NYT I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
I am assuming the opinion piece is going to drive Trump even crazier... Just think how he is going to look at all of his senior staff after this... I wonder if he will bring in the lie detector machines??? This seems related.
I am assuming the opinion piece is going to drive Trump even crazier... Just think how he is going to look at all of his senior staff after this... I wonder if he will bring in the lie detector machines??? This seems related.
72 comments:
Actually, I'm with Sarah Sanders on this one. If this person really feels this way, they -- and everyone else in the White House who agrees -- should say so publicly and resign. Or, if they're Cabinet-level officers and they think Trump is that unfit, they should invoke the 25th Amendment.
This behind-his-back-we're-saving-the-world nonsense should stop. If he's unfit, stand up and say so. Otherwise, this just feels like the prelude to one of dozens of "no, really, I was one of the ones trying to stop him, so don't blame me" pieces coming as Trump prepares to crash the Republican Party (and the country) into the rocks.
Invoking the 25th amendment sounds questionable
I would prefer they stay there to keep Trump focused...
I was unsure where this fit best. Another Trump centered conspiracy theory from the self centered one himself.
The proper response -- if the President is unfit for the office -- is impeachment, but Republicans would rather try manage around someone who they seemingly think will plunge things into chaos if not properly controlled. These stories about Trump's incompetence, incoherence, illiteracy, and ill-temperament are coming from *inside the house* -- whether it's through this op-ed, the Woodward book, the Wolff book, the Omarosa book, the Comey book, or any of the other reports of what's going on. Good Republicans like Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, and Ben Sasse sound the alarm, but do nothing because they're more concerned about their modest policy achievements and locking in a SCOTUS majority.
There is also that little fact that most GOP voters still support Trump...
So any act by GOP politicians to over throw the "popular GOP President" would not work out well for the reps.
RCP Trump Approval Ratings
On the upside... I am guessing all this is good news for the DEMS in Nov. Then we will have some real conflict to comment on.
I would not call Trump popular. His disapproval numbers are quite a bit higher than approve
So considering the news of the past few days are you ready to concede that Hillary was the right choice in 2016?
No... :-)
Only one thing would be worse listening to Trump speech....
And that would be Hillary speech:-)
your views on continuing to support Trump given all the things we have learned about him are very hard to understand. Can't you see what a dangerous president he is?
Laurie,
You keep saying dangerous... And yet peace still reigns...
Having Clinton in the White House may have been boring and safe...
However her beliefs were directionally wrong.
WAPO ‘The sleeper cells have awoken’: Trump and aides shaken by ‘resistance’ op-ed
The Hill: Trump demands NYT turn anonymous source over to government ‘for National Security purposes’
He is the guy who says "At least I made the trains run slower."
==Hiram
"So any act by GOP politicians to over throw the "popular GOP President" would not work out well for the reps."
Would Trump still be popular if GOP politicians stopped covering for him?
The next time any Republican says something like "country before party", they should be ridiculed.
Sorry. This is a Constitutional crisis. We have UNELECTED people who in effect have staged a coup and are running the presidency. WHY they are doing it is irrelevant. They do not have the standing to do such a thing.
Moose
Sean,
If they are covering for him they are doing a very bad job given all the negative news we are hearing / reading.
Moose,
All of these personnel were either legally elected or hired except possibly Ivanka and Jared.
And I am sure manipulation, influence, power plays, etc are not new to the White House and cabinets. The difference of course is that Trump encouraged it and it may come back to bite him.
I'll leave this here.
The GOP's Immoral Trump Resistance
"And I am sure manipulation, influence, power plays, etc are not new to the White House and cabinets."
This is Grade-A bullshit. No Obama (or Bush or Clinton or Reagan, on and on) Administration official had to steal papers off his desk in order to prevent the President from taking an undesirable action.
VOX The crisis isn’t Trump. It’s his Republican enablers. Trump’s flaws lie in plain sight. It’s the GOP that pretends blindness.
