"I am part of the resistance inside the Trump Administration"

15,193 Views | 139 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Golem
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is? Because what this says is that unelected bureaucrats are making and executing decisions the president should make behind his back and without his knowledge.

Here's the column:

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It's not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump's leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma which he does not fully grasp is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left. 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.

The root of the problem is the president's amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the "enemy of the people," President Trump's impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don't get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite not because of the president's leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief's comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

"There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next," a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he'd made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren't for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when Donald Trump won't.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

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.

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.

The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL - so the insider 'mole' is going to go to the NYTimes to tell them what they are doing?

I can't believe people fall for this stuff. Everybody should know by now liberals (and the media) are all about chaos to distract from all the positives going on in our country right now. I hope they don't fall for it but I'm sure some in the GOP will.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When an opinion could be reasonably expressed in 2-3 sentences .......

leave it to Jinxy and bubbadog to routinely bray 7+ paragraphs worth .

MilliVanilli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fan fiction is now mainstream...
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MilliVanilli said:

Fan fiction is now mainstream...
It's totally fan fiction.

The op ed is all over the place. they claim they want to administration to succeed, but they later in the piece they say they'll stop Trump until he's removed from office "one way or another".

oh yeah, sure sounds like working towards a successful administration.

I can't believe people still fall for this stuff.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~ John Adams
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in Jinx.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If that is true, an active & powerful Deep State is now Conspiracy Fact. If not, then Failing NYTimes is openly lying
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~ John Adams
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in Jinx.
To your point, if the author is so alarmed about Ttump's stability and continuing harm to the nation, he should make himself known to us. "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything"
Make Racism Wrong Again
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You poor old knuckleheads don't realize how bad and embarrassing this is. I'm wondering if it's a response to Bob Woodward's book.

What it says is that members of Trump's administration realize he's dangerous and incompetent, and they're quietly working togetehr and at cross purposes with him, both to promote different agendas and initiatives and to keep his most distructive tendencies in check and 'thwart parts of his agenda."

Here's the subhead: "I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

An international paper has just published an article by a minion working for Trump to the effect that Trump isn't in control of the U.S. government; it's actually controlled by a confederacy of dunces hiding in plain sight in his administration.

That's embarrassing--and not just for Trump. It'll be interesting to see how he reacts.

riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

You poor old knuckleheads don't realize how bad and embarrassing this is. I'm wondering if it's a response to Bob Woodward's book.

What it says is that members of Trump's administration realize he's dangerous and incompetent, and they're quietly working togetehr and at cross purposes with him, both to promote different agendas and initiatives and to keep his most distructive tendencies in check and 'thwart parts of his agenda."

Here's the subhead: "I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

An international paper has just published an article by a minion working for Trump to the effect that Trump isn't in control of the U.S. government; it's actually controlled by a confederacy of dunces hiding in plain sight in his administration.

That's embarrassing--and not just for Trump. It'll be interesting to see how he reacts.


Give us a reason why we should believe it?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~ John Adams
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Jinx 2 said:

You poor old knuckleheads don't realize how bad and embarrassing this is. I'm wondering if it's a response to Bob Woodward's book.

What it says is that members of Trump's administration realize he's dangerous and incompetent, and they're quietly working togetehr and at cross purposes with him, both to promote different agendas and initiatives and to keep his most distructive tendencies in check and 'thwart parts of his agenda."

Here's the subhead: "I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

An international paper has just published an article by a minion working for Trump to the effect that Trump isn't in control of the U.S. government; it's actually controlled by a confederacy of dunces hiding in plain sight in his administration.

That's embarrassing--and not just for Trump. It'll be interesting to see how he reacts.


Give us a reason why we should believe it?
Doc, you'd be leading that "dumb f'ing Southerners" chant at the rally.
Make Racism Wrong Again
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again, this was not a 'White House' official. This could be someone in the EPA or Energy Dept or who knows where. Again, I think it's a made up story but who cares.
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:

D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
I hope they don't go there based on what we have now.

The day may come...
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL CNN - They are worse than TMZ & the Enquirer now. Saw where Spongebob got better ratings than they did recently. Clearly they haven't learned.

bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

bubbadog said:

D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
I hope they don't go there based on what we have now.

