The White House is into full denial mode re Woodward. Kelly and Mattis may well see themselves as a part of the ever thinner 'thin blue line'. So I guess they have little choice but to deny.
Trouble is, Woodward is assiduous. He never writes anything other than what has been reported to him (and recorded) and he goes for multiple sources wherever possible. That is why he has a forty years long reputation for honest reporting. I've read different things about his current political affiliation but he's never been known as a liberal.
There will be some faults in the book but personally I have no doubt that he is giving a largely accurate picture of life in the White House under Trump. The safety curtain has been pulled aside. Revealing 'Crazytown'.
(Edited to update info about Woodward's political affiliation.)
Yes I know on one level that what everyone is saying about the Courts in the US is more accurate than my tearful bleating for a time when an independent judiciary could thumb its nose at Government without repercussions, and when Attorneys-General saw it as their duty to defend judges against attacks from their own party.
sigh.
I was reminded today that a consortium to build a casino in NSW was excluded from the tendering process because Donald J. Trump was involved and not seen as a fit and proper person to conduct a casino business. The reason he was not fit and proper was because of his mafia connections. Is it time to remind the voting public of that? Article I intend to plaster that link everywhere Americans might be looking.
The upshot of which is that, assuming Kavanaugh is confirmed, the SCOTUS will (for the first time in recent history) have a solid majority of 5 strongly right-wing judges, all arguably highly qualified, but all basically appointed because of their known judicial politics.
It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has not had a majority of Democratic-appointed justices since the resignation of Abe Fortas (May 14, 1969). Given that a half-century's worth of control of the highest court has not given Republicans what they want, it's kind of mind-boggling to consider what it is that they do want.
In the 592 days since he took the oath of office, President Trump has made 4,713 false or misleading claims, according to The Fact Checker's database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president.
The upshot of which is that, assuming Kavanaugh is confirmed, the SCOTUS will (for the first time in recent history) have a solid majority of 5 strongly right-wing judges, all arguably highly qualified, but all basically appointed because of their known judicial politics.
It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has not had a majority of Democratic-appointed justices since the resignation of Abe Fortas (May 14, 1969). Given that a half-century's worth of control of the highest court has not given Republicans what they want, it's kind of mind-boggling to consider what it is that they do want.
Because his name is topical, I'll mention that Bob Woodward co-authored in 1979 this excellent book about the early years of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren Burger. Burger replaced Earl Warren. The Nixon appointees were Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist and Powell. (Stevens was a Ford appointee in 1975)
In the early years the book covered, two landmark decisions are worth mentioning; Roe v Wade, largely authored by Harry Blackmun who was (like Burger) a Nixon appointee, was passed 7-2 (dissents by Rehnquist and White) and the Nixon Tapes ruling re Executive Privilege, authored by Burger and passed (after some fairly substantial modifications in discussions) 8-0 (Rehnquist recused himself). The book concludes with the thought that the centre was in control, and unlike Earl Warren, Burger was more of a figurehead than a mover of decisions. Powell was reckoned to be a swing vote, Blackmun became more liberal and is now reckoned to be one of the most liberal judges of that era. Rehnquist, who was and remained conservative, became Chief Justice, was generally respected for his intellectual prowess by judges and clerks, and in later years generally lined up the left of Scalia and Thomas. (Stevens is reckoned to have been centre-liberal on most issues.)
I think the difference between then and now was there was greater respect for the constitutional independence of the court than there is now. It was less amenable to corrupt political pressure. Apparently, when the 8-0 verdict against Nixon came in, he railed "how could my appointees not vote their conscience, vote for me". See the expectation of loyalty? Which is of course exactly the way Trump thinks. And the behaviour of the Roberts 5 does indeed point to the greater depths of politicisation these days, than in the 1970s.
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.
<snip>
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.
The author of the anonymous editorial is described as "a senior official in the Trump administration". I'm not sure the U.S. has had a senior administration official call out a president like this since Watergate.
