NY Times editorial bombshell

[quadraginta]

This is a serious, non-snarky question:
Are you laying out a case that the "deep state" as it's referred to is real, and is comprised of high-ish level bureaucrats who are holdovers from one administration to the next?

What else could it possibly be?

'Imaginary' ranks at the top of the list of possibilities.

 

[acbytesla]

Then you invoke the 25th Amendment, or while resigning ensure that the general public knows exactly why you're resigning.

Who says he's a cabinet member?

I don't think there is ANYTHING simple about this. I also don't think the 25th was in fact meant to resolve the present situation.

I understand the predicament. On one hand working against the President from within can legitimately be viewed as criminal and yet it very well may be the most patriotic action one could take.

 

[quadraginta]

Evidence about a possible author:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/new-york-times-op-ed-anonymous-writer-trump.html

Huntsman denied it early on, through embassy tweet:

<snip>

Mark Felt denied being Deep Throat for about three decades. Until he didn't anymore.

I guess if it's really top level though, it's going to have to be someone who has denied it. They have all denied now, right?

I am not suggesting it was Huntsman. I really have no idea who it might have been.

But you are getting to the core point here. Denial, at this stage, is pretty meaningless.

 

[acbytesla]

Well you can't fulfill a duty by violating that duty. If the president gives an order, the deputy does not have authority to rescind that order.

The ultimate duty is to protect the nation and the Constitution.

 

[kellyb]

It's not as if Trump believes in democracy or the rule of law himself.

I think that goes for a lot of politicians. Few are quite so brazen about it, though.

 

[kellyb]

Normally, I would agree with you. But there is nothing normal about Trump and the situation.

The oath is to defend the country and the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. What if the enemy is the President and you know that resigning would in reality be abandoning the nation? This isn't an easy question or decision.

I don't mean to make it out like it's easy. But the right, lawful thing to do is to resign and go public.

The only reason they're not doing that is because of political consequences like getting SCOTUS judges, tho. Not "patriotism".

 

[quadraginta]

The oath is to defend the country and the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. What if the enemy is the President and you know that resigning would in reality be abandoning the nation? This isn't an easy question or decision.

Then you invoke the 25th Amendment, or while resigning ensure that the general public knows exactly why you're resigning.

Bear in mind that we are talking about top ranking conservative Republicans, regardless of who is involved.

They are not known for their personal responsibility or integrity. That horse is way out of the barn.

None of them are going to do anything which costs them at all, even a little bit.

Expect nothing from them until the cost of keeping their head down is worse than the cost of exposure.

 

[kellyb]

'Imaginary' ranks at the top of the list of possibilities.

This is real, though:

http://www.pce.at/PDF/US-Schattenregierung.pdf

 

[BobTheCoward]

The ultimate duty is to protect the nation and the Constitution.

But you can't protect the constitution by violating it. Congress cannot save us from a deranged judiciary by holding trials themselves.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Who says he's a cabinet member?

I didn't say he was. I presented two choices. Those are the only two choices for anybody who is concerned about upholding democracy. If you're unable to do one of the two choices, then you must do the other, if you're concerned about upholding democracy.

On one hand working against the President from within can legitimately be viewed as criminal and yet it very well may be the most patriotic action one could take.

Demolishing the democratic institutions of the country is not patriotic.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Interesting, and thanks for your comprehensive response.

I consider "fake news" to be outlets which go beyond just lying by omission, but actually create totally fabricated "facts" - the sort of thing described here. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltec...f-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

It's not just the right that does it, but some leftwing websites, "Occupy Democrats" being one of the worst and best known.

I'm curious to know what you see as the most reliable media outlets, specifically?

Personally, I tend to put "trust" in specific journalists over outlets. The only news outlet I fully trust is TRNN, and in that case, I guess it's the editor who I trust.

We pretty much agree on this. I'm a skeptic and generally don't believe anything at first glance that can in any way be connected to politics, regardless of the source. Because we have a free press, fake news has always been with us, from the beginning. It's the American way. So, it's reasonable to not trust any of the news outlets, because the truth isn't always what they are trying to deliver, especially when they are covering a GOP woman supposedly making secret white power signs instead of the booming economy. They have no shame -- none at all.

 

[phiwum]

Are you saying that is the only way to fulfill the oath? Can't someone decide there is a more effective method?

Not really, I think. Other methods, such as removing items from his desk, are not really consistent with the Constitution. The President has certain powers, and I'm not sure that thwarting those powers is defensible, even if done so with the interests of the nation in mind.

I'm kinda ambivalent on this issue. I kinda like that there are grownups with our interests in mind, but I'm not sure that the behavior we're discussing here is the proper response to what I regard as a crisis.

 

[Bob001]

....
It's the American way. So, it's reasonable to not trust any of the news outlets, because the truth isn't always what they are trying to deliver, especially when they are covering a GOP woman supposedly making secret white power signs instead of the booming economy. ...

Yeah, maybe the press should be covering the economy more closely. But not for the reason you think:

But most Americans are still living in the shadow of the Great Recession. More have jobs, to be sure. But they haven’t seen any rise in their wages, adjusted for inflation.

Many are worse off due to the escalating costs of housing, healthcare, and education. And the value of whatever assets they own is less than in 2007.

Last year, about 40 percent of American families struggled to meet at least one basic need — food, health care, housing or utilities, according to an Urban Institute survey.

All of which suggests we’re careening toward the same sort of crash we had in 2008, and possibly as bad as 1929.

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/07/robert-reich-the-next-crash_partner/

Of course, you don't have to believe a word of it if it doesn't come out of Dear Leader's mouth.

 

[kellyb]

Not really, I think. Other methods, such as removing items from his desk, are not really consistent with the Constitution. The President has certain powers, and I'm not sure that thwarting those powers is defensible, even if done so with the interests of the nation in mind.

I'm kinda ambivalent on this issue. I kinda like that there are grownups with our interests in mind, but I'm not sure that the behavior we're discussing here is the proper response to what I regard as a crisis.

We might not be in a crisis is these people just went public with everything they know and called upon congress to remove him from office.

 

[Ziggurat]

We might not be in a crisis is these people just went public with everything they know and called upon congress to remove him from office.

On what grounds? That they don't like Trump's policy choices? That they don't like Trump himself?

You seem to think that the author is alleging more than he is actually alleging.

 

[kellyb]

On what grounds? That they don't like Trump's policy choices? That they don't like Trump himself?

You seem to think that the author is alleging more than he is actually alleging.

Whatever they have to say that they feel morally and legally justifies committing acts like stealing papers off the desk of the President of the United States of America.

 

[jimbob]

On what grounds? That they don't like Trump's policy choices? That they don't like Trump himself?

You seem to think that the author is alleging more than he is actually alleging.

The author is alleging that Trump is incapable of fulfilling his duties and indeed exhibits behaviour that would make him pretty much unemployable in virtually any area.

 

[BobTheCoward]

On what grounds? That they don't like Trump's policy choices? That they don't like Trump himself?

You seem to think that the author is alleging more than he is actually alleging.

Going so far to order a major policy change be prepared, but to forget about it simply because the paper doesn't materialize is disqualifying in my eyes.

 

[kellyb]

His "amorality" and "lack of a lodestar" is certainly diagnoseable.

 

[phiwum]

We might not be in a crisis is these people just went public with everything they know and called upon congress to remove him from office.

Maybe not, but I'm not so sure that the Congress is willing to act.

I'm totally not thrilled with the allegations from Woodward or the op ed writer. But I can't say for sure what these folk ought to do.