White House Says Anonymous 'Coward' Behind New York Times Op-Ed Should Resign (freerepublic.com) 898
Earlier today, The New York Times published an op-ed from an anonymous staffer in the Trump administration, who has "vowed to thwart parts of [President Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations," citing the president's amorality. The staffer writes: "We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous. But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office." An anonymous [coward] shares the response from the White House: White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders ripped the anonymous senior White House staffer who wrote an op-ed for The New York Times slamming President Trump's conduct. "The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign," she added. Trump himself called the op-ed's author "gutless." He tweeted: "Does the so-called 'Senior Administration Official' really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"
The New York Times op-ed page editor Jim Dao described the process behind publishing the op-ed, telling CNN that the official contacted him "through an intermediary." He said that the New York Times also spoke with the anonymous individual but there are only a "very small number of people within the Times who know this person's identity." Dao didn't provide a gender for the person, but the author was described in a New York Times tweet as a "he" earlier Wednesday. [The Times later said that the tweet was a mistake and that it "was drafted by someone who is not aware of the author's identity."] Furthermore, Dao "said there was no special effort to disguise the person's writing style, for example by rewriting the piece in some fashion," reports CNN. "'There's editing in everything we do,' he said, but it's based on making the person's views 'clearer' and adhering to style standards."
A separate CNN article highlights 12 senior Trump administration officials who may be behind the op-ed.
The New York Times op-ed page editor Jim Dao described the process behind publishing the op-ed, telling CNN that the official contacted him "through an intermediary." He said that the New York Times also spoke with the anonymous individual but there are only a "very small number of people within the Times who know this person's identity." Dao didn't provide a gender for the person, but the author was described in a New York Times tweet as a "he" earlier Wednesday. [The Times later said that the tweet was a mistake and that it "was drafted by someone who is not aware of the author's identity."] Furthermore, Dao "said there was no special effort to disguise the person's writing style, for example by rewriting the piece in some fashion," reports CNN. "'There's editing in everything we do,' he said, but it's based on making the person's views 'clearer' and adhering to style standards."
A separate CNN article highlights 12 senior Trump administration officials who may be behind the op-ed.
Impossible (Score:5, Funny)
I've been posting on slashdot nonstop, wasn't me
Duty to Country? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think the President is unable to carry out his responsibilities, you have a duty to bring about impeachment and/or invoke the 25th Amendment.
Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.
Re:Duty to Country? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. So who does this person confide in? Republican controlled congress or senate?
Re:Duty to Country? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Duty to Country? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the President is unable to carry out his responsibilities, you have a duty to bring about impeachment and/or invoke the 25th Amendment.
They may very well have initially (and naively) expected Congress by this point to have impeached him rather than sidling up to the trough and quietly joining along in the money grab. But since Congress hasn’t demonstrated the presence of even a nascent backbone, these insiders might figure this is the only way left they can truly serve the country... which is what they’re sworn to do, regardless of Trump’s ideas about personal loyalty.
I mean, just look - Trump speculated this might count as treason, for Pete’s sake. He really thinks it’s all about him, not the country.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Being an amoral disgusting person is NOT ILLEGAL.
Seriously are you a time traveler who just landed in 2018? Have you not been paying attention to anything.. at... all?
Disclosing highly classified national security information by giving away
locations of US strategic subs.
Publically soliciting illicit acts and illicit assistance from unfriendly foreign governments and having those requests immediately answered with action within hours... also illegal. Both the solicitation of illicit action (hacking) and requesting election assistance from foreign govern
Re:Duty to Country? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the President is unable to carry out his responsibilities, you have a duty to bring about impeachment and/or invoke the 25th Amendment.
What do you do when congress is loaded with cowards who are far more interested in keeping power than performing their sworn duties?
Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.
Unprofessional and cowardly are arguable but it's definitely not unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution does not demand loyalty to anyone, not even the President. In fact, the U.S. Constitution is all about the limitations put upon government. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution exists expressly so that we can speak out in opposition of those in power.
I suggest you read the U.S. Constitution, it's pretty great, not perfect but still quite good.
ok, wtf is this doing on /.? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae.
A manifesto of a conspiracy of deep-state moles in the White House, allegedly composed of or including multiple Trump appointees, sabotaging the policies and decisions of the duly-elected President of the U.S., rather than implementing them? Reported by the New York Times, who claims to know the author and the work is genuine?
Sounds like "news for nerds, stuff that matters" to me. Because it matters to me, and my nerd credentials are some of the strongest here.
They might not like his decisions. But he IS the President. And a large part of what he was elected for was to clean out ("drain") the running-roughshod-over-the-citizens bureaucrats.
If the citizens can't bring the government to heel by electing their preferred executive and representatives, it's no longer a republic - it's an out-of-control tyranny. With the soapbox and the ballot box no longer functioning, you're on the verge of a civil war. If we go there, and our "democratic institutions" suffer or die, it will be the fault of the oh-so-self-righteous cabal claiming to be working to "preserve" them.
(I'm reminded of a Vietnam era quote: "We had to burn the village in order to save it.")
A little hint: To be effective at negotiation (especially when heading off a nuclear World War, but also down the scale to trade negotiations, promoting legislation, or exerting control over an entrenched bureaucracy), a President has to be competent at brinksmanship. That includes looking "crazy enough to do it" when he threatens something bad for his opposite number's interests.