My main take-away from this is that Donald Trump is even more dangerously unstable than is commonly believed and that we've reached the point where "senior administration officials" are worried about how this is going to reflect on them. It's hard to read:
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.
as anything other than ass-covering for a Republican establishment that has empowered and embraced Donald Trump.
*The New York Times allows non-subscribers access to five articles per calendar month. Only click through if you want to use one of your five monthly NYT passes for an opinion piece that is alternately alarming and self-serving.
"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 only thing that's "right" is to declare him incompetent and kick his you-know-what out where it belongs.
I read it before I checked in to the website. My reading is that the "adults in the room" despair of the Trump Cabinet invoking Article 25 and are taking the only course of action which they feel is open to them. This whistleblower testimony tells me just how desperate the situation is becoming in the White House.
The article provides substantial confirmation of the picture that Woodward has painted in his latest book.
I feel this cannot go on much longer, but the uncomfortable truth is that unless and until the GOP decides that enough is enough it will go on.
I'm hedging my bets on that NYT insider. Especially after seeing the part where he or she says that they like a lot of what the administration is doing, including "tax cuts" and a "more robust military", and that they endorse "free minds, free markets, and free people"(I'm personally for at least two of those things, but almost certainly not in the same sense as the writer).
For all we know, this is Pence or one of his flunkeys thinking "Hey, if lots of the public believes Trump is insane, I might as well go along with the idea and see if I can get a promotion out of this."
I mean, do you really think that the kind of person who was drawn to the Trump administration in the first place is now acting out of sincere concern for the welfare of Americans? Or the fact that Trump is an erratic oddball came as a sudden epihany to them AFTER they joined up?
FWIW, "free markets, free minds" is the motto of the libertarian magazine Reason. Makes me wonder if that phrase in the op-ed was a shout out to the Hayekian faithful. Though, given Trump's long-standing protectionist views on trade, it's hard to see why a libertarain would be working for him to begin with.
I mean, do you really think that the kind of person who was drawn to the Trump administration in the first place is now acting out of sincere concern for the welfare of Americans? Or the fact that Trump is an erratic oddball came as a sudden epiphany to them AFTER they joined up?
The Norquist qualification for a Republican president is, famously, to "have enough working digits to handle a pen". I'm guessing Trump is simply illustrating the potential drawbacks to this strategy, since presidents usually do more than just sign stuff.
Somewhat ironically Norquist is in eclipse in Republican circles because he married a Muslim woman, which illustrates the hazards of focusing only on domestic tax policy.
I had imagined the writer of the NYT piece was a fairly high-ranking civil servant - it didn't occur to me it might be Pence laying the foundations for declaring Trump a loony (as if that wasn't obvious) and taking over.
Call me hopelessly naive, but I trust the New York Times to get its fact-checking right and to consider the source when considering facts.
As for Trump sycophants changing their mind and finally seeing the light -- it does happen. Look at what happened to a man named Saul who changed his name to Paul.
What Muslim woman in her right mind would marry a Republican, given what the Republican Party has said and done vis-a-vis Muslims for the last 35 years?
Sorry I have been gone for a while. With the university starting up I have been very busy.
Just some quick thoughts tonight.
Yes, Joe Liberman ran as an independent after losing the Connecticut primary. But he still caucused with the Democrats. McCain and Liberman had been able to work across the aisle many times to get legislation across. McCain, Liberman, and Graham had been close friends most of their political careers. They went on Senator junkets all over the world together. If anyone changed, it was Graham.
While Manafort is being tried in Federal Court at this time, the State of New York is also proceeding with their own investigation of Manafort's money laundering and other violations of New York state laws. Even if Manafort is pardoned by Trump over the federal cases, Trump cannot pardon any conviction by the State of New York.
