White House Says Anonymous 'Coward' Behind New York Times Op-Ed Should Resign (freerepublic.com)

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.

Comments

Yes, they should

[SuperKendall]

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.

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. So much so 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.

Re:Yes, they should

[Krishnoid]

or work for the interests of who you are working for.

The American people?

Re:Yes, they should

[ShanghaiBill]

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:Yes, they should

[Krishnoid]

Well, here's their agenda, plus some background. It was linked to in the summary.

Re:Yes, they should

[NEW22]

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.

Re:Yes, they should

[fredrated]

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.

Re:Yes, they should

[DNS-and-BIND]

The government the American people elected. Deep state operatives tell you they're working for the American people, but in fact, they think we're scum. Scratch a member of the DC establishment, and you find a would-be aristocrat who loathes the sight, the sound and the smell of common folk. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30027384-what-washington-gets-wrong

Re:Yes, they should

[RhettLivingston]

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 replace the "deep state" professionals with party-affiliated zealots.

Re:Yes, they should

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

[nonBORG]

So working against the President voted in by the people is working for the people?

As above this is what deep state is, we know what you need better than you do forget voting, forget justice this is a utilitarian overlord.

Re:Yes, they should

[ClickOnThis]

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?

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:Yes, they should

[jensend]

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.) As long as we keep first-past-the-post primaries, both parties will frequently nominate miserable candidates.

Re:Yes, they should

[Swave An deBwoner]

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:Yes, they should

[elrous0]

The American people?

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."

This person is just a coward who wants to keep collecting their paycheck while pretending to be the hero. It's the classic "Oh, I'll still collect my big paycheck from the corrupt corporation/government every week, sure. But....I'm undermining them from within you see..." argument made by the spineless toadies of every criminal, dictator, etc. in the world when someone calls them out for aiding and abetting. Maybe it helps them sleep at night, but no one in their right mind buys their bullshit.

Trump is right, either resign and truly stand up for your convictions, or do your fucking job.

Re:Yes, they should

[Anonymous Coward]

Every prior presidential election was decided using the same rules. Changing the rule requires a constitutional amendment. I just wish all the people complaining about the President understood that the position of President has very little power. Congress controls the government checkbook and can cut funding to any presidential initiative. Even decisions made as Commander in Chief. A president can launch a war without approval from any other branch of the government but the president has 90 days to justify his actions to congress at which time Congress could defund the military operation. The only thing the inept legislative branch of government cooperates on is pointing the protesters in another direction. Trump had nothing to do with the current immigration laws. All he did was enforce the law created and passed by Congress. Even maintaining the DACA program was not Trump's job. He sent the issue to Congress so they could formalize the and turn the program into congressionally approved laws. Trump gave Congress 14 months to address the issue and as usual they did nothing. The only laws Congress takes seriously are the ones protecting their positions. They enjoy no term limits and no limit on the amount of cash funneled into political campaigns. And all those who have hounded Trump since he was elected are ready and willing to break any law to remove him from office. The ends justify the means is the motto of the Trump protesters. In their world Trump doesn't deserve the same constitutional rights as everyone else. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him. The right to protect against self incrimination doesn't apply. And Trump will be gone within a few years and the people who lost to him in the election have refused to examine the real reasons Trump won the election. The raging mobs don't understand what the electoral college is designed for and it also appears they don't understand the length of presidential terms. They act as if Trump is an emperor who has unlimited powers. Using the Russians to hide poorly constructed political platforms is about the best they can do. They have also not reflected on the fact that as bad as Trump is just how bad did the other side need to be to lose?

Re:Yes, they should

[fahrbot-bot]

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

[fahrbot-bot]

... 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 (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

[Escogido]

Yes, and the American people already made their minds up when they elected Trump a president.

Re:Yes, they should

[DNS-and-BIND]

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

[dwillden]

Those "hired by Trump" are most often just those who had the position in the last administration as well. For the most part only the top most Cabinet secretaries and those just under that level are replaced (example Deputy Rosenstein in the Justice Dept.). Many senior officials just under that level are basically given a quick interview and as long as they don't state they refuse to work for the new President, they are hired for the same job they had under the prior administration.

So yes this is still Deep State. At least until the coward identifies their self so we can see what position they actually hold and when they actually started working in their position.