Not the "deep state" (Score:4, Insightful)
A manifesto of a conspiracy of deep-state moles in the White House...
Calling it "deep-state" is somewhat inaccurate here. I'm not going to go with the op-ed author's sunny sounding "steady state", but "deep-state" specifically refers to the idea that career civil and military folks who predate the administration are running a shadow government. Taking the Times at their word, this guy is almost certainly a political appointee (the other option being the vice president), given they're identified as "a senior official in the Trump administration" (mentioning that their job would be in jeopardy tends to rule out the vice president, since he can't be fired by anything shy of impeachment or being replaced as running mate in the 2020 election).
Point is, since the author is (almost certainly) a political appointee (not civil service), who came in with the current administration (doesn't predate), it's not a "deep-state" scenario. "Shadow government" would be more accurate, given the author and his allies are intentionally running the gov't in ways not sanctioned by the Constitution, with no oversight, voter approval, etc., and "shadow government" doesn't require the extra qualifiers that describing it as the "deep-state" implies.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with your argument is the "duly-elected" adjective, and then "They might not like his decisions. But he IS the President". Trump was elected and governs by the constitutional rules in place but those rules are flawed and he got in via a loophole which allowed him to be elected while his general election opponent got millions of more votes than he did. OK, fine that's the Constitution with its anti-democratic electoral college. But when you get elected by a minority of the vote you shouldn't t
Re: (Score:3)
Who is capable of getting appointed to a high enough level White House job to participate in whatever "resistance" this is and "gets pressured into it by their folks"?
I think we're talking seasoned politicos in their 30s-40s-50s here, not 22 year olds who have to follow mom and dad's career advice.
Scary takeaway (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly the most disconcerting thing about this is that the author cites some of the worst things this administration has done as their few "successes" and says they were accomplished despite, not because of, Trump. I think Trump is an amoral buffoon and a disgrace to the nation as much as the author seems to, but I'm honestly a little glad to hear that that buffoon is gumming up the plans of those who want to rape and pillage our country for their own profit, instead of Darth Pence streamlining that process.
Re:Scary takeaway (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly the most disconcerting thing about this is that the author cites some of the worst things this administration has done as their few "successes" and says they were accomplished despite, not because of, Trump. I think Trump is an amoral buffoon and a disgrace to the nation as much as the author seems to, but I'm honestly a little glad to hear that that buffoon is gumming up the plans of those who want to rape and pillage our country for their own profit, instead of Darth Pence streamlining that process.
That might be only half true, I think a lot of politics is people coming in saying "I want to do X, Y, and Z!" and then they're confronted with all the potential consequences to they end up saying, "Fine, I'll only do x and y". That was one of the big complaints with Obama, where a lot of his policies fell short of his rhetoric. But I thought that was just a consequence of a responsible leader moderating their ideas.
In the US I think the President is the one who's supposed to play that role, they're the one with the legacy and they're the one who's supposed to be responsible for the entire country, not just a particular region or base. But Trump doesn't really care about that other stuff, so when someone comes up saying "I want to do X!" he lets them do "X!" without thinking about the consequences.
For instance, on the tax bill I think a lot of GOP types really wanted to do a big massive corporate tax cut, both for ideological reasons but also to pay back their donors, and they went into the room trying to write a massive tax cut.
A President worried about their legacy and feeling personally accountable for the country's long term welfare probably would have pushed for a more moderate bill, even a President Rubio or Ryan would probably have made a more moderate bill if they were the President and their deficit and long term fiscal situation was their problem. But it wasn't their problem, and Trump didn't consider it his problem, so the tax bill went through as is because no one in power was worried about the consequences.
That's one of the problems with this Shadow Presidency, they have a lot of the power but none of the accountability, and power without accountability leads to really bad decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
And what were the consequences of the tax bill other than a huge economic upshot in the last few months? You may not like a particular policy but there is more at stake than simply giving "rich people a break".
The stock market is doing well because the stock market is based on corporate earnings and corporations just got a massive tax. The economy seems to just be holding steady from Obama, but that might be an illusion since wages have stagnated and some of the recent manufacturing boom is just companies stocking up on supplies before a trade war.
Even if it did cause some economic growth you still need to pay off your bills and not cause a massive hole in the deficit, this is the exact lesson we learned with the
Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever wrote this is a coward.
There are no "unsung heroes" in this White House. This is an escape hatch for the people who followed power for power's sake: "oh, sure, I was really fighting the good fight inside the White House, so you should be thanking me!"
Think there's a real problem here? Think the President is unfit for office? Then get to work on 25th Amendment proceedings if you're in a position to do so, or if not, resign and tell all of this to Congress. Don't stage a mini-coup and call it heroism. That's bull.
It's no secret the President is unfit for this office. It hasn't ever been a secret. This staffer, and their allies? They're complicit in everything. This is just a weak-ass attempt to make themselves look good.
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State and if true, staffers in the WH that are more powerful than the President.
I think regardless of the rhetoric around this op-ed, I think it's a carefully constructed message which is either by the Trump camp himself to drum up support for their cause or the Deep State trying to warn a sitting President not to mess with them "or else".