The "taking papers off the desk" is a silly story. I mean someone prepared the paper/policy, set it on the desk and likely would have come back for the signed copy. I have a hard time finding it credible.
"All of these personnel were either legally elected..."
The only executives legally elected were Trump/Pence. Anyone else acting in the executive capacity is illegitimate. The President cannot hire a surrogate. In the same way hired staff cannot be the executive. By "protecting" the country from this President, they are hiding behavior that is unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
Moose
A lot of people are working on their rationalizations and excuses for the day when their children and grandchildren ask them, "What did you do to stop Donald Trump?"
--Hiram
Moose,
Have you ever worked in a big company with a lot of executives and managers?
I agree that Trump is worse than most CEOs however "subordinates" manipulating a CEO for the "good of company" is nothing new. I mean if you have 20 "leaders", it is unlikely that they will be perfectly aligned. Especially if they are "highly confident" type A (I know best) personalities.
Hiram,
I'll bite... What has Trump done that is so bad that my children and grand children would even ask?
This is not a company. Are CEOs elected by the employees?
Moose
Actually, the are "elected" by the stock's owners.
And I sure don't see myself as an "employee" of the government.
Though it does seem liberals like to think of it that way... :-)
"And I sure don't see myself as an "employee" of the government."
You came up with the analogy. If you don't like it, that's on you.
The President is OUR employee. If you knew the incompetence of an employee of yours was being covered for and protected, what would YOU do?
Moose
I didn't come up with the "we are all employees of the gov't". That was all you... :-) I like the idea that we are all owners/stakeholders.
If I was on the Board of a Company who had a CEO that was good at some things and bad at others... And he had surrounded himself with people who compensated for his weaknesses. I assume I would watch him closely, but leave him in the job.
You're really bad at analogies.
Moose
Our is your perspective too narrow?
Huge Public Companies are a lot like our government...
Well except they do have to be productive and competitive...
I mean CEOs have been ousted by their boards for:
- not making a profit
- not growing
- improper behaviors
- becoming unpopular with stakeholders and customers
- etc
"Huge Public Companies are a lot like our government... "
No, they aren't. Not at all.
Please expand on why you disagree. I mean:
Companies compete with companies. Countries compete with countries.
Both companies and countries value educated and engaged personnel.
Good countries and companies operate within stated values and rules.
CAT's were good
Good countries and companies help personnel learn and improve.
People want to join good countries and companies.
Investors, stakeholders and employees value good leaders.
Bad leaders are often ousted sooner or later.
I'll give you two basic fundamental differences.
First, the CEO of a corporation is the single executive in charge of the day-to-day functioning of the organization. The CEO has the power to reshape the entire organization and staff it as they see fit. You're free to disagree with the direction being taken, but (generally speaking) you're also subject to being terminated if you refuse to go along. Our government, meanwhile, is managed by three co-equal branches, who are under no obligation to row in the same direction. The legislative branch is elected by their own particular constituencies, and the Supreme Court is supposed to be free of political concerns. The President may be a CEO-like figure in the executive branch, but those powers are still significantly constrained by the other two branches. And the President can't unilaterally replace members of those other branches.
Second, the fundamental purpose of government is not the same as that of a corporation. Corporations primarily work in the interest of their shareholders. Government has to work in the interest of all citizens. Corporations are designed to generate profit to produce return to those shareholders. Government has specific responsibilities assigned to it for which success can not be determined by looking at financial statements.
I should also mention that your cartoon in the thread opener is ridiculous, because the elephants are the ones enabling all this nonsense.
I think you give CEO's much more power than they really have. When I worked at CAT I saw many CEO's come and go. However it was such huge company with so many experienced and expert employees, so many powerful dealers, so many large customers, so many government regulations, so many countries of operation, so many "owners", etc. In essence I compared it to a massive ship with a small rudder. The best the CEO could do during their tenure was nudge the organization left or right a bit... Kind of like an American President.
