NY Times editorial bombshell

[Bob001]

Another nominee:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...nymous-op-ed-new-york-times-kellyanne-conway/

 

[Bob001]

Note the precise phrasing:

Anything sent out by me would have carried my name. An early political lesson I learned: Never send an anonymous op-ed," Huntsman said.

Anything sent by him to the NY Times would have carried his name and been known to them. He didn't send an anonymous op-ed. The Times just printed it without his name -- hypothetically, of course.

He didn't say he didn't write it, just that he wouldn't have submitted it anonymously.

 

[acbytesla]

And they accomplish that by resignation.

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

 

[Steve]

Careful. I think this is the first evidence we have of BtheC making a joke.

That's about as likely as Trump making a joke.

 

[Garrison]

That's what I'm thinking.

What they're doing is anti-democratic and anti-"rule of law" by any measure. If they think he's too loony to hold office, they have a duty to resign and go public, not participate in one half of the government working in secret to sabotage the other half.

Yeah this is another way that Trump is undermining the US political system, albeit unintentionally this time. If White House staff start thinking its okay to thwart the agenda of an unpopular president, or just one they don't agree with, that's going to do incredible damage to the entire operation of the Executive Branch.

 

[kellyb]

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

You either fulfill your duties as a member of the executive branch, or you resign, yes. You don't just work to sabotage in the shadows.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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

"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America."

An act of disobedience in the white house an act of executive power. But the entirety of that power is vested in the president. So the disobedience is an unconstitutional act.

 

[Mycroft]

Open and independent manner? Huh?

He's a reporter. He talks to people, he takes notes and then he reports It. This isn't a scientific claim.

He's also not claiming to have seen Bigfoot or space aliens. It's only extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary evidence is fine for these claims.

 

[Bob001]

You either fulfill your duties as a member of the executive branch, or you resign, yes. You don't just work to sabotage in the shadows.

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.

 

[kellyb]

"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America."

An act of disobedience in the white house an act of executive power. But the entirety of that power is vested in the president. So the disobedience is an unconstitutional act.

Agreed. It would have been wrong and anti-constitutional if Bush/GOP loyalists had done it to Obama, and it's not ok now, either.

 

[Mycroft]

No. A "senior official" can include executive branch bureaucrats who are holdovers from prior administrations, as well as positions which aren't even appointed by the president.

Then he wouldn't be a "senior official" of the Trump administration.

 

[kellyb]

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.

I don't think sabotaging your superior is faithfully fulfilling your duties of office by even the most generous interpretation.

If they think he's too unhinged to be POTUS, they should have resigned and gone public.

They're doing this instead to get SCOTUS judges.

 

[Bob001]

Agreed. It would have been wrong and anti-constitutional if Bush/GOP loyalists had done it to Obama, and it's not ok now, either.

There were no "Bush/GOP loyalists" working in the Obama White House, although the Republican Congress did everything it could to sabotage him. These are political jobs. The people constraining Trump were selected and appointed by Trump himself, and generally (and regrettably) support Republican views about taxes, regulation, etc. That doesn't mean they have to support Trump's irrational and sometimes illegal impulses.

 

[Sherkeu]

Note the precise phrasing:

Anything sent by him to the NY Times would have carried his name and been known to them. He didn't send an anonymous op-ed. The Times just printed it without his name -- hypothetically, of course.

He didn't say he didn't write it, just that he wouldn't have submitted it anonymously.

Let's say this really is spliced-hair weasel-wording and it's Huntsman who wrote the op-ed.

That would mean that the NYT thought the authentic voice of the 'resistance' in D.C. was... a man who lives in Moscow?

 

[acbytesla]

You either fulfill your duties as a member of the executive branch, or you resign, yes. You don't just work to sabotage in the shadows.

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.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.

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.

 

[Bob001]

Let's say this really is spliced-hair weasel-wording and it's Huntsman who wrote the op-ed.

That would mean that the NYT thought the authentic voice of the 'resistance' in D.C. was... a man who lives in Moscow?

He's a long-time public official with numerous connections. He has worked for Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. He's no Trump acolyte. And I'm sure he returns to Washington regularly -- most recently for Sen. McCain's funeral, just before the op-ed appeared.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman_Jr.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

 

[Sherkeu]

Then he wouldn't be a "senior official" of the Trump administration.

Even if it was an appointee of Trump, how many are really bonafide Trump supporters?

This is a President who beat one party by orchestrating the hostile takeover of the other. He had to borrow from 'enemy' machinery to run his admin since he didn't have his own to draw from. It's been a forced fit from day 1.

 

[Trebuchet]

That's what I'm thinking.

What they're doing is anti-democratic and anti-"rule of law" by any measure. If they think he's too loony to hold office, they have a duty to resign and go public, not participate in one half of the government working in secret to sabotage the other half.

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