Oh don’t be ridiculous. Even a “mere secretary” has a lot more power and influence than you can ever possibly imagine. Someone in that role is obviously trusted or they would have never made it to that position. They can not only influence what documents and people come before the person they work for, but they can also control the order in which such information is presented simply by manipulating the calendar, email, and even snail mail of their boss. This is why rich and successful people often volunteer their children to be aides to senators and other “demeaning” jobs. The influence these people hold is real. It has been the case for thousands of years. People even manipulated kings this way. So go ahead and live in your deep state conspiracy but this is the most asinine excuse you could possibly come up with to justify its existence.
And he's proud of what?? (Score:5, Insightful)
What bugged me more than mucking with Donald Trump was the things he's proud of.
Effective deregulation? Um, guys, those regulations weren't just written by some clown in a leather chair thinking, "Hey, let's make things hard for coal companies!". No. Those regulations came about because coal companies were killing people. People died for those regulations. Removing them? How many people do you want to kill off so coal barons can make more money?
Historic tax reform? Um, no, that wasn't historic tax reform, that was a giant giveaway to the already massively rich at the cost of blowing the government's budget for at least the next 20 years. No, it's not going to 'trickle down'. No, it's not going to 'stimulate the economy'. It's going to rip off poor people and give money to the rich. I'm rich, and I look to save quite a bit from that "tax reform", and I still think it's asinine.
A more robust military? Hello, ours is already by far the most expensive military in the world, and you want to spend MORE money on it? Howzabout spending a tiny fraction of that on peace instead?
I know that Mr. Anonymous Coward (a different anonymous coward than this one) is a Republican, but each and every one of those 'accomplishments' is sheer stupidity.
AC
Re: (Score:3)
I know that Mr. Anonymous Coward (a different anonymous coward than this one) is a Republican, but each and every one of those 'accomplishments' is sheer stupidity.
Please keep in mind that roughly 50% of the American people disagree with you, many of them quite intelligent and thoughtful. You may be right, but it's hardly as cut and dried as you paint it to be, as should be obvious given the large number of people on the other side of each of those questions.
Note that I'm not arguing that you're wrong on the issues (in fact, I agree with you on all three of them, with some caveats and qualifications). I'm arguing that you should exercise some humility. I might also
Re: (Score:3)
Please keep in mind that roughly 50% of the American people disagree with you, many of them quite intelligent and thoughtful.
Well, no. If they were intelligent and thoughtful, they could and would see how those things are harmful in literally every way. Deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and excessive military spending are literally how Russia got where it is today. Make America Russian Again? At least when the Russians were the dominant white people in America all they were doing was trapping, and building a couple of forts.
Does anyone get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Treason (Score:3, Insightful)
Working to undermine the POTUS in the White House.
Subterfuge at best.
Re: (Score:3)
Never said that.
It is simply being a spy and working covertly to undermine a sitting president in the White house.
The CIA and FBI would normally be very very concerned, but they are busy chasing Russian phantoms...
"...the president continues to act in a manner (Score:4, Interesting)
that is detrimental to the health of our republic."
You don't get to decide that.
Regardless of your opinion of Trump's policies, he is the democratically elected representative of the people of this nation. Sabotage from within by an unelected, anonymous staffer is the antithesis of a representational republic. If the president is a danger to the nation, present your evidence and plead your case for impeachment to the nation and to congress.
On a related note this is a new low for the NY times. They seem determined to hasten the death of old media by burning any journalistic integrity they have left.
Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the coward in the WH who should resign (Score:5, Insightful)
The man who licks Putin's boots and bullies the refugees, the Draft-Dodger-In-Chief, the man without the courage or fortitude to have any kind of consistent moral principles whatsoever, is a coward and should resign.
As a Republican I say that not only the nation but also the party will be better off when he's stepped down (or been declared incompetent, or impeached, or assassinated, or voted out of office if he makes it the full four years).
Trump contradicts himself rapidly, and other than 'towards incivility' one never knows what direction he'll be pointed tomorrow. So if people don't overturn the country to implement the latest rage tweet (only to have the opposite direction tweeted tomorrow), they're not really being unfaithful to their boss, much less being traitors to the nation. They're performing the vital service of helping steady the keel of the ship of state through this self-inflicted storm.
Something to remember about anonymous sources (Score:3, Interesting)
Please remember the Steele Dossier and it's vaguely cited anonymous sources. Please remember how accurate it has turned out to have been.
The worth of an anonymous source is close to zero beyond maybe telling you where to look to dig for real information or maybe telling you where the misinformation lives as it distracts you from the real stuff. Off hand this pile on of anonymous sources has the ring of a Soviet Union misinformation propaganda campaign. "They say....", "They all say....", "A highly placed source says....", and its all lies.
{^_^}
Wonder why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump took it with stride and didn't rant about it make threats right?
He did?
I guess there's a valid reason that person decided to be an A.C. in this situation.
not anonymous for long (Score:3)
It gets ironic if you merge the statements (Score:3)
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting [the duly elected President of the United States] more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
Is this one of those "we have to take away your freedom to protect it" kind of deals? Unless somebody would like to accuse Trump of election fraud he is the product of those democratic institutions. And I'm sure you can accuse him of a lot of things, but trying to dismantle democracy and install himself as supreme leader is not one of them. Raise your hand if you think Trump is not going to peacefully pass the presidency to the next duly elected president or try to dismantle Congress or the Supreme Court.