Turns out Pence is now being looked at for also contributing to obstruction of justice in the Comey case. As I understand it Trump read the letter to Pence and other top administrations (not sure if this included cabinet members). It is one thing if he just heard the letter, but it is quite another if he suggested changes to the letter. Makes him an unindicted co-conspirator. Sorry, I cannot give a link to this. It appeared on the Google Newsfeed about a week ago, and I cannot find the story. Google news indicated it was a New York Times article and Washington Post also had a related article.
Should both of them go down, that would make the Speaker of the House the next in line for the Presidency. One very good reason the Democrats are going all out to regain the House.
For primary elections in Massachusetts (and I think most other states) you can vote in either the Democratic contests or in the Republican ones, but not both, so yes, there are two different ballots. At the polling place you're given the one that corresponds to your registered party affiliation, or asked which one you want if you're "unenrolled" (this last option is peculiar to Massachusetts, I believe.)
In the general election this November, in which Democrats and Republicans run against each other, there's just one ballot.
What Muslim woman in her right mind would marry a Republican, given what the Republican Party has said and done vis-a-vis Muslims for the last 35 years?
My reaction was, "Did he buy her from her father -- or maybe ISIS?"
What Muslim woman in her right mind would marry a Republican, given what the Republican Party has said and done vis-a-vis Muslims for the last 35 years?
Rich people often consider themselves above the rest of us. They don't think the rules apply to them, even the rules of prejudice.
I suspect that NYT article story has a bit in it. I thank Amanda in particular for her Paul/Saul comment, jerking me out of my complacent demonisation. It's amazing how reasonable I'm being given how tired I am...
While I have little doubt the article is genuine and whistleblowing is usually anonymous, the anonymity really damages the NYT piece and it is of course the first thing Trump went for in his reaction.
Besides, the author casts themselves as a hero. They shrug off accusations of embodying the "deep state" but I'm concerned about the long-term damage this too will do to the relationship between the office of the presidency (even with other incumbents) and its administration, if high-ranking but unelected officials feel they are entitled to refuse to enact policy decisions.
They say they are in favour of many of Trump's policies, just not how he implements them.
More than anything else, this looks like the beginnings of a public rift between establishment Republicans and Trump.
I had imagined the writer of the NYT piece was a fairly high-ranking civil servant - it didn't occur to me it might be Pence laying the foundations for declaring Trump a loony (as if that wasn't obvious) and taking over.
Heaven help you (and the rest of us).
For the record, I wasn't suggesting it was actually Pence. Just that there's no reason that it couldn't be, and whoever it is is probably not far removed ideologically.
And you can count me as someone who is de facto cheering for Trump, because in all honesty I believe a career Republican would be worse.
It’s America in the 21st century and senior administration officials feel the need to form a ‘resistance’.
The world has gone mad.
Or feels the need to posture as "the resistance" for public consumption, all the while signaling that he's more-or-less okay with the platform Trump was elected on.
Trump shot himself in the foot with his demand that the NYT reveal their source. If he'd stuck with gutless, that might have worked for a while I suppose. At least with his base.
We'll see if the source outs himself or herself, or whether they get found, or whether there are mass resignations. For the time being, I'd go with unprecedented as a description of that op-ed. An unprecedented event in unprecedented circumstances.
Treason or patriotism? Or a GOP establishment plot? Whatever. It's confirmation of the impression that Trump has created of his own accord, that he is unfit for the office. And that the White House has become a surreal and dangerous working environment.
I agree that Trump demanding the source be revealed is a dumb move.
But we've not been in Kansas anymore for some time now. The Trump White House has been leaking badly since day one, and the allegations come as no surprise in the wake of, say, Fire and Fury.
I think this article is a symptom more than it's going to be the cause of anything. And I agree with @Stetson's hunch.
Oh it's a symptom, that's for sure. Caused by unprecedented levels of dysfunction in the White House. In "The Final Days" (another Woodward classic) of Nixon's presidency, it is made clear that Al Haig was the de facto unelected POTUS due to Nixon's Watergate distractions. Every damn thing landed on his desk. But this is worse, because of Trump's erratic activity and pronouncements on policy matters. Haig could claim, legitimately, that he had implied delegated authority. That's not the way it is in today's White House.
