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

Impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been posting on slashdot nonstop, wasn't me

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit.

-

Often I disagree with your posts, but this time I am 100% in agreement.

The anonymous guy is the worst kind of scum.

If he was working for me, I'd do my best to make sure alligators feasted on him, while he was still alive.

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

[Gravis Zero]

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: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

[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

[WaffleMonster]

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 responsibility for such failure rests squarely on the presidents shoulders.

Re:Yes, they should

[multi io]

If Trump's major decisions can be influenced by secretly putting or removing papers from his desk, he's at the whim of unelected staffers anyway and has no workable independent "policy" that he'd pursue. And that notion is exactly in line with what we've heard about the guy before -- that he is constantly swayed by whatever person he last talked to.

Re:Yes, they should

[whoever57]

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.

Did you vote for him? If so, all you are doing is attempting to deflect from your own culpability.

Re:Yes, they should

[vk2sky]

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.

As others have pointed out, White house officials are not Donal Trump's personal minions, they are employees of the US government.

I would be interested in Henry Kissinger's on the matter. I'll just leave this here: https://www.wearethemighty.com...

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

[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

[Darinbob]

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 crazy ideas, and it would be absurd to say that someone who doesn't back Trump's crazy ideas must be a Democrat.

Trump could not have penned this because it's far too articulate.

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

[Darinbob]

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

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:Yes, they should

[tinkerton]

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 much.

Re:Yes, they should

[Kiuas]

"I'm a Bernie Bro who's butthurt that not enough primary voters voted for *MY* favorite candidate for him to win the nomination. I'm going to support trump now. And I'm happy to see the whole country burn, because I didn't get my way."

Fixed that for you.

This is what the Russians were going for with their information warfare 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:

The indictment mentions that the Russian accounts were meant to embed with and emulate “radical” groups. The content was not designed to persuade people to change their views, but to harden those views. Confirmation bias is powerful and commonly employed in these kinds of psychological operations (a related Soviet concept is “reflexive control”—applying pressure in ways to elicit a specific, known response). The intention of these campaigns was to activate—or suppress—target groups. Not to change their views, but to change their behavior

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

[dwillden]

Not in 30 of the 51 separate elections. A nationwide popular vote total is irrelevant, we don't vote as a single body nationwide but in 50 states and the DC we vote in 51 separate elections and in 30 of those states he won, giving him the electoral votes for a rather substantial victory.

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]

Easier, just close the early primaries. The first half dozen or so Primaries set the race. To get the nomination you have to get the early momentum.

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 willing to register (even on election day) as part of the party, but it should not be open to the general voting populace.

Voter tallies in early states indicate that many Democrats crossed party lines to vote for Trump in the open primaries. The opposing party voted for the worst candidate in large numbers in those open primaries.

That gave Trump the crucial early wins that gave him the momentum towards nomination. By the time most primaries remaining were in closed primary states it was a three man race between Trump, Cruz (who was hated even more by the establishment GOP) and Idiot boy Kasich (who never stood a chance but stayed in to deny Cruz votes that could have swung the nomination to him or at least to a contested convention at which he likely would have won the nomination).

We don't need to redo the voting system so drastically, just close the primaries to registered members of the parties. The left managed to swing the GOP nomination to the worst of the candidates, but their own was still so bad he beat her easily. I certainly didn't vote for him in the Primaries, but in the general election, he was the far better option and I had no qualms about voting for him.

Re: Yes, they should

[orlanz]

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: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

[gnasher719]

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

[Ogive17]

Just because Trump beat Clinton 2 years ago does not mean he has the majority support of the American people. Most people did not vote for him.

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

[sycodon]

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

[apoc.famine]

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.

Re: Yes, they should

[sound vision]

The agreed upon rules include things like campaign finance laws, registering contacts with foreign governments, etc. much of which was ignored. "The rules" went from bent to broken.

Re:Yes, they should

[Applehu Akbar]

"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

[necro81]

the people of America by a majority voted for a different candidate

To be totally pedantic...