It basically comes down to "my boss is making stupid and wrong decisions". We've all been there. We've all wondered "god, who made this guy boss". And we've probably all not 100% followed up on every decision and instruction we've gotten from above. And when I do I can usually justify it by saying I'm the one down in the trenches, I know what we really need. But I am de facto replacing "popular rule" with "expert rule", I know what's really best for you. Maybe he's doing it for the country, but he's not doing it for democracy because you can't do that by undermining it.
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately he isn't competent enough and doesn't appear to have the influence and time to manage something like that in one term. Does he strike me as the sort of person who would do that if he could and was motivated to do so? Genuinely, I absolutely believe he would. Trump doesn't care about anything beyond blind loyalty to Trump.
motivations and gullibility (Score:5, Insightful)
The op-ed says:
If this were true, why publish the op-ed, something that will make such activities much harder in the future? What could a self-proclaimed member of the "quiet resistance within the administration" possibly hope to accomplish by publishing this memo?
And what evidence is there that this is real? All we have is the NYT's word for it, and they have made numerous, serious mistakes in recent years.
Re: (Score:3)
The memo may be "real" in the sense that it may have been written by someone in the federal government (rather than being completely fabricated by the NYT). That someone may also be a Republican. And they may be using their position to sabotage executive actions. None of those would be news: there are plenty of Republicans and plenty of federal employees who hate Trump. However, there is no reason to b
Re: (Score:3)
The question isn't whether the statements about how the WH is run are accurate, the question is whether the claims about the authorship of the op-ed are true.
As for what Woodward says about the WH, so what? I like small governmen
This is insane (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
or work for the interests of who you are working for.
The American people?
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
or work for the interests of who you are working for.
The American people?
While it pains me greatly to say this, here's the problem with that and this:
... anonymous staffer in the Trump administration, who has "vowed to thwart parts of [President Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations," citing the president's amorality. ... we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
Like it or not, Trump was elected President -- Trump -- not the staffers and/or cabinet members *protecting* us from Trump. They are not the President; they should not be running the Administrative Branch. If they really think Trump is unfit, they should exercise the 25th Amendment (as they apparently discussed) and try to declare Trump unfit to be President, not play babysitter and try to take away his pen and toys. (Not that VP Pence would be any better...) Otherwise, the people who voted for Trump need to experience the consequences of their actions. Ya, it'll suck for *everyone*, but that's Democracy. Maybe we'll learn to not make the same fucking stupid mistake again.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, they should (Score:4, Insightful)
By propping Trump up and keeping him from giving in to his basest urges (e.g. ordering the assassination of Assad because he's upset at how Syria's turning out), they're stopping the immediate harm but allowing long-term harm to occur. They're essentially slapping a crude patch on a dam that's sprung a leak. Yes, it stops the immediate issue, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem and when you have to do this multiple times you're better off warning the town downstream that they're going to be flooded.
Re: Yes, they should (Score:3)
You fail to understand, at a fundamental level, this is not "a job", it's "public service". Their purpose is to serve the common good, or the country, if that other term scares you.
Re: (Score:3)
Presidential staffers don't exercise the 25th ammendment, that is Congress.
Minor clarification: it's the Vice President and Cabinet ("principal officers of the executive departments") who must invoke the 25th Amendment, and then Congress approves it by a 2/3 vote if the President disagrees. If Congress wants to remove the president, it's just a normal impeachment process.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, here's their agenda, plus some background [nytimes.com]. It was linked to in the summary.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Interesting)
37 people resigned/sacked from Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Except this supposed 'deep state' Obama/Clinton conspiracy is by people APPOINTED BY TRUMP, who've turn on Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/08/thirty-seven-administration-officials-whove-resigned-or-been-fired-under-trump/
Republicans, chosen by Trump. Shallow state not deep state. 37 Republicans have turned on him so far and resigned or been sacked.
But yeh, at the core of it is the vote. Americans didn't vote for him, and so they don't feel any need to go along with his random bullshit.
Re:37 people resigned/sacked from Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Except this supposed 'deep state' Obama/Clinton conspiracy is by people APPOINTED BY TRUMP, who've turn on Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/08/thirty-seven-administration-officials-whove-resigned-or-been-fired-under-trump/
Republicans, chosen by Trump. Shallow state not deep state. 37 Republicans have turned on him so far and resigned or been sacked.
But yeh, at the core of it is the vote. Americans didn't vote for him, and so they don't feel any need to go along with his random bullshit.
If Trump really wants Hilary locked up, he should hire her.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Yes, they should (Score:3, Interesting)
Please mod parent UP. I don't know about the numbers, but this is a nice concise explanation of our voting system.
Every election someone brings up the "popular vote" BS. It's a total waste of time that the ants run all over. Shame on the media for lighting and fanning the topic each election.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
no , they have balanced voice, because they offer a different perspective. Don't you know you are supposed to value 'diversity'. That balance was struck and agreed on as a condition of the the more rural states forming a union with the more populous states. If you oppose the balance of that social contract, then logically you must also allow for the renegotiation of the union, or it being dissolved, because you are advocating against the terms of the existing social contract.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:4, Insightful)
the election is decided...by all the people of America
Well in this case, it clearly didn't work out that way.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
In fairness to Trump it should be noted that during the debates he stressed that the elections were rigged. So he gave us fair warning.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pay special attention to the parts that create the Electoral College and the US Senate, both of which were explicitly designed to limit the impact of Democracy.