US research group Borrell Associates tracks spending on campaign advertising, and in its final estimate for the November poll, reckons that political advertising for the elections will climb to US$8.8 billion, a 6.3% growth on the spend for the 2014 mid-terms. This is US$400 million more than an earlier estimate in April.
We'll see if the source outs himself or herself, or whether they get found, or whether there are mass resignations. For the time being, I'd go with unprecedented as a description of that op-ed. An unprecedented event in unprecedented circumstances.
I'm not sure that's the case. A senior administration official calling out the president he or she works for would seem to have at least one recent precedent. Doing so anonymously is a new twist, but that smacks more of cowardice and ass-covering than principle.
"Because of Donald Trump, future American leaders will be unable to_____."
" . . . earn the trust of American allies." The mere fact that the American electoral system can disgorge someone like Trump who seems to show no compunction about reneging on seven decades of American security commitments is going to be a factor going forward for a long time.
" . . . reverse the effects of climate change." We seem to be at (or possibly past) a tipping point here. The Paris Accords were probably the last chance to deal with this in a non-catastrophic context.
A number of the unwritten rules (norms) for how presidents and administrations behave have been shattered, and rebuilding them is going to be a huge amount of work. Just off the top of my head--not firing people on Twitter; not badmouthing one's predecessor in office; not picking a fight with the National Park Service of all people for egotistical reasons (seriously?); not making and publicizing decisions without at least mentioning them to your own administration people who will be charged with carrying them out; not publicly sucking up to dictators and enemies of one's own country... you get the point.
A career Republican (or really, a career anything) would at least get us back over the line(s), to a point where we could begin to pick up the pieces.
"Because of Donald Trump, future American leaders will be unable to_____."
" . . . earn the trust of American allies." The mere fact that the American electoral system can disgorge someone like Trump who seems to show no compunction about reneging on seven decades of American security commitments is going to be a factor going forward for a long time.
" . . . reverse the effects of climate change." We seem to be at (or possibly past) a tipping point here. The Paris Accords were probably the last chance to deal with this in a non-catastrophic context.
Which security commitments has Trump reneged on?
As for climate-change, again, that's a REPUBLICAN fuck-up. Trump just happened to be the Republican who got to do the honours.
"Because of Donald Trump, future American leaders will be unable to_____."
bring back to life those who have died due to lack of health care.
Or those who have died from unchecked pollution, or lack of safety regulations, or coal mining, or violence... or perhaps nuclear war.
Again...Republicans. With that party controlling the executive and both houses, I'm pretty sure the environment and workplace-safety are gonna be DOA no matter which Republican is sitting in the Oval Office.
Again...Republicans. With that party controlling the executive and both houses, I'm pretty sure the environment and workplace-safety are gonna be DOA no matter which Republican is sitting in the Oval Office.
Still not sure why you think this means Donald Trump gets a pass for doing these things.
We'll see if the source outs himself or herself, or whether they get found, or whether there are mass resignations. For the time being, I'd go with unprecedented as a description of that op-ed. An unprecedented event in unprecedented circumstances.
I'm not sure that's the case. A senior administration official calling out the president he or she works for would seem to have at least one recent precedent. Doing so anonymously is a new twist, but that smacks more of cowardice and ass-covering than principle.
John Dean gave evidence of criminal behaviour before the Senate Watergate Committee. The op-ed gives evidence of unfittededness for office and covert administrative response to that unfittedness.
This may yet turn into "Watergate on steroids" on the issue of presidential criminality, but that's not what the op-ed was about.
Again...Republicans. With that party controlling the executive and both houses, I'm pretty sure the environment and workplace-safety are gonna be DOA no matter which Republican is sitting in the Oval Office.
Still not sure why you think this means Donald Trump gets a pass for doing these things.
I'm not saying he gets a pass in the sense of not being held morally accountable. My original statement was...