And the reality is that modern corporations are only successful if they take care of their owners, customers, employees and other stakeholders. Look at all the fines, boycotts, loss of qualified employees, hard to attract new qualified employees, etc that happen if the company does not care for so many more things than just profit... Profit is just a metric of how they are doing on everything else.
And countries sure better watch their GDP, otherwise how are they going to pay to keep the "organization" functioning and bringing in more GDP... To keep the "organization" functioning. Maybe they are like a large "non-profit" if that helps.
And the comic shows the Elephant enabling by replacing Trump words with the correct words. :-)
Governments and businesses also both have people who work in buildings and sit at desks and send-emails. I think you're gliding past the fundamental differences here because you want to make excuses for this disaster of a President who you voted for and who you continue to insist was the right choice in 2016 and who you will vote for in 2020 and I have no desire to sit here and debate this any longer.
I keep praying that the DEMs will nominate a real moderate... Unfortunately I think that is highly unlikely...
Give me a name.
"I keep praying that the DEMs will nominate a real moderate... Unfortunately I think that is highly unlikely..."
Barack Hussein Obama. As Centrist a President as we've had in my memory.
Moose
If Hillary was president with a GOP Congress the results to date would have been better from your perspective, John, For one thing the deficit would be much smaller as the large tax cut would have been vetoed. What would Hillary have accomplished that you would disapprove of? I would feel much more confident in her as commander and chief of our vast military powers.
Per govtrack. Donnelly?
I did not mind Obama for the most part. Especially after 2009.
We still would have too many regulations, religious business owners being harassed, etc. And I read somewhere that we would have dealing with her impeachment proceedings.
those anti Hillary reasons are lame compared to the disaster of the trump presidency
about religious business owners being harassed - the courts would decide these issues
Trump is self absorbed, obnoxious, lies often, confrontational, etc...
But what has been so bad about the actual affect of him being in the White House from your perspective? What has his being there changed for most of us?
these things come to mind as major negative accomplishments of Trump and the GOP:
the large tax cut (increase to the deficit)
highly conservative judges appointed
negative impact on obamacare
trade policies will hurt more than help
bad foreign relations- dissing allies and supporting dictators
loss of respect for USA around the world
Here is a link in which the best modern president explains what is wrong with the worst president in history and the GOP in general. Your views on trump are very misguided and in need of some deeper reflection. It makes wonder if you're lacking in morals/ethics or judgment. I think it is more a judgement issue but you overlook so much corruption I think there is a lack of morals component as well.
Former president Obama speaks at the University of Illinois
Obama Transcript
That was a good political speech, hopefully it encourages people to get out and vote. Not sure I agree with everything he said.
And personally I prefer Clinton or Reagan.
What are you hoping for the 2018 election that the dems retake the house and can provide some oversight to Trump or that the GOP wins and Trump continues to have free reign? How will you vote? Are you in Paulson's district? I don't even know who is running against him and I think this person has a fair chance of winning if they are good. I think Angie Craig is going to win this time in CD2. For one thing she has better ads than last time and it is a dem year.
What do you want trump and the GOP to accomplish (realistically) if you continue to support the GOP?
"But what has been so bad about the actual affect of him being in the White House from your perspective?"
We've weakened NATO. We're in a trade war with Canada, for cripes sake. The President is trying to sic the Justice Department on somebody who wrote an unflattering op-ed. He's empowered and emboldened literal Nazis with his rhetoric on race. We're warehousing children in cages. I could go on. Shall I?
Ideally... The DEMs win, Trump gets kicked out of office and Pence becomes President.
I will likely vote for Paulson as usual.
As you know, I want:
- an end to illegal immigration and cross border smuggling.
- immigration policy mostly based on who America needs, not family reunification or refugee status
- the boat to move slightly back towards the dock
- policies that support American employers, not tax, regulate and burden them.
- policies that put the needs of unlucky kids before the wants of mamas/papas, union personnel, etc.