As an added bonus google "Gerrymandering" and "Voter Suppression"
Re: (Score:3)
No.
The election is decided by the States. Thus, the Electoral College.
The Federal Government is an invention of the States.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, I think you are referring to the electoral college, because the people of America by a majority voted for a different candidate. But the electoral college doesn't always reflect the will of the people and it was not designed to do so. Being a republic or not is unrelated to this issue.
To be fair though, the candidates presumably campaigned with the assumption of winning the electoral college vote and not to win the majority vote. So Hillary lost fair and square according to the agreed upon rules, even if it did not agree with will of the people of America.
Re: Yes, they should (Score:3)
Re:Yes, they should (Score:4, Informative)
To be totally pedantic...
.... and not even bothering to vote got 41%. So, literally, it looks like "nobody" wins!
There are some 320 million people in the united states (or were, in 2016). In 2016, some 136 million votes were cast for president. So the majority of people in the United States didn't vote at all!
But I hear what you are saying: "I meant a majority of eligible voters".
One could look up the stats in a bunch of places, but according to this particular source [electproject.org], about 59% of eligible voters participated in the 2016 presidential election. Of those that did vote, Trump got about 46% and Clinton about 48%. So, yes, I guess a majority of voters chose a different candidate than Trump.
But in terms of eligible voters, Trump got about 27%, Clinton about 28%,
Re: (Score:3)
Walter Bagehot had a rather astute observation on the Electoral College, and while his bias was clearly towards the Westminster style of government, it's useful to read what he viewed as the Electoral College's failings when it was ultimately put into practice:
"The main function of the House of Commons is one which we
know quite well, though our common constitutional speech does not
recognise it. The House of Commons is an electoral chamber; it is
the assembly which chooses our president. Washington and his
fel
Re: (Score:3)
There are different types of anonymous sources. The most common ones are official sources whose message would be discredited if their names would be public but they wouldn't suffer repercussions.
Then there are anonymous sources who do fear repercussions. It's easy to demand they go public and suffer the consequences but it's not reasonable.These are legitimate anonymous sources.
This guy is somewhere in between. Would probably be fired but has a lot of establishment backing so would be unlikely to suffer muc
Re: (Score:3)
If this person REALLY cared about the American People, they would resign and publicly speak out against Donald Trump and openly disclose "Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses."
Well, no. If they resign and publicly speak out, nobody Is going to listen. A brave man or woman would accept being called "coward" and "gutless", stay where they are, and make a difference where they can.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:4)
Re: Yes, they should (Score:3)
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
Deep state operatives tell you they're working for the American people, but in fact, they think we're scum.
Whoever sold you that line needs to pat themselves on the back.
Seriously, the idea that there are people working behind the scenes to keep the country running on a relatively straight course, and that these people actually hate the public, is absurd. It's flat-out absurd.
Like Biden was saying at McCain's service in Phoenix, if you want to argue against someone's position, fine. But don't question their motivation, don't act like they don't love the country or they aren't a good American or they aren't a patriot or whatever else. They might have a different position, and if you want to argue the position that's fine, but that doesn't mean they love the country any less than you do.
Sitting there acting like you're some victim of this vast conspiracy full of people secretly running the country who hate America and hate Americans just makes you sound like a child.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Interesting)
"Deep state" is just a newfangled term for bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists quietly agreeing to cooperate to preserve their own fiefdoms while screwing over the rest of us. This is not a newfangled problem.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, and the American people already made their minds up when they elected Trump a president.
Don't make it out to be something it's not. If you pardon the round numbers, about 63 million people voted for Trump. There were an estimated 250 million eligible voters for 2016, with about 325 million total population. So, the people who voted for Trump make up about 25% of eligible voters, and less than 20% of the total population. He won the election, but don't make it out like he has some sort of super-mandate from the general public. The vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of eligible voters (75%) did not vote for him.
Anyway, if you want to talk about whether or not Americans think that people in the government should help steer Trump in the right direction, instead of just leaving any and every decision up to him, consider the fact that his approval rating is in the high 30s. A majority of Americans do not approve of the job he is doing, right now.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit.
The employer is the US government, not the president. Federal employees take an oath to support and defend the constitution.
Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH (Score:5, Insightful)
against all enemies, foreign and domestic
I'd say it's their damned duty to resist.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree in principle with your comments on the oath, it is a balancing act because the same oath requires you to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter". Their duty is to the Constitution if it is actually being violated or about to be violated by some act commanded from above. If not, then faithfully discharging your duties in office should prevail. Not liking what is going on is insufficient unless the Constitution is at risk. Many in the armed forces have though
Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH (Score:5, Informative)
That is not true. Not generally and not specifically. President Trump does not sign the checks of his senior officials. Since the Carter Administration, White House senior officials, including cabinet secretaries are paid under a system separate from the GS system, because the pay of a GS-15 was considered insufficient for someone of the stature of a cabinet secretary who had been a CEO. And later, the "Senior Executive Staff" designation was also considered insufficient, so exemptions were created. But the pay structure and the way they get paid is the same, as is their employer, the United States Government. And their pay is set by the same civil service laws and under the same US code as senate staffers and Supreme Court Justices and postal employees.
And by the way, no cabinet secretary or head of an armed or intelligence agency can make more than the Vice-President, by law.