And you can count me as someone who is de facto cheering for Trump, because in all honesty I believe a career Republican would be worse.
"Cheering" might have been a provocative choice of words; to be sure, if I were on the committee that makes impeachment decisions, and I thought there was solid evidence of illegal collusion with Russia, I'd vote to impeach.
But thinking about what would overall be best for the welfare of Americans, I still lean toward thinking that any other Republican would be worse, or at least, not at all better, than Trump.
I also think that Trump is better for the Democrats' re-election chances, since, for reasons that I don't view as entirely rational(see my above paragraph), their supporters seem to regard Trump as ne plus ultra evil. I'm worried that if Trump gets kicked out and Pence takes over, you'll have a lot of Democrats thinking "The Long National Nightmare Millennial Version" is over, which could lead to a decreased sense of urgency come election day. (And here I'm more worried about Democrats staying home rather than actually voting Republican).
Republicans. Republicans. Again I say, Republicans.
No, no, and again I say, no.
It's my opinion that overcoming partisanship is a vital step in restoring US politics.
The op-ed is not going down very well here in France: it's being seen as an administrative coup d'état, all the more so in that it's been publicised. That in itself could be as damaging to democracy as Trump.
Republicans. Republicans. Again I say, Republicans.
No, no, and again I say, no.
It's my opinion that overcoming partisanship is a vital step in restoring US politics.
The op-ed is not going down very well here in France: it's being seen as an administrative coup d'état, all the more so in that it's been publicised. That in itself could be as damaging to democracy as Trump.
I'm not sure what you mean by "overcoming partisanship", in regards to the issue of whether or not the problem is Trump or the Republicans generally.
If you think that it's excessively partisan to lay the blame for the bad stuff happening on Republicans, well, I think that's just where the preponderance of the evidence lies. In fact, I think the Republicans themselves are probably quite HAPPY to be blamed for all those things, since that's pretty much what they campaigned on.
I agree with your French commentators that the NYT op-ed seems like a rather dodgy affair, though I don't think I would call it a coup d'etat, which is a phrase I think should be restricted to political intrigue involving violence and/or illegal activities. (And yes, I recognize you qualified that with "adminstrative"). I'm also not convinced that it's gonna do long-term damage to democracy, though it might undermine the adminsitration's credibility among people who still regard it as having any.
I'm not sure what you mean by "overcoming partisanship", in regards to the issue of whether or not the problem is Trump or the Republicans generally.
There's a difference between someone who enacts policies one disagrees with profoundly but who does so by the book, and throwing the book out of the window. Trump has done the latter and - as this op-ed shows - is encouraging others to do the same. Recognising that threat ought to take the debate above partisan considerations.
I find it difficult to interact with those who say the problem is the Republicans generally because it suggests (to my mind at least) that the only alternative is to institute a Democrat one-party state instead.
I find it difficult to interact with those who say the problem is the Republicans generally because it suggests (to my mind at least) that the only alternative is to institute a Democrat one-party state instead.
Well, let's put it this way. If I were voting in US elections, I think I would vote "other than Republican" all the way down the ticket. And I'd prefer it if all other Americans did the same.
Does that mean I favour instituting a one-party state? No, just that I kinda wish that Republicans wouldn't win elections anymore. And I'd be happy if a few other left-leaning parties besides the Democrats took a few seats as well.
Comments
(Tangent)
Do you have separate voting slips for parties over the Pacific? Or am I misunderstanding?
(/Tangent)
Trouble is, Woodward is assiduous. He never writes anything other than what has been reported to him (and recorded) and he goes for multiple sources wherever possible. That is why he has a forty years long reputation for honest reporting. I've read different things about his current political affiliation but he's never been known as a liberal.
There will be some faults in the book but personally I have no doubt that he is giving a largely accurate picture of life in the White House under Trump. The safety curtain has been pulled aside. Revealing 'Crazytown'.
(Edited to update info about Woodward's political affiliation.)
sigh.
