NY Times editorial bombshell

[d4m10n]

It's somebody's.

Kirstjen Nielsen

 

[kellyb]

Kirstjen Nielsen

Surely one of his aides could have distracted him with something, too. Or maybe the director of homeland security could have flushed the relevant orders down the toilet?

 

[d4m10n]

Surely one of his aides could have distracted him with something, too. Or maybe the director of homeland security could have flushed the relevant orders down the toilet?

I mean, sure, as long as we're just making **** up.

 

[kellyb]

I mean, sure, as long as we're just making **** up.

Well, this is why admin officials sabotaging the POTUS and not fulfilling their oaths of office instead of resigning and going public is bad. If the "steady state" operatives can just make up rules, the rest of us are left doing the same.

None of this is legitimate.

 

[CapelDodger]

You are right about the way that he treated/treats Obama, but it goes beyond that. Look at the way he talks about pasty white 'Crooked Hillary'!
I think that both Hillary Clinton and Obama are people that he fears because he feels inferior to them. They are part of the power elite, recognized, and he isn't and never will be.
In his narcissism, he is well aware of the points he scores with white supremacists when he disparages Obama, but he actually fears him and his skills, for instance as an orator.

I think rejection by elites has been a feature of Trump's life since his schooldays, not because of his background but because he's a dullard and utterly inept socially. It was the same at college, in New York society, and now in politics and on the world stage. Even in entertainment he was just "talent".

That and his narcissism have completely shaped this sorry excuse for a human being.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, this is why admin officials sabotaging the POTUS and not fulfilling their oaths of office instead of resigning and going public is bad.

Lovely false dichotomy you've got here, assuming POTUS is expecting his people to live up to their oaths instead of ignoring them.
https://twitter.com/saletan/status/1037333007076675588

 

[kellyb]

Lovely false dichotomy you've got here, assuming POTUS is expecting his people to live up to their oaths instead of ignoring them.
https://twitter.com/saletan/status/1037333007076675588

The president expecting people to ignore their oaths is irrelevant. Even more reason for them to resign and go public, if anything.

eta:
And this is an actual dichotomy.

 

[CapelDodger]

Trump finds more credibility in Putin than America's law enforcement community. Very strongly and bigly. He hates our friends and loves our enemies. I think it is fair to say we are in a crisis.

History jumped the shark with Trump, and having it coincide with this Republican Congress with the prospect of a thoroughly stacked Supreme Court means "crisis" ain't the half of it.

 

[d4m10n]

And this is an actual dichotomy.

You really don't see any other options besides these two?

1) Betray oath of office
2) Resign and go public

 

[smartcooky]

Trump finds more credibility in Putin than America's law enforcement community. Very strongly and bigly. He hates our friends and loves our enemies. I think it is fair to say we are in a crisis.

He finds credibility in people like Putin and Kim. He is attracted to this type of leader because its what he wants to be, an all powerful dictator, and its not hard to see why....its what he is used to.

Throughout his adult life, Dolt has always been in a position where he is the ultimate boss with unlimited power within the organisation, and because he is a career businessman (not a career politician) he doesn't understand that governing a state or a council or country is about compromise. He thought he would be able to run the country just like a business.... all he needed to do was just breeze into The White House after the election and start barking orders, and everyone around him would just jump to it. He's finding it both annoying and inconvenient that this is not how politics works.

 

[kellyb]

You really don't see any other options besides these two?

1) Betray oath of office
2) Resign and go public

They could follow their oath of office if possible (for example, if assisting the president when requested and defending the constitution were not in opposition.)
That's the only third option.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You really don't see any other options besides these two?

1) Betray oath of office
2) Resign and go public

Can you come up with a third one?

 

[The Norseman]

4. I agree that the anonymity of the Op Ed (to the public) is a definite limitation to its weight as evidence. Absolutely! But this is neither unique nor does it allow the information provided to be unthinkingly discarded as untrue.

Great post as usual!

Just wanted to expand on this point slightly and say that *we* don't know who the person is at the moment and we may never know. But the NYT knows and they've stated it up front and accept the responsibility and only *ask* that we trust the source as they do.

This is a common occurrence. They more than anyone know that it makes it more difficult for people to believe what the op-ed is saying. What they're asking is that we trust *them* in lieu of trusting the source. The NYT staff know that this may not be enough for some people or even most people.

And that's okay. It's okay to trust them or not. But that does not mean that the NYT is publishing nonsense or that they're pulling a fast one on the public.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Can you come up with a third one?

Adhere to your oath of office and stay in your position.

 

[kellyb]

Adhere to your oath of office and stay in your position.

Yeah, it's technically a trichotomy, I guess, but I don't consider "stay and sabotage the president and betray your oath of office" a valid option.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Adhere to your oath of office and stay in your position.

I thought the scenario specifically excluded that.

 

[kellyb]

I thought the scenario specifically excluded that.

It's technically on the table. It's just impossible to imagine being like "Well, guys, President CrazyPants got into a twitter fight with Rosie O'Donnel last night at 3 AM, and woke up pissed off and wanting to invade Venezuela, so I guess we need to call the Pentagon and get the ball rolling."

 

[Mycroft]

Which leads us back to autumn1971 advocating for political violence. Again.

When is political violence justified?

Because it is sometimes, right?

 

[Mycroft]

Neither the author nor the NYT claimed that the author was a Republican. That may well be the case, but we don't actually know that.

It would be astonishing if they were not. Who in the Trump administration celebrates their conservative accomplishment and is not a Republican?

 

[d4m10n]

Can you come up with a third one?

3) Prevent POTUS from making disastrous decisions, especially when he hopes to violate federal law