- religious business owners free to turn down business from LGBT individuals
Of course I am always torn... Since I also want:
- free readily available birth control and quality sex education
- LGBT freedoms in typical situations
- path to citizenship
So in essence... As usual I am okay with whoever wins...
Sean,
I am not sure how we weakened NATO by insisting that they pay their fair share?
Actually he is trying to sic the JD on an individual who says they are trying to stymie the efforts of our elected President. That one is interesting.
I think I agree with you on the negative impact from how he handles race topics.
I am not a big fan of "catch and release" as noted above. The children are being held because their parent(s) chose to violate the US Border and Law. That is the criminals fault, not the fault of law enforcement.
Laurie, As for your list that I missed last night.
the large tax cut (increase to the deficit): I agree. They should have made offsetting cuts, instead of increases.
highly conservative judges appointed : Matter of perspective...
negative impact on obamacare: Good or bad?
trade policies will hurt more than help: I am not sure. It depends if the escalation drive improvement or not? Doing nothing was really bad for American workers and citizens.
bad foreign relations- dissing allies and supporting dictators. loss of respect for USA around the world Though I disagree with Trump's love for Dictators. Being seen as the world's piggy bank is not "being showing respect". It is a sign of dependence and being willing to take advantage of us. Strongly reminding our friends and partners that our partnership requires work and commitment from all parties is not a bad thing.
If you want the Dems to win and CD3? is a competitive race why would you vote for Paulson rather than his Democratic opponent?
That was probably my biggest frustration with Obama... He seemed to like placating people rather than standing up for America and our citizens.
With Trump, the folks in other countries are sure where his priorities lie.
That seems to be a common theme with Liberals, they seem to fear confronting people and demanding more.. Be it other countries, be it public employees, be it illegals, be it dead beat parent(s), etc... The only people they seem willing to confront are the people who have money and the religious right...
I never understand how they want to keep America strong for their kids if they allow so many parasitic folks to suck off money of our country?
For the most part I like Paulson... But I will need to look at Phillips also
"I am not sure how we weakened NATO by insisting that they pay their fair share?"
That wasn't the argument I made. Please stop doing that.
Trump has, on multiple occasions -- as recently as June -- questioned our commitment to NATO Article 5. He's been harder on our NATO allies than Russia. Germany has said that they don't think the U.S. is a reliable partner any more. We stuck our fingers in the eyes of Germany, the UK, and France by withdrawing from the Iran deal unilaterally.
"Actually he is trying to sic the JD on an individual who says they are trying to stymie the efforts of our elected President. That one is interesting."
Insubordination by a civilian official is a firing offense. I'm not aware of it being a crime. This is pure politicization of the Justice Department.
"The children are being held because their parent(s) chose to violate the US Border and Law. That is the criminals fault, not the fault of law enforcement."
We are responsible for how we react. Weeks after a court order that demanded reunification of separated families, hundreds of children are still not with their parents.
as for rating judges it is not all that subjective. I think there is pretty wide agreement if someone is highly conservative or moderately conservative, highly liberal or moderately liberal. judges have records that fall all across this spectrum
Ideological leanings of justices
I prefer presidents of both parties appoint moderates.
Kavenaugh is not moderate. Obama's nominee that was denied a hearing was moderate.
Sean,
All you said is he weakened NATO... I had to guess at your argument... What Trump says is not always what he does... I am thinking NATO is fine.
Insubordination at my work place is a fireable offense. Insubordination to the US Commander in Chief. I think is probably a case of "it depends".
Here is an interesting story on the reunification effort
And where do we head going forward?
Laurie,
Per your graph it seems Gorsuch is proving pretty moderate so far. At least when compared to how far Sotomayor and Ginsburg lean Left.
It is too soon to tell about Gorsuch. I didn't find (and haven't looked) for a rating of his decisions on a lower court.
Also, I wanted to add the subjective part about rating judges has to do with the view if being liberal or conservative is a good thing or a bad thing. I think overturning Roe v Wade would be a bad thing. What do you think?
Just How Conservative Was Neil Gorsuch’s First Term?