In case your interested, here are the salaries of non-cabinet staff from 2017. It is amazing how few of these people are still there.
https://www.washingtonexaminer... [washingtonexaminer.com]
And here are salaries of cabinet secretaries on down.
https://work.chron.com/much-mo... [chron.com]
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would this push anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats? Are you imagining a White House full of secret Democrats? The people in the Woodward book, or this op ed, etc. are staffers for the President, a Republican president who chose his own poison, as far as who works for (or against him) inside the White House. These are Republicans trying to contain a blowhard nut. There is nothing about that that is unethical on Democrats' part.
Who is an Anonymous Coward? (Score:5, Insightful)
"White House Says Anonymous 'Coward'..."
So who's the Anonymous Coward that goes by the name "White House"?
Re: (Score:3)
"White House Says Anonymous 'Coward'..."
So who's the Anonymous Coward that goes by the name "White House"?
Well it can't Trump since he weaselled out of service in Vietnam using 'bone spurs' as an excuse which makes Mr. Trump a very public coward.
Needed: heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you not hear what this person is saying? What dozens upon dozens of highly-knowledgeable people with decades of experience at the highest levels of government have been blaring from the rooftops, with ever-increasing urgency? Our current President - morally unfit, erratic, unstable, with a love for authoritarianism, and disdain for our Constitution - poses a grave danger to our Republic. To our freedom. We are in a full-blown constitutional crisis. People who value our democracy are fighting to save it. The United States, as a country, desperately needs more democracy-loving heroes like McCain.
Re:Says who? (Score:5, Insightful)
When in public Trump does not speak like someone who has all of the issues his mortal enemies wish to claim he does.
To a normal, unbiased observer he clearly does have these issues. That's the problem. It started very early with his childish and disgraceful inauguration crowd size rants and has continued since then.
Republicans amongst themselves merely seem to disagree about the extent of this erratic behavior and how much it hinders the functioning of the government. Some think it's harmless and just another governance style, others think its a problem because he's acting too impulsively and refuses to listen to reason.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Informative)
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.
Except the senior administration officials were people he hired. It's not the "Deep State" if you're the dummy who hired them. Then again, were you looking for the truth or just someone to blame for this clusterfuck presidency?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy says he is not deep state. He is a Trump appointee. He's a new zealot that Trump brought in. He believes in what he believes is Trump's agenda (after all - who really knows because Trump intentionally keeps it unpredictable).
This is what you get when you surround yourself with doe-eyed "believers" instead of professionals prepared to execute directions using the complex mechanisms of State that few without years of experience can wield professionally and effectively.
This is what you get when you re
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit. Either get out and berate them publicly, or work for the interests of who you are working for.
If my "employer" appears to be unbalanced, and has the authority to start World War III, I just might be inclined to do a little undermining for the sake of the planet and the human race.
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.
I think what you overlook is the fact that Trump hand-picked all of these people, and he has bragged frequently of his superior judgement at picking talent.
If, as you say, he wound up surrounding himself wit a "deep state" then either:
(a) it puts the lie to his hiring judgement; or
(b) he's so unhinged that even the people on his own team try to stop him from causing real damage to the world.
I'm inclined to think a little of both.
[...] I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.
In your wet dreams. Have you read the op-ed? [nytimes.com]
Setting aside its erudite and eloquent style -- hardly qualities one would expect of Trump -- its content is hardly the kind of commentary Trump would ever allow to be said of him. He's hyper-controlling of his image. He would never allow a negative op-ed to be written if he had any control over it. "False-flag" op-eds are just not something he's into. If he needs to write more than 280 characters, he's just not interested.
Some telling excerpts from the end of the op-ed:
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
Do you really think Trump would write something that lauds the late Senator John McCain?
Re: (Score:3)
If my employer were unhinged enough to need to be undermined in this way and I was aware of it, then I'd be a pretty compelling witness for an impeachment or a 25th amendment action, and that'd clearly be the more ethical choice. If he's really that dangerous, leaving him in power is morally bankrupt, and not even that effe
Trump supporter pro-dismantling of US democracy (Score:3)
Shocked I tell you.
Re: (Score:3)
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right?
What is the relevance?
What's the point of attempting to placate conspiracy whacknuts even if you could?
I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.
Deep state is conspiracy involving government "professionals" whose jobs do not change when administrations do. Applying it to members of your own administration you hire yourself is utter nonsense.
What it actually is with totality of insiders speaking out is an indicator of profound lack of leadership and associated failure of president to secure necessary legitimacy to effectively do his job.
Blame and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Presidential appointees are not deep state, as far as I understand the conspiracy meaning of that new term. Deep state refers to the permanent bureaucracy and not the appointees who come and go.
As Trump does't understand, oaths of office are for loyalty to the country and not to any particular person.
Why would this have anything to do with the Democrats? This anonymous person may be Republican as he/she has said that some of Trump's policies were good. But only an idiot would back Trump 100% in all his c
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
... you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.
Actually, no. The Deep State [wikipedia.org] (conspiracy) refers to "the career bureaucracy of government" who are "who are relatively permanent and whose policies and long-term plans are unaffected by changing administrations." This anonymous op-ed was from someone within The White House itself, and is most likely a staffer or member of the Cabinet, as are the people involved in the described Trump babysitting -- all brought in and/or appointed by the Administration itself. So this is exactly opposite of the "deep state".