I was reminded today that a consortium to build a casino in NSW was excluded from the tendering process because Donald J. Trump was involved and not seen as a fit and proper person to conduct a casino business. The reason he was not fit and proper was because of his mafia connections. Is it time to remind the voting public of that? Article I intend to plaster that link everywhere Americans might be looking.
It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has not had a majority of Democratic-appointed justices since the resignation of Abe Fortas (May 14, 1969). Given that a half-century's worth of control of the highest court has not given Republicans what they want, it's kind of mind-boggling to consider what it is that they do want.
Because his name is topical, I'll mention that Bob Woodward co-authored in 1979 this excellent book about the early years of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren Burger. Burger replaced Earl Warren. The Nixon appointees were Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist and Powell. (Stevens was a Ford appointee in 1975)
In the early years the book covered, two landmark decisions are worth mentioning; Roe v Wade, largely authored by Harry Blackmun who was (like Burger) a Nixon appointee, was passed 7-2 (dissents by Rehnquist and White) and the Nixon Tapes ruling re Executive Privilege, authored by Burger and passed (after some fairly substantial modifications in discussions) 8-0 (Rehnquist recused himself). The book concludes with the thought that the centre was in control, and unlike Earl Warren, Burger was more of a figurehead than a mover of decisions. Powell was reckoned to be a swing vote, Blackmun became more liberal and is now reckoned to be one of the most liberal judges of that era. Rehnquist, who was and remained conservative, became Chief Justice, was generally respected for his intellectual prowess by judges and clerks, and in later years generally lined up the left of Scalia and Thomas. (Stevens is reckoned to have been centre-liberal on most issues.)
I think the difference between then and now was there was greater respect for the constitutional independence of the court than there is now. It was less amenable to corrupt political pressure. Apparently, when the 8-0 verdict against Nixon came in, he railed "how could my appointees not vote their conscience, vote for me". See the expectation of loyalty? Which is of course exactly the way Trump thinks. And the behaviour of the Roberts 5 does indeed point to the greater depths of politicisation these days, than in the 1970s.
The author of the anonymous editorial is described as "a senior official in the Trump administration". I'm not sure the U.S. has had a senior administration official call out a president like this since Watergate.
My main take-away from this is that Donald Trump is even more dangerously unstable than is commonly believed and that we've reached the point where "senior administration officials" are worried about how this is going to reflect on them. It's hard to read:
as anything other than ass-covering for a Republican establishment that has empowered and embraced Donald Trump.
*The New York Times allows non-subscribers access to five articles per calendar month. Only click through if you want to use one of your five monthly NYT passes for an opinion piece that is alternately alarming and self-serving.
?????
The only thing that's "right" is to declare him incompetent and kick his you-know-what out where it belongs.
The article provides substantial confirmation of the picture that Woodward has painted in his latest book.
I feel this cannot go on much longer, but the uncomfortable truth is that unless and until the GOP decides that enough is enough it will go on.
For all we know, this is Pence or one of his flunkeys thinking "Hey, if lots of the public believes Trump is insane, I might as well go along with the idea and see if I can get a promotion out of this."
I mean, do you really think that the kind of person who was drawn to the Trump administration in the first place is now acting out of sincere concern for the welfare of Americans? Or the fact that Trump is an erratic oddball came as a sudden epihany to them AFTER they joined up?
The Norquist qualification for a Republican president is, famously, to "have enough working digits to handle a pen". I'm guessing Trump is simply illustrating the potential drawbacks to this strategy, since presidents usually do more than just sign stuff.
Somewhat ironically Norquist is in eclipse in Republican circles because he married a Muslim woman, which illustrates the hazards of focusing only on domestic tax policy.
Heaven help you (and the rest of us).
As for Trump sycophants changing their mind and finally seeing the light -- it does happen. Look at what happened to a man named Saul who changed his name to Paul.
Just some quick thoughts tonight.
