NY Times editorial bombshell

[acbytesla]

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.

They ARE not consistent with the Constitution. On that we agree.

But if the President is working to destroy it, isn't it nobler to do such things? I get that it isn't probably technically legal and in some ways could be considered traitorous.

Was it right for German citizens to attempt to assassinate Hitler? Were Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Adams patriots or traitors?

Depends on your POV.

 

[kellyb]

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.

We'll never know because these folks refuse to go public.

If they were to resign, someone else would fill their shoes.

The only argument they have as an excuse is that they are the only people who can control him "properly", or something like that, I think.

I dunno. In a way, it almost seems like they're as bad as he is.

 

[BobTheCoward]

They ARE not consistent with the Constitution. On that we agree.

But if the President is working to destroy it, isn't it nobler to do such things? I get that it isn't probably technically legal and in some ways could be considered traitorous.

Was it right for German citizens to attempt to assassinate Hitler? Were Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Adams patriots or traitors?

Depends on your POV.

The people you listed did not have an explicit duty they had agreed to follow. I have no problem if some dude or chick on a white house tour decided to swipe the order.

 

[kellyb]

They ARE not consistent with the Constitution. On that we agree.

But if the President is working to destroy it, isn't it nobler to do such things? I get that it isn't probably technically legal and in some ways could be considered traitorous.

Was it right for German citizens to attempt to assassinate Hitler? Were Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Adams patriots or traitors?

Depends on your POV.

It certainly sounds illegal. It's possible to try and convict someone and then give them a very light sentence based on the context of the crime.

 

[phiwum]

They ARE not consistent with the Constitution. On that we agree.

But if the President is working to destroy it, isn't it nobler to do such things? I get that it isn't probably technically legal and in some ways could be considered traitorous.

Was it right for German citizens to attempt to assassinate Hitler? Were Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Adams patriots or traitors?

Depends on your POV.

I confess that I'm not sure how to answer. I can see both sides, but I'm confident with neither.

 

[acbytesla]

We'll never know because these folks refuse to go public.

If they were to resign, someone else would fill their shoes.

The only argument they have as an excuse is that they are the only people who can control him "properly", or something like that, I think.

I dunno. In a way, it almost seems like they're as bad as he is.

Aye, there is the rub. This is a no win situation. I absolutely think what this person is doing is wrong and potentially illegal. I also believe it may be the most honorable thing one could possibly do.

 

[phiwum]

We'll never know because these folks refuse to go public.

If they were to resign, someone else would fill their shoes.

The only argument they have as an excuse is that they are the only people who can control him "properly", or something like that, I think.

I dunno. In a way, it almost seems like they're as bad as he is.

I don't think they're as bad as he is. I think they have the interests of the nation in mind and have some notion of what those interests are.

But it's not a clear solution. As you said, resignation doesn't matter much, unless it actually affected the GOP led Congress. That seems unlikely.

I'm torn on this issue.

 

[autumn1971]

What else could it possibly be?

It could be a fever-dream of paranoid wanna-be fascists.

 

[kellyb]

Aye, there is the rub. This is a no win situation. I absolutely think what this person is doing is wrong and potentially illegal. I also believe it may be the most honorable thing one could possibly do.

I don't think it's just one person. It's several of them, at least.

Trump being in office makes a mockery of our democracy, but what they're doing just makes it all that much worse.

 

[kellyb]

I don't think they're as bad as he is. I think they have the interests of the nation in mind and have some notion of what those interests are.

But it's not a clear solution. As you said, resignation doesn't matter much, unless it actually affected the GOP led Congress. That seems unlikely.

I'm torn on this issue.

I'm sure they tell themselves they "have the interests of the nation in mind", but I'm not sure I'd agree with them if I knew what their objectives are.

I really, really think they're not going public for political reasons primarily. "To save the country!" is a mere rationalization.

I mean, to a conservative, getting a rightwing SCOTUS judge is acting to save the country with the interests of the nation in mind.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think it's just one person. It's several of them, at least.

Trump being in office makes a mockery of our democracy, but what they're doing just makes it all that much worse.

I don't think it makes it worse although it violates how it should work. But with Trump, that ship had already sailed.

 

[kellyb]

I don't think it makes it worse although it violates how it should work. But with Trump, that ship had already sailed.

With Trump elected as the dysfunctional aspect, it's a legitimate government with a bad, imcompetent dude in the oval office.

With a lot of the other admin officials working to sabotage the president, it's not a legitimate government at all. Not just dysfunctional - completely illegitimate, unless you want to coax some legitimacy out of the authority of the "steady state", whatever the hell that is.

Good lord.

 

[acbytesla]

With Trump elected as the dysfunctional aspect, it's a legitimate government with a bad, imcompetent dude in the oval office.

With a lot of the other admin officials working to sabotage the president, it's not a legitimate government at all. Not just dysfunctional - completely illegitimate, unless you want to coax some legitimacy out of the authority of the "steady state", whatever the hell that is.

Good lord.

Tell me about it.

 

[autumn1971]

That word "duties" is tricky. Is it the employee's "duty" to serve a deranged President blindly like a feudal lord serving a mad king, or is it to protect and defend the Constitution and the government as best he can?

Most (I'm not sure about all) federal government employees take this oath:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

Note that the word "President" doesn't appear.

Note also that “So help me God” is either a new addition or just made up, as it sure as hell doesn’t appear in the Presidential Oath in the Constitution

 

[autumn1971]

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.



Demolishing the democratic institutions of the country is not patriotic.

The democratic institutions of the country have been destroyed, and congress has rolled over to a deranged man in thrall to a foreign adversary.

This is a time for extreme actions

 

[autumn1971]

It certainly sounds illegal. It's possible to try and convict someone and then give them a very light sentence based on the context of the crime.

I agree with this statement; sometimes one must break the law based on conscience and logic, but they must face the music.

 

[Bob001]

Note also that “So help me God” is either a new addition or just made up, as it sure as hell doesn’t appear in the Presidential Oath in the Constitution

There is a debate about whether "So help me God" was actually added by George Washington, but it has been a traditional part of the Presidential oath pretty much since the beginning of the country. The federal employee oath was enacted by Congress.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-11/what-so-help-me-god-meant-to-george-washington

I'm pretty sure that someone wouldn't be required to say those words if he objected.
http://militaryatheists.org/about/faqs/do-i-have-to-say-so-help-me-god-during-my-enlistment-oath/

 

[LSSBB]

The democratic institutions of the country have been destroyed, and congress has rolled over to a deranged man in thrall to a foreign adversary unnamed enterprising administration functionaries.

This is a time for extreme actions

Made an adjustment...

 

[Cain]

Should anonymous make herself known? (I'm using that pronoun to cover all genders and non-genders.)

If anonymous were a cabinet level official like Pompeo or Haley, then, yes, she should have publicly broken with the administration. But if it's some no-name, UK-born Putin nerd, then this seems like THE way to maximize the resistance. A no-name person would not get nearly this much attention for writing the same exact thing. People want intrigue and mystery.

I remember my mom would add marbles and rice to wrapped Christmas presents, put smaller boxes inside bigger boxes, redistribute big things into several little things, etc. to throw me off the track. When we'd get to choose which one we wanted to open early, I'd carefully shake the package up next to my ear, "Hmmm.... sounds like disappointment." The answer will not be as beautiful as the mystery. It's like the philosopher Winnie the Pooh says his favorite thing is eating honey, then corrects himself and says, "No, it's the feeling right before eating honey."

 

[The Norseman]

Made an adjustment...

Why the strikeout? It's more of a comma, and... sort of thing.