The day may come...
You could not get a majority of House Republicans to sign a declaration even if he really did shoot someone in Times Square.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
jklburns
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:



I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
This is an even more bizarre tactic than calling for impeachment. At least with impeachment you only need a majority of the house and then the Senate holds the trial (so the sticking point is convincing the majority of Americans of a "high crime or misdemeaner")

But removal per 25th is even harder! Does the "resistance" really think they are going to get 1) Pence + 2) majority of Cabinet, and/or 3) majority of Congress to ALL sign a declaration which will then absolutely be answered by a declaration from the president (and probably a lot of video like with the DACA meeting last year that ended this same discussion), and THEN 4) get 2/3 of BOTH houses to remove? That's more insane than claiming the president is insane.

If the author actually is a real person in the Administration, it's probably somebody who knows they are about to get the boot and they are preparing a soft landing for themselves at CNN or MSNBC or something. What's funny is how easy it would be for such a person to play the media in this way.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
David Frum's column in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/this-is-a-constitutional-crisis/569443/ - in which he says Trump's "cowardly coup" cabal has a duty to the American people to act if they believe he is morally and intellectually unfit:

If the president's closest advisers believe that he is morally and intellectually unfit for his high office, they have a duty to do their utmost to remove him from it, by the lawful means at hand. That duty may be risky to their careers in government or afterward. But on their first day at work, they swore an oath to defend the Constitutionand there were no "riskiness" exemptions in the text of that oath.
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jklburns said:

bubbadog said:



I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
This is an even more bizarre tactic than calling for impeachment. At least with impeachment you only need a majority of the house and then the Senate holds the trial (so the sticking point is convincing the majority of Americans of a "high crime or misdemeaner")

But removal per 25th is even harder! Does the "resistance" really think they are going to get 1) Pence + 2) majority of Cabinet, and/or 3) majority of Congress to ALL sign a declaration which will then absolutely be answered by a declaration from the president (and probably a lot of video like with the DACA meeting last year that ended this same discussion), and THEN 4) get 2/3 of BOTH houses to remove? That's more insane than claiming the president is insane.

If the author actually is a real person in the Administration, it's probably somebody who knows they are about to get the boot and they are preparing a soft landing for themselves at CNN or MSNBC or something. What's funny is how easy it would be for such a person to play the media in this way.

He's not going to be removed by this means unless he becomes completely unhinged in a lawless way, such as ordering the military to shut down the NY Times unless they reveal the identity of the author, or tries to ban all protests. He made hints today about the latter, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that he might lose his **** enough as this goes on to order the former. And even then, who knows? A majority of Republicans in Congress would let him do just about anything illegal as long as he keeps appointing judges they like.

If the author is a real person? Let's think about that for a minute. The NYT is a professional news organization. Not only that, they know they're under a microscope. They're smart enough to know that publishing this piece was going to trigger a full-bore manhunt for the author by Trump. It's very plausible that the author's identity will become public knowledge. For this not to be a real person, you'd have to be suggesting that the NYT was willing to make up a completely fake story, knowing that if their fraud was revealed, that it would probably destroy a 150-year-old institution. That's just Trumpet fantasyland.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:

D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.


I read it, too. The 25th amendment says nothing about a president being "unfit." There is a substantive difference between someone being "unfit" to hold office (we have elections to settle that and, in extreme cases, impeachment) and someone being "unable" to discharge the duties of the office. Jinx is basically advocating removing the president for political reasons using a tool intended to allow the government to have an executive when the president is incapacitated.

Ignore the emoticon.
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

bubbadog said:

D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.


I read it, too. The 25th amendment says nothing about a president being "unfit." There is a substantive difference between someone being "unfit" to hold office (we have elections to settle that and, in extreme cases, impeachment) and someone being "unable" to discharge the duties of the office. Jinx is basically advocating removing the president for political reasons using a tool intended to allow the government to have an executive when the president is incapacitated.

Ignore the emoticon.
OK -- the actual wording is "unable to discharge the duties and powers." So let's go with that. Those words could be construed to mean physical disability. Had the 25th Amendment been around back then, the words would have been used to remove Woodrow Wilson after his debilitating stroke.