"I had to guess at your argument"
You could have asked for clarification instead of putting words in my mouth.
"What Trump says is not always what he does."
That's a good thing? Funny how Obama never got that benefit of the doubt.
"Insubordination to the US Commander in Chief. I think is probably a case of "it depends"."
OK, what law was broken? Civilian executive branch employees aren't subject to UCMJ.
"it seems Gorsuch is proving pretty moderate so far"
You're joking, right?
"So far, though, Gorsuch appears the conservative bastion that many hoped he’d be. As the second most conservative justice on the court at the end of his first partial term, Gorsuch may fight Thomas for the position of the court’s most conservative justice in this and subsequent terms."
SCOTUSblog: How Gorsuch's first-year compares
about "As usual I am okay with whoever wins.." I found this comment humorous again as evidence that you rate yourself much less conservative than those of us who read your blog see you. Only a conservative would continue to support Trump.
Laurie,
I think your Roe v Wade question will get its own post.
I don't think Trump would see me as supporting him... I just wrote that I am fine with him getting booted and Pence taking over. Please remember that I never voted "for him"... I voted "against her"...
Please remember it is only the Liberals here who see me as a "Conservative". And of course I am Right of you... :-)
Sean,
I guess I never got on Obama's case either... And Lord knows we new we were getting a big mouth narcissistic liar when he won the election. No surprise there.
So if a civilian was working against the will of the President... Aren't they working against America?
Treason defined:
1 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2 : the betrayal of a trust
a vote for Paulson or for GOP senate candidates is a vote in support of Trump
Unfortunately... I vote for the candidate...
Or against the "worse candidate"...
I am not voting against the better candidate to spite Trump... Now that would be silly... :-)
it is silly to you because you don't understand the need for Trump to have oversight. I think the next 2 years of Trump are going to be crazier than what we have seen so far. I am just not sure how much a dem controlled house can do to protect the country from Trump.
The number one issue in this election is Trump
Congress is letting Trump be Trump. The Founders would want voters to fix that this fall.
I am not sure what a DEM controlled house will be able to do either... Likely just hold a lot more investigations and hearings...
That was pretty much all the GOP House could do the last 6 years of Obama's Presidency.
Obama did not need oversight nor possibly to be impeached. That is a terrible comparison.
Former FBI director Comey urges votes for Democrats this fall
So what do you think a DEM controlled house will accomplish?
They can try to hold trump accountable and investigate and inform the public the truth about Trump. Who knows what's ahead as far as the Mueller investigation and the implicatipons of it findings. Who knows if Trump deserves to be impeached and if he will lose sufficient public support that he needs to resign or be removed from offfice by the senate. (67 senators voting to convict seems unlikely at this point.) I just know the GOP is currently doing nothing in terms of oversight and that we need a dem congress to learn the truth about Trump and try to hold him accountable.
Corrupt Trump and this election are different from your average midterm election with a normal president in office.
Now you do realize that Mueller has been digging every where and found little that would justify impeaching Trump... Or do you know something that I don't.
And do you remember that Congress did tie Trump's hands regarding the NAFTA re-negotiation?
And Congress has forced Trump to sanction Russia.
Link 2
I feel like I don't know what Mueller has found and will report. I just think Trump is guilty of more crimes than what Clinton was impeacherd for. The case for obstruction of justice looks pretty strong to me, based on what is in the news. I think if his business dealings are investigated plenty of corruption will be found. As for colluding with the Russians I don't know how much evidence there is.
If Trump is so innocent why is he so paranoid about the investigation.
I am not sure if there is any fire under that smoke or not.
I think Trump wants to only see glowing news in the press... Things that stroke his ego.
Also, he likes to use Mueller and other things to stoke his base and to distract the media. May be he is worried will learn that he had an affair with one of those interns... :-)
"Treason defined:"
The legal definition of treason is the operative one here, not the dictionary one. (But even under the dictionary one, I don't think there's a case, either.)
Post a Comment