Re:Yes, they should (Score:4, Insightful)
Individual bureaucrats have worked subtly against the goals of their leaders since bureaucracies existed. They've done so not only for moral reasons, but for self interest in protecting their jobs and enhancing their power. They've also done so to save lives: I'm afraid that I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law, but Oskar Schindler saved roughly 850 people from execution by the Nazi regime for which he was working by paying an enormous bribe to ship them elsewhere than the execution chambers. That was a violation of his bureaucratic authority, and even a criminal act, one for which Mr. Schindler is remembered as a hero.
Disobeying a criminal order, quietly, can be far more effective than publicly rebelling against it. Rebelling against a set of criminal orders within the any government can lead to charges of treason, as Edward Snowden understood when he exposed criminal behavior by the NSA and when Mark Felt exposed criminal activity of the Nixon Administration as the informant "Deep Throat". Whether this new anonymous source is _justified_ is a distinct question than whether an anonymous bureaucrat, working against a regime, can be justified.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that less than half of the GOP voted for Trump in the primaries - even though by the time of the later primaries most of the other candidates had bowed out.
There are plenty of Republicans who didn't want this President, and painting all of us with that brush is just as foolish as the prejudiced tweets from the Blowhard-In-Chief.
We have got to fix the broken election systems in the US. People keep blaming the Electoral College, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is first-past-the-post plurality voting. In any of the early primaries, Trump would have lost every single head-to-head matchup, so any decent electoral system (i.e. any kind of Condorcet preference balloting) would have avoided this disaster. (Easy explanation from a Nobel winner here [nytimes.com].) As long as we keep first-past-the-post primaries, both parties will frequently nominate miserable candidates.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you vote for him? If so, all you are doing is attempting to deflect from your own culpability.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Interesting)
I had fully expected the Republican party to start fracturing after Trump won the primaries and then the presidency. I was surprised when the majority of his Republican critics turned around and started toadying up to him. I wonder if after the midterms and their jobs are safe for awhile longer if they dare to criticize again, but as unpredictable as things have been I'm probably wrong.
And you can't fix the first-past-the-post system without changing the constitution, and that's highly unlikely. What you want is a change in the electorate to start favoring more moderates and centrists even in the primaries. California has a system now where the top two winners of primaries advance to the general election, even if from the same party. Hasn't been around long though so it's unclear if this will make a clear difference in the long run. Given that both major parties bitterly opposed it, it's probably a good idea.
And I have come to the conclusion after several decades, that loyalty to a political party is the biggest vice in America.
Get your act together? (Score:3)
Note that less than half of the GOP voted for Trump in the primaries - even though by the time of the later primaries most of the other candidates had bowed out.
There are plenty of Republicans who didn't want this President, and painting all of us with that brush is just as foolish as the prejudiced tweets from the Blowhard-In-Chief.
Then get your act together, reclaim your party. Reform your primaries so you candidates can make unpopular but necessary decisions while in office without having to fear being primaried by a nut bag pervert like Roy Moore in the following election cycle. Then try to work together with your opponents in congress to end the tribalism and trench warfare in the US. You need to take your congress back to an earlier age when Democrats and Republicans could cooperate and compromise on sensible legislation that mos
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the early elections Trump won the early primaries in Open primary states and Lost big time in closed Republican only primaries.
As a primary election is for the members of a party to choose the candidate they want to represent him it makes no sense at all to ever have an open primary. It should be those registered as members of that primary, and those willi
To be fair, there is no Republican Party ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing he validated is the utter stupidity of our president. Anyone that votes for the GOP based on this is a fool, and yes the GOP is populated by fools. Anyone else will flee the Republican Party.
"There is no Republican Party. There's a Trump party. The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere."
-- John Boehner
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what the Russians were going for with their information warfare [wired.com] campaign, although they were not necessarily interested in getting Bernie voters to flip for Trump (that's hard to achieve) as they were to get those voters to stay home and not vote at all (easier to achieve). Quoting the link:
By the radical groups there they mean both the Trump and Bernie camps, both because those groups had the largest existing online reach (and thus, were they easiest to target) but also because you could pretty effectively use the same kind of anti-Clinton messaging to target both. So they wanted at the same time to get people who don't usually vote but are pissed at the status quo ('Drain the swamp', 'Lock her up', etc.) to go out and vote for Trump and to get people who usually vote for the democrats to stay home ('Bernie or bust', 'Walk away', etc,).
Whether or not it made a definitive difference to the election results is not really knowable at this point, because the effectiveness of such campaigns is hard to measure, but keeping in mind that the amount of votes in the key states that flipped the result to Trump was what, around 30 000 it's definitely a possibility.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:4, Insightful)
So, racism and fake news. That's the only way anyone would have ever voted that way.
You still don't get why Trump won. The sheer level of insufferable arrogance from upper-middle class liberals that dominate internet discussion is a massive reason why. A huge part of why nationalism (whether it's Trump or Brexit or populist parties Swedish Democrats in Sweden, Front Nationale in France, and others throughout Europe) is seeing such a surge in support is in opposition to the CONSTANT liberal circlejerking in the media and refusal to even consider that the working class isn't a bunch of idiotic, evil racists, but bases its vote on real world experiences that they go through and rational self interest.