Yes, Joe Liberman ran as an independent after losing the Connecticut primary. But he still caucused with the Democrats. McCain and Liberman had been able to work across the aisle many times to get legislation across. McCain, Liberman, and Graham had been close friends most of their political careers. They went on Senator junkets all over the world together. If anyone changed, it was Graham.
While Manafort is being tried in Federal Court at this time, the State of New York is also proceeding with their own investigation of Manafort's money laundering and other violations of New York state laws. Even if Manafort is pardoned by Trump over the federal cases, Trump cannot pardon any conviction by the State of New York.
Turns out Pence is now being looked at for also contributing to obstruction of justice in the Comey case. As I understand it Trump read the letter to Pence and other top administrations (not sure if this included cabinet members). It is one thing if he just heard the letter, but it is quite another if he suggested changes to the letter. Makes him an unindicted co-conspirator. Sorry, I cannot give a link to this. It appeared on the Google Newsfeed about a week ago, and I cannot find the story. Google news indicated it was a New York Times article and Washington Post also had a related article.
Should both of them go down, that would make the Speaker of the House the next in line for the Presidency. One very good reason the Democrats are going all out to regain the House.
In the general election this November, in which Democrats and Republicans run against each other, there's just one ballot.
My reaction was, "Did he buy her from her father -- or maybe ISIS?"
Rich people often consider themselves above the rest of us. They don't think the rules apply to them, even the rules of prejudice.
I suspect that NYT article story has a bit in it. I thank Amanda in particular for her Paul/Saul comment, jerking me out of my complacent demonisation. It's amazing how reasonable I'm being given how tired I am...
Besides, the author casts themselves as a hero. They shrug off accusations of embodying the "deep state" but I'm concerned about the long-term damage this too will do to the relationship between the office of the presidency (even with other incumbents) and its administration, if high-ranking but unelected officials feel they are entitled to refuse to enact policy decisions.
They say they are in favour of many of Trump's policies, just not how he implements them.
More than anything else, this looks like the beginnings of a public rift between establishment Republicans and Trump.
For the record, I wasn't suggesting it was actually Pence. Just that there's no reason that it couldn't be, and whoever it is is probably not far removed ideologically.
And you can count me as someone who is de facto cheering for Trump, because in all honesty I believe a career Republican would be worse.
The world has gone mad.
One can disagree with this or that policy, but any policy is better than impulsiveness and unpredictability, especially internationally.
“If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once.”
Or feels the need to posture as "the resistance" for public consumption, all the while signaling that he's more-or-less okay with the platform Trump was elected on.
More later.
Trump shot himself in the foot with his demand that the NYT reveal their source. If he'd stuck with gutless, that might have worked for a while I suppose. At least with his base.
We'll see if the source outs himself or herself, or whether they get found, or whether there are mass resignations. For the time being, I'd go with unprecedented as a description of that op-ed. An unprecedented event in unprecedented circumstances.
Treason or patriotism? Or a GOP establishment plot? Whatever. It's confirmation of the impression that Trump has created of his own accord, that he is unfit for the office. And that the White House has become a surreal and dangerous working environment.
But we've not been in Kansas anymore for some time now. The Trump White House has been leaking badly since day one, and the allegations come as no surprise in the wake of, say, Fire and Fury.
I think this article is a symptom more than it's going to be the cause of anything. And I agree with @Stetson's hunch.
Spending for the mid-terms is up and up... Wow.
https://www.borrellassociates.com/industry-papers/papers/april-update-new-forecast-for-2018-political-advertising-report-detail
I'm not sure that's the case. A senior administration official calling out the president he or she works for would seem to have at least one recent precedent. Doing so anonymously is a new twist, but that smacks more of cowardice and ass-covering than principle.
Well, what are some TANGIBLE examples of the harm he might do to posterity?
Can anyone fill in the blank...?
"Because of Donald Trump, future American leaders will be unable to_____."
"Because of Donald Trump, future American leaders will be unable to_____."
bring back to life those who have died due to lack of health care.