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, 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%, .... and not even bothering to vote got 41%. So, literally, it looks like "nobody" wins!

Re:Yes, they should

[MightyMartian]

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
fellow-politicians contrived an electoral college, to be composed (as
was hoped) of the wisest people in the nation, which, after due
deliberation, was to choose for President the wisest man in the
nation. But that college is a sham; it has no independence and no life.
No one knows, or cares to know, who its members are. They never
discuss, and never deliberate. They were chosen to vote that Mr
Lincoln be President, or that Mr Breckenridge be President; they do
so vote, and they go home. But our House of Commons is a real
choosing body; it elects the people it likes. And it dismisses whom it
likes too. No matter that a few months since it was chosen to support
Lord Aberdeen or Lord Palmerston; upon a sudden occasion it ousts
the statesman to whom it at first adhered, and selects an opposite
statesman whom it at first rejected. Doubtless in such cases there is
tacit reference to probable public opinion; but certainly also there is
much free will in the judgment of the Commons. The House only
goes where it thinks in the end the nation will follow; but it takes
its chance of the nation following or not following; it assumes the
initiative, and acts upon its discretion or its caprice."
- The English Constitution

Re:Yes, they should

[DrXym]

Seems to be a person who is a republican in the traditional sense - small government, free market etc. and is exasperated by the idiot at the helm. Writing an op-ed, even anonymously comes with a great deal of personal risk so I have to assume they're sincere in what they wrote. Although to be honest, I don't get the "adults in the room" argument unless the person is ex-military and feels honorbound to do what they can to blunt the stupidity coming from the top.

Re: Yes, they should

[sound vision]

Presidential staffers don't exercise the 25th ammendment, that is Congress. They have thus far failed. No surprise there. Possibly these fundamental failures writ large will bring a wave of positive change in the Congress by next year. I'm sure these staffers will be leveraging their rights in that regard.

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:Yes, they should

[jwdb]

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.

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 effective considering you never know when he'll fire you and replace you with a more pliant individual.

Thinking you can "fix" this through subterfuge is counterproductive: it's anti-democratic, increases Trump's paranoia even further, decreases popular trust in the bureaucracy, etc...

Re:Yes, they should

[fluffernutter]

This. Why should he have to quit his job because his manager is completely incompetent? That's total bullshit.

Re: Yes, they should

[fluffernutter]

The electoral college was supposed to prevent exactly this... a mob that is too stupid to vote taking control of the presidential office. They could have stopped it but they failed.

Re: Yes, they should

[fish_in_the_c]

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

[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

[Dragonslicer]

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

[Dragonslicer]

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:Yes, they should

[rsilvergun]

Here you go

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:Yes, they should

[randallman]

Yep. This is a copy-paste job: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol...

Re:Yes, they should

[Rhipf]

Other than Trump saying quotes are fabricated do you have any other references that Woodward "has been proven to have no problem with fabricating quotes"?

Re:Yes, they should

[Falconnan]

Imagine yourself in this position. Maybe you bought into the message and were hopeful you'd be working for a true populist. You then watch as the leader you sought to follow is trying to steer the ship of state into an iceberg on the assumption the ship is unsinkable. But history already has judged that notion. If you resign, maybe the ship hits the iceberg. Stay and maybe it still does, but you tried. But if you help the Captain hit the iceberg, what greater purpose did your sacrifice serve? Your nation suffers, you committed probable crimes, and it just gets worse from there.

These people may serve at the pleasure of the President, but they don't work for the President. The AG doesn't, the FBI doesn't. Their work for the Office doesn't immediately translate to working for the office holder. It's a fine distinction which used to be less important under better office holders.

I wasn't a fan of George W. Bush, but I never considered him a bull in a china shop. Occasionally inept, but not generally incompetent or insanely corrupt. Obama could have been more forceful. Both men seemed to follow their conscience. Amorality is the perfect description for what we have now, and a servant of The People isn't necessarily going to resign in protest if they think they can prevent disaster... Assuming that's the motive.