But the plain meaning of those words would not limit it to physical disability. If the president is unable to discharge his duties because he's gone all Captain Queeg, the 25th Amendment certainly could be applied. And if 2/3 of Congress agreed, I don't see how you call that a coup. They'd be following the Constitution.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
High crimes and misdemeanors would be the more apropos rationale for removal, imo.
Make Racism Wrong Again
jklburns
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:

jklburns said:

bubbadog said:



I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
This is an even more bizarre tactic than calling for impeachment. At least with impeachment you only need a majority of the house and then the Senate holds the trial (so the sticking point is convincing the majority of Americans of a "high crime or misdemeaner")

But removal per 25th is even harder! Does the "resistance" really think they are going to get 1) Pence + 2) majority of Cabinet, and/or 3) majority of Congress to ALL sign a declaration which will then absolutely be answered by a declaration from the president (and probably a lot of video like with the DACA meeting last year that ended this same discussion), and THEN 4) get 2/3 of BOTH houses to remove? That's more insane than claiming the president is insane.

If the author actually is a real person in the Administration, it's probably somebody who knows they are about to get the boot and they are preparing a soft landing for themselves at CNN or MSNBC or something. What's funny is how easy it would be for such a person to play the media in this way.

He's not going to be removed by this means unless he becomes completely unhinged in a lawless way, such as ordering the military to shut down the NY Times unless they reveal the identity of the author, or tries to ban all protests. He made hints today about the latter, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that he might lose his **** enough as this goes on to order the former. And even then, who knows? A majority of Republicans in Congress would let him do just about anything illegal as long as he keeps appointing judges they like.

If the author is a real person? Let's think about that for a minute. The NYT is a professional news organization. Not only that, they know they're under a microscope. They're smart enough to know that publishing this piece was going to trigger a full-bore manhunt for the author by Trump. It's very plausible that the author's identity will become public knowledge. For this not to be a real person, you'd have to be suggesting that the NYT was willing to make up a completely fake story, knowing that if their fraud was revealed, that it would probably destroy a 150-year-old institution. That's just Trumpet fantasyland.
Good job leaving of the "in the Administration" part of what I said. I'm assuming a "real person" and not a robot wrote the article.

The NYT has been quoting anonymous people since Trump was elected and somehow we never find out who these mysterious anonymous people are so I think there is a good chance the NYT could absolutely keep it quiet if they wanted; but my statement was not claiming that the NYT made this up on it's own, but rather it's very possible they were duped. So the options are 1) it was a planted article that the NYT failed to suss out (hence my "real person in the Administration" statement), or 2) it's a disgruntled person looking to find a soft landing spot (or a reason for a Go Fund Me) once he/she gets outed.

bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jklburns said:

bubbadog said:

jklburns said:

bubbadog said:



I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
This is an even more bizarre tactic than calling for impeachment. At least with impeachment you only need a majority of the house and then the Senate holds the trial (so the sticking point is convincing the majority of Americans of a "high crime or misdemeaner")

But removal per 25th is even harder! Does the "resistance" really think they are going to get 1) Pence + 2) majority of Cabinet, and/or 3) majority of Congress to ALL sign a declaration which will then absolutely be answered by a declaration from the president (and probably a lot of video like with the DACA meeting last year that ended this same discussion), and THEN 4) get 2/3 of BOTH houses to remove? That's more insane than claiming the president is insane.

If the author actually is a real person in the Administration, it's probably somebody who knows they are about to get the boot and they are preparing a soft landing for themselves at CNN or MSNBC or something. What's funny is how easy it would be for such a person to play the media in this way.

He's not going to be removed by this means unless he becomes completely unhinged in a lawless way, such as ordering the military to shut down the NY Times unless they reveal the identity of the author, or tries to ban all protests. He made hints today about the latter, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that he might lose his **** enough as this goes on to order the former. And even then, who knows? A majority of Republicans in Congress would let him do just about anything illegal as long as he keeps appointing judges they like.

If the author is a real person? Let's think about that for a minute. The NYT is a professional news organization. Not only that, they know they're under a microscope. They're smart enough to know that publishing this piece was going to trigger a full-bore manhunt for the author by Trump. It's very plausible that the author's identity will become public knowledge. For this not to be a real person, you'd have to be suggesting that the NYT was willing to make up a completely fake story, knowing that if their fraud was revealed, that it would probably destroy a 150-year-old institution. That's just Trumpet fantasyland.
Good job leaving of the "in the Administration" part of what I said. I'm assuming a "real person" and not a robot wrote the article.

The NYT has been quoting anonymous people since Trump was elected and somehow we never find out who these mysterious anonymous people are so I think there is a good chance the NYT could absolutely keep it quiet if they wanted; but my statement was not claiming that the NYT made this up on it's own, but rather it's very possible they were duped. So the options are 1) it was a planted article that the NYT failed to suss out (hence my "real person in the Administration" statement), or 2) it's a disgruntled person looking to find a soft landing spot (or a reason for a Go Fund Me) once he/she gets outed.


