[NY TIMES] I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

They weren't wielding power undemocratically.

 

Thoughts on Watergate... and how it was broken?

 

Meanwhile... this is one of the minds that *is* leading our country...

 

I'm not surprised that there is a group of people in the Administration that are actively working to thwart Trump's worst. I brought this up during the campaign that I didn't worry about Trump launching a nuclear war because any order from him actually has to go through people and during Watergate members of Nixon's administration took actions similar to what Anonymous is claiming.

 

Mentally unstable elected officials need to be thwarted by conscientious appointees if they try to do crazy stuff. Exposing those elected officials publicly is preferable, but undermining their craziness privately is better than doing nothing.

This is, of course, non-ideal for our democracy. Solution: voters should not vote for crazy people.

 

This. This is really the issue here, how we’ve allowed ourselves collectively to be too intellectually lazy to fact check or think critically.

 

You did, and it’s the ultimate gamble, one I wouldn’t take.

Let’s see the fall out of this. But I can see a situation where the fall out is there isn’t any adult left. You can’t rule that out as a possibility. And with that group of yes dear leader, you think they would stop a crazy from a nuke attack? Maybe once someone realize what they are about to do... the risk is too high to allow the chance. Too late at this point.

 

At the end of the day, it's all about fame and fortune. Liberals dupped again.

 

I understand the faux "constitutional" concern the dissemblers are using to shift focus from dotard's unfitness to the author. I disagree with their intent in shifting the focus; our president is unfit to serve. Obama said, "this is not how our democracy works" and I agree and wish the senior officials had taken proper action by invoking the 25th.

I share @txtony's concern that the purge of parents in the room ultimately leaves us more at risk to the whims of the toddler. We need more grownups to keep our toddler in chief from wrecking our country.

Otherwise, my Democratic brethren, starting in 2018 and continuing in 2020...

Spoiler

 

You don’t think a debt fueled boom will have consequences? What happened after Bush Jr?

 

GWB's was fueld by cheap credit. It was never real. This economy is a continuation of the recovery.

Im not a trickle down economics person but i don't think the tax cut was that big of a deal in terms of actual numbers

 

The person who wrote that op ed isn't wielding power undemocratically. If Trump can't manage his closest advisors and staff, that is further proof that the op ed author and their cohorts are doing the right thing. Trump is President, he has the power, if Trump can't see that others are manipulating that - then he is absolutely ****ing terrible at this job. At some point, he has to take responsibility.

The diehard of the GOP despise Trump and what he stands for, and are embarrassed that he is the face of their party. Trump is not a Republican, and he never has been. Their penance for not taking him seriously earlier is having him as the face of their Party.

More like voters should hold both parties accountable for nominating crazy and corrupt candidates. At least with Trump, we can see the corruption clear as day. Hillary is a politician, and knows how to do it covertly - and there is overwhelming proof of that.

The Truth is, our democracy hasn't been "working as intended" since the mid 90s. Power elites on both sides dictate the direction of the parties, not their voters. Both sides are culpable.

 

The reason the person has a god complex has nothing to do with writing an anonymous op-ed. the comment went over your head.

This is ridiculous circular logic.

you are basically arguing that if the people democratically vote in someone you find 'crazy' then we shouldn't have democracy.

 

Doesn't there need to be some plausible suspicion of a crime for the FBI to go around interviewing people? Republicans keep telling me that.

Speaking of god complexes, we have a president who thinks personal disloyalty is the same thing as treason. He is not the State. He may have been duly elected -- just as this senior official was duly appointed and confirmed -- but no investment of power is unlimited. So this senior official exhibits some of the same character flaw Trump does. You would prefer everyone else in the political constellation to play it by the book like some good little Boy Scouts while Trump runs roughshod over the rules and does what he likes, just because he was elected?

Here's another option for rooting out the 'resistance' in the White House that I have not seen discussed. Impeach and remove Trump and the new President will likely replace much of the Cabinet with his own picks.

 

I have no idea if its treason or not. It begs the question though, at what point does intentionally not doing your federal job constitute treason? If a diplomat is told to negotiate or tell a foreign country one thing and he purposely negotiates/says the exact opposite to 'be part resistance' is that treason?


You are also being incredibly dishonest if you think that's what Trump calls treason. He called purposely not doing your federal job as treason not disloyalty.

 

By that definition, Trump has likely already committed treason.

 

For that, I guess I would go to Article 3 of the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." By this sentence, I'd say the 'resistance' has pretty wide latitude in being unfaithful to the will of the President and still not be guilty of treason, so long as he doesn't actually collude with hostile foreign powers to do harm to the United States. It'd be useful to note that the authors were reacting to their circumstance under English law where 'treason' was widely defined such that defiance of the king could be prosecuted. It was exactly this blurring of the line between the State and the Executive that the founding fathers were avoiding by defining treason narrowly. Not doing your job, undermining the President, even willfully flouting his intentions or express commands might be a fireable offense, but it is not at all remotely treason.

I think Trump is wrong that not doing your job is treason, per my answer above. But, accusing someone of not doing their job because they don't do it the way he wants them to is essentially to accuse them of personal disloyalty. The situation here is not of an official who is doing nothing. The official is doing lots of work and exercising his judgment on how he should do it to serve his country (not his president; the oath they swear is actually to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States). Trump doesn't like the official's conclusions on how he does his work because the how involves resisting some of the intentions of the president. He doesn't have to like it. He doesn't have to tolerate it. If he fired one of his officials because the official wouldn't execute on an order, or stole documents off of his desk, I wouldn't even blink. Of course he should. But to accuse that official of a criminal offense for it implies that the official's duty to his country and the Constitution is intertwined with his duty to the person of the President, which implies that the person of the President is essentially the country itself. And that's not at all right. That's what we fought a revolution over. That's how dictatorships are formed.

 

Interest rates are lower post 2007 crisis....

The tax cuts were a huge fiscal stimulation but it’s also why we have large, increasing deficits during a strong economy. They deficits were shrinking towards the end of Obama's term.