But let's be real here: Nixon was brought down by those who put Country ahead of Party. We need that now, and frankly always. It's rare in history, however, to see the two priorities diverge so strongly.

Re:Yes, they should

[Zero__Kelvin]

You Trumptards keep repeating that lie. That kind of thing only works with people like you. The rest of us know that, while Hillary wasn't a great option, she was a far better option than Trump (as would be pretty much anyone else as is now plainly evident), which is why the majority of us voted for her. Trump was NOT elected into office by the people. Stop broadcasting your ignorance.

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

[amicusNYCL]

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."

Which would accomplish exactly nothing other than a stream of insults on Trump's twitter feed. This person chose to avoid that shit show and instead actively work for what they believe is best for the country.

Re:Yes, they should

[butzwonker]

Common folks, I think this has been settled by now. Trump wasn't voted into power because people disliked Obama, he wasn't voted into power because he was liked as a person, he wasn't voted into power for his rallies and speechs - only a small number of supporters find them appealing - and he wasn't voted into power for his policies like building a super-expensive wall to Mexico - they were notoriously unclear and some of them were not very Republican anyway (e.g. trade tariffs, get better public healthcare instead of the allegedly failed Obamacare, etc).

Trump became president because (1) the other Republican candidates were amazingly weak and (2) because Hillary Clinton was one of the least popular candidates ever.That is the reason why he became president.

(Well, according to NSA, FBI, etc., there was a bit of help by Russian trolls, too. But apparently even they didn't expect him to actually win, so it's unlikely that this interference was in any way decisive.)

Re:Yes, they should

[DNS-and-BIND]

McCain wasn't an American patriot. He was a globalist. Read his address to the Naval cadets. He calls for them to go forth and be enforcers for the corporatist state.

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five. Remember when he ran for President and the same people worshipping him today were calling him a Nazi? Are you wearing your "Sarah Palin is a Cunt" tee-shirt today? The Reclusive Leftist blogged in 2009 that it was a "major shock" to discover "the extent to which so many self-described liberals actually despise working people."

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.

""Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. l could SMELL the Trump support."

"Yup. Out to lunch with -------- We both hate everyone and everything."

"Finally, and related to nothing, but I just saw my first Bernie Sanders bumper sticker. Made me want to key the car."

"I would recommend everybody go out and get an academic book published last year called "What Washington Gets Wrong," and it's two scholars from Johns Hopkins University who do a massive survey of senior unelected executives in government, basically the deep state, and asks them a bunch of questions. And as the authors describe the deep state has contemptuous attitudes towards the average American."

"They think they're far less educated than they actually are," he continued. "They think they are far more dependent than they actually are. They're arrogant, they believe, and say in the surveys if the American people want one thing, and they think it's wrong, they're going to push something else. There's a massive disconnect, and the deep state is real, and it's a threat to our republic form of government."

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30027384-what-washington-gets-wrong

Re:Yes, they should

[amicusNYCL]

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

[amicusNYCL]

Remember, they were spying on Carter Page and everyone within two hops of him with a counter-intelligence FISA warrant for the entire campaign, so if you claim they had no idea about Russia, you're clearly wrong.

Now, hold on a second. First, Carter Page had been under surveillance since 2014 because of things like this:

In August 2013, Page wrote, "Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda."

Naturally, it would make sense that we have people with direct links to hostile governments under surveillance. I mean, we have entire counter-espionage groups focused on people just like him:

Also in 2013, Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page, and one described him as enthusiastic about business opportunities in Russia but an "idiot".

They're trying to figure out if he was a spy. Of course he was under surveillance.

Secondly, what about this:

After news reports began to appear describing Page's links to Russia and Putin's government, Page stepped down from his role in the Trump campaign. Upon his departure, Trump campaign communications director Jason Miller said of Page, "He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period."

There you go, the Trump campaign communications directory explicitly said that Page was never part of the campaign. So, why does it matter so much to you that he was under surveillance? Are you suggesting that the Trump campaign was lying about Page's role there?