Newspapers with the resources of the NYT, Washington Post and WSJ go to great lengths to make sure they don't get duped, especially on a story with the potential repercussions of this one. Remember the right-wing hoaxer who got caught trying to dupe the Post into running a bogus story? They learned the woman's identity because they followed their procedures for verifying information and not just taking someone at face value without confirmation. That's not to say they never get fooled. But it would be astonishing if it happened in this case. They say they know the identity of this person. And yet the default response of Trump defenders is that it HAS to be fake, with no consideration of the enormous odds against that argument.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:

D. C. Bear said:

bubbadog said:

D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.


I read it, too. The 25th amendment says nothing about a president being "unfit." There is a substantive difference between someone being "unfit" to hold office (we have elections to settle that and, in extreme cases, impeachment) and someone being "unable" to discharge the duties of the office. Jinx is basically advocating removing the president for political reasons using a tool intended to allow the government to have an executive when the president is incapacitated.

Ignore the emoticon.
OK -- the actual wording is "unable to discharge the duties and powers." So let's go with that. Those words could be construed to mean physical disability. Had the 25th Amendment been around back then, the words would have been used to remove Woodrow Wilson after his debilitating stroke.

But the plain meaning of those words would not limit it to physical disability. If the president is unable to discharge his duties because he's gone all Captain Queeg, the 25th Amendment certainly could be applied. And if 2/3 of Congress agreed, I don't see how you call that a coup. They'd be following the Constitution.
The plain meaning of the words does not include "because we don't like his politics" under any reading.
jklburns
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:

jklburns said:

bubbadog said:

jklburns said:

bubbadog said:



I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
This is an even more bizarre tactic than calling for impeachment. At least with impeachment you only need a majority of the house and then the Senate holds the trial (so the sticking point is convincing the majority of Americans of a "high crime or misdemeaner")

But removal per 25th is even harder! Does the "resistance" really think they are going to get 1) Pence + 2) majority of Cabinet, and/or 3) majority of Congress to ALL sign a declaration which will then absolutely be answered by a declaration from the president (and probably a lot of video like with the DACA meeting last year that ended this same discussion), and THEN 4) get 2/3 of BOTH houses to remove? That's more insane than claiming the president is insane.

If the author actually is a real person in the Administration, it's probably somebody who knows they are about to get the boot and they are preparing a soft landing for themselves at CNN or MSNBC or something. What's funny is how easy it would be for such a person to play the media in this way.

He's not going to be removed by this means unless he becomes completely unhinged in a lawless way, such as ordering the military to shut down the NY Times unless they reveal the identity of the author, or tries to ban all protests. He made hints today about the latter, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that he might lose his **** enough as this goes on to order the former. And even then, who knows? A majority of Republicans in Congress would let him do just about anything illegal as long as he keeps appointing judges they like.

If the author is a real person? Let's think about that for a minute. The NYT is a professional news organization. Not only that, they know they're under a microscope. They're smart enough to know that publishing this piece was going to trigger a full-bore manhunt for the author by Trump. It's very plausible that the author's identity will become public knowledge. For this not to be a real person, you'd have to be suggesting that the NYT was willing to make up a completely fake story, knowing that if their fraud was revealed, that it would probably destroy a 150-year-old institution. That's just Trumpet fantasyland.
Good job leaving of the "in the Administration" part of what I said. I'm assuming a "real person" and not a robot wrote the article.

The NYT has been quoting anonymous people since Trump was elected and somehow we never find out who these mysterious anonymous people are so I think there is a good chance the NYT could absolutely keep it quiet if they wanted; but my statement was not claiming that the NYT made this up on it's own, but rather it's very possible they were duped. So the options are 1) it was a planted article that the NYT failed to suss out (hence my "real person in the Administration" statement), or 2) it's a disgruntled person looking to find a soft landing spot (or a reason for a Go Fund Me) once he/she gets outed.


Newspapers with the resources of the NYT, Washington Post and WSJ go to great lengths to make sure they don't get duped, especially on a story with the potential repercussions of this one. Remember the right-wing hoaxer who got caught trying to dupe the Post into running a bogus story? They learned the woman's identity because they followed their procedures for verifying information and not just taking someone at face value without confirmation. That's not to say they never get fooled. But it would be astonishing if it happened in this case. They say they know the identity of this person. And yet the default response of Trump defenders is that it HAS to be fake, with no consideration of the enormous odds against that argument.
You are seriously going to go with the "they are too good to get duped" argument given how many retractions keep having to be made when Trump + anonymous sources are involved?

