President Trump

[ace in the hazard]

Well, this is nice....

Good god.

I thought you'd been fooled by a parody account, but no.

Guys, don't lose your sh1t yet. There's a pretty good chance Trump is making up the quote from KJU based on something he saw on Fox News at 2am...

So there's probably nothing to worry about.

[ManFromMoffat]

Betting market on identity of Comrade Anon:

https://www.predictit.org/v2/markets/detail/4823/Who-will-NYT-confirm-as-anonymous-op-ed-author-in-2018

[ManFromMoffat]

Kavanaugh being a Sk8er Boi:



https://video.twimg.com/amplify_vide...qtcA.mp4?tag=8

[mpare]

I'm surprised that he didn't respond: "Not that I can recall. However, if my recollection is faulty in that regard, I'd appreciate being directed to anything specific that you might have to refresh my memory."

[Pimento Cheese]

The biggest problem I had with the Op Ed was the assurance that there were adults in the room. I take no comfort in knowing that the leader of a nuclear power is being controlled by chaperones who are unwilling to exercise their authority to remove someone who is desperately ill suited and unqualified for the role he is in. When something dramatically wrong occurs, these stewards of American democracy should be held accountable for their negligent actions.

That's certainly a way of reading it. For me, I questioned the motivation for writing the article. It seems less about "informing" people and more about defending the writer and his/her friends. It comes off as self-serving -- "please don't think we're bad, it's Trump who's bad and we're actually saving you from his REALLY bad stuff!" Does the article really tell us anything we don't know about Trump? I don't think it does -- it just defends the people around him who, as you say, seem to be doing something (if we believe the article) but not enough. I don't think there's anything heroic about writing an anonymous article like this.

It's like if someone were to say, "I know that driver was drunk, but I was in the passenger seat grabbing the wheel every time he started to veer into oncoming traffic." Well done, hero.

[Ignatius Reilly]

I see what Bern, Dailey and Cheese are saying, and Rick Wilson made a similar point.

However, I wonder what would really have happened if this guy had come forward and tried to block Trump. I'm not sure there's any legal grounds for impeaching him, so how else would they stop him?

I don't see it as "rationalising" or enabling behaviour.

I'm also unsure what the writer hoped to accomplish by going public. He's certainly made it much more difficult for himself or any others to continue down this path now. It's thrown the WH into even further chaos than before. Maybe that was the intent. Maybe it was written by Putin!?!

There's also a part of me that's pretty sure this is treasonous behaviour, and not something we should condone no matter who's in charge.

[ManFromMoffat]

The biggest problem I had with the Op Ed was the assurance that there were adults in the room. I take no comfort in knowing that the leader of a nuclear power is being controlled by chaperones who are unwilling to exercise their authority to remove someone who is desperately ill suited and unqualified for the role he is in. When something dramatically wrong occurs, these stewards of American democracy should be held accountable for their negligent actions.

Last night, one of the talking heads on CNN was opining that they felt the author would eventually (when?) want to be known and seen as a "hero".

[Arthur Dailey]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Teddy Roosevelt.

Somebody truly interested in 'blocking' the president would reveal actual details and facts regarding the president's actions.

As for being 'treasonous', I believe that public servants and politicians at this level swear an oath to uphold the Constitution not a personal oath of loyalty to the president. Instead of an Official Secrets Act the USA according to Wikipedia has: The United States does not have a broad-reaching Official Secrets Act, although the Espionage Act of 1917 has similar components. Much of the Espionage Act remains in force, although some has been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because of the First Amendment (See United States v. The Progressive, Brandenburg v. Ohio, New York Times Co. v. United States). 18 U.S.C. § 798, enacted in 1951, makes dissemination of secret information involving cryptography, espionage, and surveillance illegal for all people, and is thus an "official secrets act" limited to those subjects.

[Bellyhungry]

I see what Bern, Dailey and Cheese are saying, and Rick Wilson made a similar point.

However, I wonder what would really have happened if this guy had come forward and tried to block Trump. I'm not sure there's any legal grounds for impeaching him, so how else would they stop him?

I don't see it as "rationalising" or enabling behaviour.

I'm also unsure what the writer hoped to accomplish by going public. He's certainly made it much more difficult for himself or any others to continue down this path now. It's thrown the WH into even further chaos than before. Maybe that was the intent. Maybe it was written by Putin!?!

There's also a part of me that's pretty sure this is treasonous behaviour, and not something we should condone no matter who's in charge.

Just some perspective...

No matter what this anonymous person have done, should have done, could have done, or would have done, it is pale in comparison in both impact and scope of what the orange furby in the WH does and says day in day out as the commander in chief of the most powerful army in the world.

This reminds me of the outrage of the Michelle Wolfe and Kathy Griffin incidents. It just plays right into the hands of the WH. It is hard to oppose someone who cheats and doesn't play by the rules while you do.

[Bellyhungry]

According to AP, Trump is, in essence, pleading the Fifth.

https://apnews.com/d5d182b22ebf4f02b...tion-questions

[pudubny]

Just some perspective...

No matter what this anonymous person have done, should have done, could have done, or would have done, it is pale in comparison in both impact and scope of what the orange furby in the WH does and says day in day out as the commander in chief of the most powerful army in the world.

This reminds me of the outrage of the Michelle Wolfe and Kathy Griffin incidents. It just plays right into the hands of the WH. It is hard to oppose someone who cheats and doesn't play by the rules while you do.

I think the op-Ed was written by a lawyer, although that's hardly a stretch in the White House. References to common law principles and amendments lead me to believe that's true. The paragraph about whispers in the cabinet and invoking the 25th leads me to believe they are part of the cabinet or a senior advisor to a cabinet member. How else would they know of such "whispers"? My money is on Sessions or one of his close advisors/deputies.

[Bellyhungry]

I think the op-Ed was written by a lawyer, although that's hardly a stretch in the White House. References to common law principles and amendments lead me to believe that's true. The paragraph about whispers in the cabinet and invoking the 25th leads me to believe they are part of the cabinet or a senior advisor to a cabinet member. How else would they know of such "whispers"? My money is on Sessions or one of his close advisors/deputies.

I have no idea who the writer is, but some interesting thoughts:

- This is someone who would make the leap to call oneself part of the Resistance. I don't think too many life long Republican would bring themselves that far. Even those Never-Trumpers would never identify themselves as Resistance. Probably a hold-over from the Obama era

- Assuming NYT didn't edit the piece....Many Trump's cronies can't string coherent sentences together even if their lives depend on it, so that eliminate a bunch of them

- I imagine once revealed, many people would go 'Duh! Of course it is her/him. It's so obvious.'

- Maybe this person tried to frame Pence, thus the use of the word 'lodestar.' Haha. So it could be someone who doesn't like Pence

[Bellyhungry]

According to AP, Trump is, in essence, pleading the Fifth.

https://apnews.com/d5d182b22ebf4f02b...tion-questions

Oh yeah, 'Only guilty people plead the Fifth.'

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...937281/video/1

[Bern]

Make it so!

[ManFromMoffat]

Dude, ease up on the covfefe:

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1037892531802054656/pu/vid/360x640/l3NhUOSsWzaK3q1G.mp4?tag=5

https://twitter.com/speakout_april/s...92576009957376