Re: Yes, they should

[amicusNYCL]

The 25th Amendment requires a vote by the cabinet. It doesn't have anything to do with the VP except in that the VP is normally the person who takes over.

Are you reading the same Section 4 of the amendment that I am? I'm not sure you are.

The VP cannot unilaterally invoke it.

I did not suggest it was unilateral. I did suggest it required the VP to participate.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, or what you think you're addressing, but you're not correct or posting anything pertaining to the discussion.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Go ahead, cite Section 4 and explain how the 25th can be invoked without the support and action of the VP. I'll save you the trouble:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

That requires (Vice President) + (majority of cabinet members OR other body approved by Congress). So, if there is no VP support, is the 25th an option? Let me know, I'm eager to hear an expert's opinion since I'm not posting anything pertaining to the discussion.

I mean, surely this isn't the first time you've read the actual text, right? You just forgot what it said, right?

If, as the NYT writer says, the entire Whitehouse is conspiring against the President, they should have enough votes within the cabinet to 25th him.

Doesn't mean anything if the VP doesn't kick off the process, though, does it? Right?

It requires more than the cabinet. It requires the VP plus either a majority of the 15 cabinet members, or another body approved by Congress.

OK, tell me again how I'm wrong. I'm waiting with anticipation.

Re:Yes, they should

[slashdot_commentator]

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.

Not launch a war, initiate a military action. If it gets concluded within 90 days, nobody cares what the PotUS did. It could start a full fledged world war, but that's what happens when the Congress decided to delegate its war powers to the executive branch.

And all those who have hounded Trump since he was elected are ready and willing to break any law to remove him from office.

Break what law? Foaming at the mouth much?

The ends justify the means is the motto of the Trump protesters.

Said the party that refused to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for over a year because they didn't think they were being partisan when not executing their Constitutional duties.

In their world Trump doesn't deserve the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

Not every American is in the financial position to violate the Emoluments clause of the CotUS. And a PotUS that would choose to orphan 500 children to discourage refugees from seeking asylum has neither the character or discretion to be treated like a person of good standing in society. Unfortunately, that is not how the CotUS works either. Every scumbag in the US gets the same legal rights delinated in the CotUS.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him.

That is a legal standard to be applied in the courts. OJ Simpson was acquited of murder, but that doesn't mean I have an ethical obligation to treat him as such.

The right to protect against self incrimination doesn't apply.

Compelling Trump to testify to a grand jury is not the courts compelling him to self-incriminate. He can invoke his 5th amendment rights at any time to the grand jury. The CotUS does not recognise an individual's right to lie in a criminal investigation.

And Trump will be gone within a few years

Assuming he steps down peaceably after showing gross contempt to the rule of law.

and the people who lost to him in the election have refused to examine the real reasons

This does stick in my craw...

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?

The Democrats did nothing that justifies how the Republicans have abandoned their responsibilities to the CotUS and good governance. The Democrats lost both houses of Congress and the executive branch because their leaders are fucking incompetent.

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?

[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.

Re: Duty to Country?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 governments.

Obstruction of justice ("because Russia") and pattern of firing and attempting and plotting to fire entire chains of people investigating you. People have gone to jail for far less.

Trump's on-air confessions to illegal misuse of campaign funds because he doesn't even understand the law.

Abuse of office by leveraging his position and resources to seek retribution against political adversaries. (e.g. Revoking security clearances for political reasons)

Muller and a half dozen ongoing independent criminal investigations are going to destroy Trump, his family and all of his buddies. They deserve everything they are about to get.

Re:Duty to Country?

[mishehu]

If enough of them sign their name to it, it will force the hand. I happen to agree with David Frum's take on this. Zontar, despite being mindless, is echoing some of what David Frum also says.

Re: Duty to Country?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he were an officer in any branch of service instead of the commander in chief, he'd have been dishonorably discharged for conduct unbecoming.

Re:Duty to Country?