" . . . earn the trust of American allies." The mere fact that the American electoral system can disgorge someone like Trump who seems to show no compunction about reneging on seven decades of American security commitments is going to be a factor going forward for a long time.
" . . . reverse the effects of climate change." We seem to be at (or possibly past) a tipping point here. The Paris Accords were probably the last chance to deal with this in a non-catastrophic context.
Any other Republican president would have done the same thing.
A career Republican (or really, a career anything) would at least get us back over the line(s), to a point where we could begin to pick up the pieces.
Which security commitments has Trump reneged on?
As for climate-change, again, that's a REPUBLICAN fuck-up. Trump just happened to be the Republican who got to do the honours.
Or those who have died from unchecked pollution, or lack of safety regulations, or coal mining, or violence... or perhaps nuclear war.
Again...Republicans. With that party controlling the executive and both houses, I'm pretty sure the environment and workplace-safety are gonna be DOA no matter which Republican is sitting in the Oval Office.
Still not sure why you think this means Donald Trump gets a pass for doing these things.
But yes. Republicans. Republicans. Again I say, Republicans.
John Dean gave evidence of criminal behaviour before the Senate Watergate Committee. The op-ed gives evidence of unfittededness for office and covert administrative response to that unfittedness.
This may yet turn into "Watergate on steroids" on the issue of presidential criminality, but that's not what the op-ed was about.
I'm not saying he gets a pass in the sense of not being held morally accountable. My original statement was...
"Cheering" might have been a provocative choice of words; to be sure, if I were on the committee that makes impeachment decisions, and I thought there was solid evidence of illegal collusion with Russia, I'd vote to impeach.
But thinking about what would overall be best for the welfare of Americans, I still lean toward thinking that any other Republican would be worse, or at least, not at all better, than Trump.
I also think that Trump is better for the Democrats' re-election chances, since, for reasons that I don't view as entirely rational(see my above paragraph), their supporters seem to regard Trump as ne plus ultra evil. I'm worried that if Trump gets kicked out and Pence takes over, you'll have a lot of Democrats thinking "The Long National Nightmare Millennial Version" is over, which could lead to a decreased sense of urgency come election day. (And here I'm more worried about Democrats staying home rather than actually voting Republican).
It's my opinion that overcoming partisanship is a vital step in restoring US politics.
The op-ed is not going down very well here in France: it's being seen as an administrative coup d'état, all the more so in that it's been publicised. That in itself could be as damaging to democracy as Trump.
I'm not sure what you mean by "overcoming partisanship", in regards to the issue of whether or not the problem is Trump or the Republicans generally.
If you think that it's excessively partisan to lay the blame for the bad stuff happening on Republicans, well, I think that's just where the preponderance of the evidence lies. In fact, I think the Republicans themselves are probably quite HAPPY to be blamed for all those things, since that's pretty much what they campaigned on.
I agree with your French commentators that the NYT op-ed seems like a rather dodgy affair, though I don't think I would call it a coup d'etat, which is a phrase I think should be restricted to political intrigue involving violence and/or illegal activities. (And yes, I recognize you qualified that with "adminstrative"). I'm also not convinced that it's gonna do long-term damage to democracy, though it might undermine the adminsitration's credibility among people who still regard it as having any.
There's a difference between someone who enacts policies one disagrees with profoundly but who does so by the book, and throwing the book out of the window. Trump has done the latter and - as this op-ed shows - is encouraging others to do the same. Recognising that threat ought to take the debate above partisan considerations.
I find it difficult to interact with those who say the problem is the Republicans generally because it suggests (to my mind at least) that the only alternative is to institute a Democrat one-party state instead.
Well, let's put it this way. If I were voting in US elections, I think I would vote "other than Republican" all the way down the ticket. And I'd prefer it if all other Americans did the same.
Does that mean I favour instituting a one-party state? No, just that I kinda wish that Republicans wouldn't win elections anymore. And I'd be happy if a few other left-leaning parties besides the Democrats took a few seats as well.