault on the President, the end of democracy, the beginning of the revolution, proof that the press is vital, proof that the press is evil, and bringing dancing back to that town from Footloose.

Good, glad we cleared that up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Uh, yeah. But that's not the case here is it? There are other sources saying the same thing and I know you've been exposed to that information.

Are there? All the sources are anonymous. How do you know it's not just the same source going through different channels? That's an old trick.

 

[theprestige]

Are the editors the same people who were the editors more than 30 years ago?

Wrong question.

Are the editors today better people than the editors of 30 years ago?

 

[kellyb]

Here's Kellyanne's reaction to the oped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=N-NEzyVVioc

No way it was her.

I think it was someone who wants to be the next Henry Kissinger, like they were putting in their application with the illuminati with this stunt. lol

 

[BobTheCoward]

Nope: the opposite. Impeachment is very narrow and the 25th Amendment was expressly created in recognition of that and the need to deal with "unable."

Impeachment (and conviction):
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

25th Amendment:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."

I'm actually soliciting your opinion on this...

...what do you think unable means? Obviously it could mean whatever a person wants it to mean. But what would it mean to you if you were put into that situation?

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Trump's lunatic base already believed that 100%. It's not going to serve to get them to the polls for the midterms, especially since it paints a picture of all those other non-Trump republicans being in agreement that Trump is bad.

I don't see the behavior of his base changing at all, in any way as a result of the letter.

You don't understand a thing about Trump's base, but you should if you're going to comment on us. Standing in the dark and screaming at the boogie man is fun, but when the lights go on he always disappears.

 

[theprestige]

Here's Kellyanne's reaction to the oped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=N-NEzyVVioc

No way it was her.

I think it was someone who wants to be the next Henry Kissinger, like they were putting in their application with the illuminati with this stunt. : p lol

I thought you were deprecating speculation.

 

[alfaniner]

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

How about "rat doles"?

 

[Hevneren]

It's also a few other things including "leads rot" and "least rod."

East Lord. It's Vlad himself.

 

[Belz...]

You seem to be confused about what the problem is with anonymous sources. The problem isn't that the reporter (or in this case, the NYT editor) doesn't know the identity of the source.

But the person who puts the op-ed out DOES know the source. It's only anonymous to other people. It's not like some bloke calling the NYT from a payphone to spout off unverified claims.