But once again, I didn't say it HAS to be fake; I gave another viable option on why someone would go to such great lengths to get this printed anonymously.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:

jklburns said:

bubbadog said:



I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
This is an even more bizarre tactic than calling for impeachment. At least with impeachment you only need a majority of the house and then the Senate holds the trial (so the sticking point is convincing the majority of Americans of a "high crime or misdemeaner")

But removal per 25th is even harder! Does the "resistance" really think they are going to get 1) Pence + 2) majority of Cabinet, and/or 3) majority of Congress to ALL sign a declaration which will then absolutely be answered by a declaration from the president (and probably a lot of video like with the DACA meeting last year that ended this same discussion), and THEN 4) get 2/3 of BOTH houses to remove? That's more insane than claiming the president is insane.

If the author actually is a real person in the Administration, it's probably somebody who knows they are about to get the boot and they are preparing a soft landing for themselves at CNN or MSNBC or something. What's funny is how easy it would be for such a person to play the media in this way.

He's not going to be removed by this means unless he becomes completely unhinged in a lawless way, such as ordering the military to shut down the NY Times unless they reveal the identity of the author, or tries to ban all protests. He made hints today about the latter, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that he might lose his **** enough as this goes on to order the former. And even then, who knows? A majority of Republicans in Congress would let him do just about anything illegal as long as he keeps appointing judges they like.

If the author is a real person? Let's think about that for a minute. The NYT is a professional news organization. Not only that, they know they're under a microscope. They're smart enough to know that publishing this piece was going to trigger a full-bore manhunt for the author by Trump. It's very plausible that the author's identity will become public knowledge. For this not to be a real person, you'd have to be suggesting that the NYT was willing to make up a completely fake story, knowing that if their fraud was revealed, that it would probably destroy a 150-year-old institution. That's just Trumpet fantasyland.


First of all he has already done things on par with this. He has ordered the DOJ to come up with charges and arrest a list of Democrats he has given Sessions. He has outwardly called on the DOJ to not prosecute Republican corruption. He ordered Mattis to have someone assassinated. Just because these folks have the good sense to ignore the criminal, doesn't mean he isn't committing crimes right there in front of them with these orders and acting like a desperate unhinged unfit nut as well in front of them.

It would be interesting if this deep throat is non other than Pence.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
This, of course.

Otherwise I find the article plausible enough. I'm sure Trump's enemies have a variety of motives, from policy disagreements to personal gain to genuine concern about his fitness. We won't begin to know the truth until the history is written.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

bubbadog said:

jklburns said:

bubbadog said:



I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.
This is an even more bizarre tactic than calling for impeachment. At least with impeachment you only need a majority of the house and then the Senate holds the trial (so the sticking point is convincing the majority of Americans of a "high crime or misdemeaner")

But removal per 25th is even harder! Does the "resistance" really think they are going to get 1) Pence + 2) majority of Cabinet, and/or 3) majority of Congress to ALL sign a declaration which will then absolutely be answered by a declaration from the president (and probably a lot of video like with the DACA meeting last year that ended this same discussion), and THEN 4) get 2/3 of BOTH houses to remove? That's more insane than claiming the president is insane.

If the author actually is a real person in the Administration, it's probably somebody who knows they are about to get the boot and they are preparing a soft landing for themselves at CNN or MSNBC or something. What's funny is how easy it would be for such a person to play the media in this way.

He's not going to be removed by this means unless he becomes completely unhinged in a lawless way, such as ordering the military to shut down the NY Times unless they reveal the identity of the author, or tries to ban all protests. He made hints today about the latter, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that he might lose his **** enough as this goes on to order the former. And even then, who knows? A majority of Republicans in Congress would let him do just about anything illegal as long as he keeps appointing judges they like.

If the author is a real person? Let's think about that for a minute. The NYT is a professional news organization. Not only that, they know they're under a microscope. They're smart enough to know that publishing this piece was going to trigger a full-bore manhunt for the author by Trump. It's very plausible that the author's identity will become public knowledge. For this not to be a real person, you'd have to be suggesting that the NYT was willing to make up a completely fake story, knowing that if their fraud was revealed, that it would probably destroy a 150-year-old institution. That's just Trumpet fantasyland.