[Thelasko]

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.

Article II section 1:
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." (very first sentence)

The author of the letter is admitting to exercising executive power without being the President. That's a pretty clear violation, and completely separate from writing a letter to the NYT.

ok, wtf is this doing on /.?

[rsilvergun]

I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae. If there was a tech angle fine, but I don't see any. If the editors are going to greenlight political stories stick to the major ones. Not some random staffer who's dad probably made him take the job. I mean, we've got a SCOTUS nomination process going on right now...

Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

Re:ok, wtf is this doing on /.?

[thrich81]

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 try to (or be able to) run the country like you got some massive mandate and step all over the majority who voted against you -- that's some third world one-party crap.
Anyone with nerd credentials should have the engineering insight to recognize that a system which produces massively differing policy outcomes based on the swing of a few thousand votes is unstable and flawed. If your engineered system runs into a corner case and starts to tear itself apart do you want to step in and override the programming in the emergency or just stand back and say, "that's the way its built, we've got to just let it run."?

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.

Re:Scary takeaway

[quantaman]

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:Scary takeaway

[guruevi]

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". Per Bernie Sanders and others on the left, rich people and corporations don't pay taxes, so the logical conclusion is that you can't increase or decrease their tax load because they have none.

Re:Scary takeaway

[Anonymous Coward]

Gargantuan deficits? Bill Clinton would have run a surplus pretty much every year of his two-term presidency if he hadn't had to pay the INTEREST on the debt that Reagan and Bush I ran up.

AC

Re:Scary takeaway

[quantaman]

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 Bush tax cuts. You don't get rich by going on a shopping spree.

Per Bernie Sanders and others on the left, rich people and corporations don't pay taxes, so the logical conclusion is that you can't increase or decrease their tax load because they have none.

I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke, hyperbole, or just a really confused statement.

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

[guruevi]

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".

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

Re:And he's proud of what??

[swillden]

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 point out that arrogance like yours is a principal cause of Trump's election.

Re:And he's proud of what??

[drinkypoo]

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.

Who is an Anonymous Coward?

[careysb]

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

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

Re:Who is an Anonymous Coward?

[Freischutz]

"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.

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.

 

Re:Treason

[Tulsa_Time]

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

[Snufu]

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

[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.

Conspiracy theory, eh?

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, if anyone had any doubts that the deep state exists, this should pretty much put an end to them. This attempt at circumventing the elected government is incredibly harmful. You want to know the endgame of this? Pakistan. Pakistan is run not by the elected government, but by its intelligence community. They take actions that are in their own interest, not in the interest of the country, and as a result Pakistan is a shithole and will never get any better.

A better way to approach the problem might be to ask what does America's deep state think of you?

Schweizer said, "Well, let me tell you, I would recommend everybody go out and get an academic book published last year called "What Washington Gets Wrong," and it's two scholars from Johns Hopkins University who do a massive survey of senior unelected executives in government, basically the deep state, and asks them a bunch of questions. And as the authors describe the deep state has contemptuous attitudes towards the average American."

"They think they're far less educated than they actually are," he continued. "They think they are far more dependent than they actually are. They're arrogant, they believe, and say in the surveys if the American people want one thing, and they think it's wrong, they're going to push something else. There's a massive disconnect, and the deep state is real, and it's a threat to our republic form of government."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30027384-what-washington-gets-wrong

They would very much like the Pakistani model, where there is an elected figurehead, but they rule us. For our own good, of course.

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.

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: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.

Trump supporter pro-dismantling of US democracy

[UpnAtom]

Shocked I tell you.

Something to remember about anonymous sources

[Wizardess]

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...

[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.

not anonymous for long

[albeit unknown]

Pattern-matching/machine learning algorithms will be used to compare the writing style and vocabulary in the article against the large sample of communications records available in the White House. The author will be found quickly.

Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH

[PopeRatzo]

The real employer is the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

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...

And here are salaries of cabinet secretaries on down.

https://work.chron.com/much-mo...