Re:Yes, they should

[Antique Geekmeister]

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

[aquacrayfish]

Uh huh. You believe staffers are going to convince the Senate *AND* the House of Representatives to sign onto the 25th Amendment to remove someone their base loves? How many times do they need to demonstrate that they care more about staying in power than serving the nation?

Re:Yes, they should

[Jason Levine]

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

[drinkypoo]

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:Yes, they should

[amicusNYCL]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever wrote it needs to go. The adults in the room comment is just a dig. I can't fathom working for a boss where I have to be that duplicitous around. If this person is unwilling to quit and give his or her reasons publicly, then this is just another opporunist

Duty to Country?

[Zontar The Mindless]

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?

[careysb]

Right. So who does this person confide in? Republican controlled congress or senate?

Re:Duty to Country?

[93 Escort Wagon]

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: Duty to Country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide a list of high crimes and misdemeanors that add up to impeachable offenses.

Beating Hillary in the election, not acting Presidential, insulting people, cheating on his wife and the other petty bullshit he is guilty of do not add up to anything.

Congress not impeaching him because -you- and other marxists dont like him doesnt mean they have failed their duties. Get over your big bad self.

Re:Duty to Country?

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Scary takeaway

[Pfhorrest]

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.

Absolutely

[American AC in Paris]

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

[jittles]

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??

[Anonymous Coward]

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

THE PRESIDENT IS A MORONIC TRAITOR

[Anonymous Coward]

The person keeping Trump from making his administration WORSE than his ongoing TREASON is doing a hero's job, Kendall you're a cowardly faggot.

Who is an Anonymous Coward?

[careysb]

"White House Says Anonymous 'Coward'..."

So who's the Anonymous Coward that goes by the name "White House"?

Does anyone get it?

[hcs_$reboot]

A few days before Bob Woodward book release (“Fear: Trump in the White House”), an "anonymous senior Trump official" writes op-ed on "resistance" within administration... saying basically that, "yes, Trump is bad and has his drawbacks but the White House is working well and delivers thanks to a competent team that supports the president". Meaning: Trump might be as bad as described in the book, but he still delivers, thus the book has no real value. Preemptive defense.

Needed: heroes

[Chuck Messenger]

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.

Treason

[Tulsa_Time]

Working to undermine the POTUS in the White House.

Subterfuge at best.

 

Totally agree

[SuperKendall]

Even though I responded it is a major failing of Slashdot the purely political pieces like this are put on the front page and poison the whole site.

It's the coward in the WH who should resign

[jensend]

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.

37 people resigned/sacked from Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[stealth_finger]

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:"...the president continues to act in a manner

[Anonymous Coward]

"You don't get to decide that."
How do you know that? The president is not a king or dictator. There's lots of things the president can't decide on.

Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH

[jmccusker]

But they all take the following oath that has nothing to do with the Executive. “I, , do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” There is a distinct difference. They work for the federal government. They're not taking a loyalty oath to the POTUS.

Wonder why...

[meerling]

You'd think he was worried about someone trying to fire him, throw him in jail, getting executed or something...
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.

Re:"...the president continues to act in a manner

[mark-t]

You're right, he doesn't get to decide that... but he's not deciding anything here.... he's making a comment based entirely on what has been observed so far. You are welcome to disagree, but he's as entitled to his view as you are to yours.

Re:Conspiracy theory, eh?

[Tough Love]

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:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH

[Anonymous Coward]

help me God. Sigh. What's wrong with you guys?

Re:Says who?

[butzwonker]

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:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH

[Anonymous Coward]

against all enemies, foreign and domestic

I'd say it's their damned duty to resist.

They're looking at the wrong coward

[damn_registrars]

The coward that needs to resign is Trump himself. He has been consistently working to undermine our actual democracy. Whether it has been through intent or ignorance is of no importance; he has disgraced the office and committed numerous criminal offenses. It is a shame that the critters in congress lack the collective spine to remove him through the prescribed legal mechanisms.

motivations and gullibility

[ooloorie]

The op-ed says:

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

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.

Not the "deep state"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is insane

[aepervius]

Sabotaging a government from the inside is as anti constitutional and as treasonous agaisnt the office as you can go. There is a constitutional remedy for incompetent (as in unable to fulfill office function) president and that is the 25th. It does not matter if it is Trump or Obama or whichever, sabotaging from the inside is way over the limit. Either give up your job, and let the president do its worst, then next elections there will be a rectification. Gee the republicans staffer are really dropping the ball here.