First of all he has already done things on par with this. He has ordered the DOJ to come up with charges and arrest a list of Democrats he has given Sessions. He has outwardly called on the DOJ to not prosecute Republican corruption. He ordered Mattis to have someone assassinated. Just because these folks have the good sense to ignore the criminal, doesn't mean he isn't committing crimes right there in front of them with these orders and acting like a desperate unhinged unfit nut as well in front of them.

It would be interesting if this deep throat is non other than Pence.
I haven't heard that he asked Sessions to arrest a list of Democrats. As for ordering assassinations and whitewashing corruption, the only unusual thing there is that his wishes were ignored.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

bubbadog said:

D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.


I read it, too. The 25th amendment says nothing about a president being "unfit." There is a substantive difference between someone being "unfit" to hold office (we have elections to settle that and, in extreme cases, impeachment) and someone being "unable" to discharge the duties of the office. Jinx is basically advocating removing the president for political reasons using a tool intended to allow the government to have an executive when the president is incapacitated.

Ignore the emoticon.
The author of this column says the coup has already happened, and that he and his compatriots are governing the nation as an unelected cabal, having decided amongst themselves that Trump is irrational, poorly informed and incompetent.

My point is this: no one elected these people. Their duty, as government employees, is to the constitution--not to work covertly to advance a party's agenda AND, as they appear to believe, protect the country from a dangerous, unhinged president. Now I wonder how many bad policies have resulted from actions taken essentially illegally. This writer has clearly stated the government is not under the president's control--and we really don't know who is controlling it.

Now the writer has outed himself and implied that others are working with him. Trump is paranoid. Do you think he's going to rest until he finds out who wrote that op/ed? Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy week.

Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Trump is paranoid.
Evidently not.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

D. C. Bear said:

bubbadog said:

D. C. Bear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Here is a truly bizarre column by an anonymous "senior official of the Trump administration" that claims both to be working for Trump and against Trump. The Times obviously realizes publishing a piece like this is going to piss a lot of people off for very different reasons, so they're apologizing up front.

My response: I don't want to hear your excuses for working for Trump and how you think your form of resistance is somehow helping America. If you work for the man, you're enabling his wholesale assault on the rule of law and hamhanded policy moves. It is, however, interesting do learn that the real "Deep State" are Trump officials who realize he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and who are trying to do stuff over, under and around him and behind his back. If the existence of such bureaucrats in the Trump administration isn't enough to invoke the 25th Amendment, what is?.



The existence of bureaucrats in government who try to work at cross purposes with others within an administration, even a president, does not make a case for the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, which is in place for times when a president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. You've come unhinged. You are basically calling for a coup.
I went back and read the 25th Amendment. Look at Section IV of the amendment. You may call it a coup, but it's in the Constitution. When the Vice President and majority of the cabinet, or a majority of Congress sign a written declaration that the president is unfit to discharge his duties, the VP becomes acting president.

If the president disagrees that he is unfit, he can send his own letter. Then if a majority of Congress or the cabinet stick by their original declaration, Congress decides the matter and can remove the president with a 2/3 vote in both houses.

I would note that invoking the 25th amendment in and of itself doesn't mean the removal of the president. It does create a process for removal that does not involve impeachment.


I read it, too. The 25th amendment says nothing about a president being "unfit." There is a substantive difference between someone being "unfit" to hold office (we have elections to settle that and, in extreme cases, impeachment) and someone being "unable" to discharge the duties of the office. Jinx is basically advocating removing the president for political reasons using a tool intended to allow the government to have an executive when the president is incapacitated.

Ignore the emoticon.
The author of this column says the coup has already happened, and that he and his compatriots are governing the nation as an unelected cabal, having decided amongst themselves that Trump is irrational, poorly informed and incompetent.

My point is this: no one elected these people. Their duty, as government employees, is to the constitution--not to work covertly to advance a party's agenda AND, as they appear to believe, protect the country from a dangerous, unhinged president. Now I wonder how many bad policies have resulted from actions taken essentially illegally. This writer has clearly stated the government is not under the president's control--and we really don't know who is controlling it.

Now the writer has outed himself and implied that others are working with him. Trump is paranoid. Do you think he's going to rest until he finds out who wrote that op/ed? Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy week.


You are suddenly concerned that unelected bureaucrats have influence or work against what a president might want to do? You think this is a new thing? Harry Truman complained about it, and he probably wasn't the first or the last.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.