They are sick and tired of sneering upper middle class liberals scaremongering about anybody who isn't part of the political establishment and being called racists for wanting to maintain a national sovereignty and set of values. They are sick and tired of being told they don't know whats best for them by young people who have never experienced Britain before the EU. People are sick and tired of ad hominems being the dominant form of discourse from the left whenever issues relating to protecting our national borders and culture come up. They are sick and tired of their acquaintances screaming on Facebook UNFRIEND ME IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP YOU RACIST BIGOT.
The entire mendacious edifice built around shaming people who dissent against the PC orthodoxy of cultural relativism and globalism is doing nothing but backfiring on the left all over the world, and will continue to do so. The upper class journalism/media types who tend to lean left, and liberals in New York who don't see a problem with globalism are the types of people who aren't affected by it like the native working class. They get to live in gated communities and in expensive apartments surrounded by other upper-middle class liberals, and don't have to interact with those Muslim migrants who are completely unwilling to assimilate into Western culture like the working class who lives around them.
They also aren't as affected by the complete gutting of industrial jobs, the massive increases in real estate prices completely pricing average Americans out of their home ownership or the huge pressure on the labor market and welfare system by lax immigration policies. It's easy to pat yourself on the back and circlejerk how cosmopolitan and tolerant you are for supporting virtue signalling policies when they don't directly affect you, and call everyone who dissents a bigot. The multicultural utopian worldview would quickly collapse when faced with the reality that working class people deal with, and perhaps maybe then they wouldn't just dismiss their perfectly valid concerns. And maybe the left may start seeing the votes not constantly slip away into the arms of populists who at least listen to these concerns, instead of demonizing them.
And until all of the professional class elitists get their head out of their little bubble and get in touch with what matters to the common man, we will continue coming out to the voting booth and burning your entire globalist establishment to the fucking ground.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Insightful)
You still don't get why Trump won.
Sure we do. It's called the Electoral College, and it was designed to keep the people from electing the president.
They are sick and tired of sneering upper middle class liberals scaremongering about anybody who isn't part of the political establishment and being called racists for wanting to maintain a national sovereignty and set of values.
They're being called racists for being racists. Wanting to maintain racist values is racism.
They are sick and tired of their acquaintances screaming on Facebook UNFRIEND ME IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP YOU RACIST BIGOT.
You can't support Trump without supporting racism and bigotry, and supporting racism and bigotry makes one a racist bigot.
They also aren't as affected by the complete gutting of industrial jobs, the massive increases in real estate prices completely pricing average Americans out of their home ownership or the huge pressure on the labor market and welfare system by lax immigration policies.
No, they're more affected. The industrial jobs leave the "wealthy" states (you know, the ones that pay the taxes that permit the red states to exist and function) first. Home prices are vastly higher in these states, because we have policies that make people actually want to live here. And there is no huge pressure on the labor market from lax immigration policies; immigrants overwhelmingly do jobs that other people don't want to do. However, work visa programs overwhelmingly harm the people in the states where liberals live, because those are the places where technical jobs exist. The H1Bs aren't going to the red states, except Texas which is gradually turning blue as old racists die.
And until all of the professional class elitists get their head out of their little bubble and get in touch with what matters to the common man, we will continue coming out to the voting booth and burning your entire globalist establishment to the fucking ground.
Well, thanks for admitting that your kind is capable of nothing better than arson.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yep. This is a copy-paste job: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol... [4plebs.org]
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Interesting)
I can name seven:
Outlawing abortion
Gutting all social services
Spending more on the military
Lowering corporate taxes and reducing fiscal oversight
Large scale reduction of the federal government and removal of a majority of federal policies, rules and regulations
Reduced education spending
Privatization of former government projects including infrastructure building, military operations, spaceflight. education, etc.
The Black Hole of Self-Awareness (Score:5, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05, 2018 @08:46PM (#57261402)
Re: (Score:3)
Either way, if it does come to the 25th, Trump's supporters are going to go *nuts* about a coup if it succeeds and Pence takes the oath. Never mind buying popcorn, I'm going to be buying stock in popcorn *suppliers*.
Nah, they'd be fine with it. While Pence won't get the extreme nutjobs excited about open racism finally be acceptable again, he would be far more effective at actually accomplishing their goals.
Re:Conspiracy theory, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
if anyone had any doubts that the deep state exists, this should pretty much put an end to them
Doofus, these are Trump appointees.
Re:Definitely should resign (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm uncertain here. It would normally seem to be the right thing to do, however in the present state of affairs it won't do anything. The senate will never vote to impeach, that's a pipe dream. Congress won't cooperate with any invocation of the 25th amendment, it will just be a bit of theater. So stepping up and resigning will not accomplish anything except to go and get a better job (not in politics, the political career will be over). And after resigning, Trump will just appoint someone else who's more compliant.
So I can imagine that 'anonymous' does believe that more good can be done within the administration than from outside. However by writing this letter all it's likely to do is make Trump even more paranoid and more insistent that everyone swear personal loyalty (especially when he's already upset at so many former BFFs).
We've already had plenty of senior officials resign and publicly claim how bad the president is, and this has not accomplished anything. Everyone who isn't a fan of Trump already knows he's a moron and incompetent, and everyone who is a fan refuses to believe it.
Overall it might have been better if 'anonymous' just kept quiet.