The Black Hole of Self-Awareness

[PopeRatzo]

by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05, 2018 @08:46PM (#57261402)

"The anonymous guy is the worst kind of scum."

Re:The Black Hole of Self-Awareness

[PopeRatzo]

You understand now that we, Anonymous Cowards, are the silent keepers of Liberty, don't you?

We must have different definitions of the word "silent".

Re:Definitely should resign

[Darinbob]

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.

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.

To be fair, there is no Republican Party ...

[Freischutz]

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

Get your act together?

[Freischutz]

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 most American voters could live with. Until both the Dems. and the Reps, realise that the tribalism and 'my way or the highway' politics have reached the end of their lifespan the US will remain a basket case and an international laughing stock.

Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH

[Anonymous Coward]

against all enemies, foreign and domestic

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

It gets ironic if you merge the statements

[Kjella]

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:It gets ironic if you merge the statements

[N1AK]

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.

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.

Re:You might want to lay off whatever it is

[swb]

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.

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.

Re:motivations and gullibility

[ooloorie]

You can tell from the WH reaction that it is real, or at least close enough to truth that they think it is.

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 believe that the person who wrote it has any special insights about the things they write about. I mean, the memo could be written by Bruce Ohr for all we know.

Re:motivations and gullibility

[ooloorie]

A reasonable question, and it deserves a reasonable answer, so here it is: Bob Woodward's book comes out on Tuesday, and it contains hundreds of hours of carefully transcribed conversations with dozens of White House aides, all saying roughly the same thing that this op-ed is saying

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 government. A WH that's ineffective and chaotic sounds good to me, certainly better than the creepy authoritarians that Bob Woodward and the WaPo favor for the WH.

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.

Re:Wrong, employer is EXECUTIVE BRANCH

[hierofalcon]

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 thought particular conflicts were wrong over the course of your history. Yet they don't get to just frustrate the orders from above with impunity and without consequence.

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.

The Best Part

[bblb]

The best part of Trump's election has really been the way it's led to liberals coming completely unhinged and exposing themselves as the party of hate and deceit. I've never been a huge fan of Trump's but the one thing he's unquestionably succeeded at is showing what a vile and disgusting bunch of self serving and seditious scumbags the political elite are.

Anonymous source?

[Mike Van Pelt]

Not knowing who it is, all we know about him or her is that the editorial board of the New York Times likes what he or she has to say. For all we know, it's some random blogger, or someone entirely made up, like the Jayson Blair thing.

Re: Says who?

[rickb928]

And this is why we don't employ political opposition to evaluate aberrant behavior. Your example is more easily described as political hyperbole than clinical evidence of, well, anything.

Seriously, this isn't much to hang your hat on. Remember when Obama declared that the Cambridge, Massachusetts police 'acted stupidly' when they arrested a college professor, at his own home front door? Recall the facts of that incident? That Obama actually admitted he didn't know all the facts?

What do you call someone who decides what the facts of an incident are when they shot they don't know all the facts, declares that one party 'acted stupidly', despite admittedly not having all the facts?

Stupid, themselves? That's actually the minimum, to me. No, not unstable, nut maybe narcissistic, as in loving the sound of their own voice so much, or believing their opinion on any subject is so important that they can make it up as they go along?

Yeah, Trump tried to make his inaugural crowd more than it was. Vanity. He's not the first president guilty of vanity. Elevating it to some clinically dangerous instance of narcissism is pure political theater. Buy your own popcorn.

Re:Why Anonymous ?

[eaglesrule]

The media is ramping up the impeachment narrative. And now this. How convenient. Oh and midterms.

Rational people don't claim to act with a purpose, then undermine that purpose for no apparent reason in such a dramatic way. If I was going to design an incendiary device to lob at a declared enemy, it would look just like this one. It's worked perfectly.

I'm calling Occams Razor on this one. People continue to underestimate the guile and mendacity of ruthless people determined to preserve the status quo that benefits them. There's nothing the 'greater good' also won't justify, either.