Blogger Dan Nexon points out that the current Republican Party is dedicated to rolling back many of the patches that were installed during past crises.
(snip)
The whole thing is worth a read if you like that sort of thing, and not that long.
Thanks. Well worth the read. Very informative. And more than a little scary.
William Saletan argues that the NYT op-ed was most likely written by Jon Huntsman, ambasador to Russia.
If true, that sort of takes a bit of the shine off of the whole "White House insider" mystique. Ambassador to Russia is a better job than I'll ever have, but it's still not quite what I have in mind when I think of a top-level White House staffter.
Saletan's "evidence" doesn't impress me, though he gets props for attempting the analysis. The phrase "this great nation" is hardly unique to Huntsman; in fact, it's a tired, ancient cliche found in the mouths of politicians everywhere about their own countries, including the USA. "Work diligently," while perhaps less threadbare, is also not particularly unusual.
In addition, Saletan ignores details of actions that Huntsman, who presumably spends more time in Moscow than in Washington, was unlikely either to observe or to hear about, i.e. the swiping of documents from the Menace's desk -- and those documents seem to have been about the North & South Korean situations, not Russia. I have no replacement candidates to offer, but I don't buy this one, either.
Saletan didn't have to address the unlikelihood that Huntsman would have witnessed any document swiping because that anecdote comes from Woodward's book, not the NYT Op-Ed.
William Saletan argues that the NYT op-ed was most likely written by Jon Huntsman, ambasador to Russia.
I'm with Ohher on this. The evidence offered is thin and not attributable only to Huntsman. This seems to be yet another example of the media's fixation with Huntsman. Those who were paying attention to such things might remember a whole bunch of effusive articles in 2012 about how Huntsman was the Great Whitebread Hope that was going to save the Republican party from the crazies. It soon became apparent that Huntsman's only constituency of significant support was Beltway journalists (like William Saletan). I guess the craving for a Republican Daddy to come and fix everything is something some journalists never outgrow.
For another analysis there's this. A professor of journalism and informatics at the University of Missouri analyzed the Twitter feeds of various government agencies and officials looking for correlations. There are the obvious caveats that Twitter is not an ideal medium for textual analysis (though it is ideal from the perspective of availability and searchability), but the analysis concludes that the author is probably someone at the office of the Vice President, the State Department, or the Department of Commerce.
I don't think it matters who the author is. What matters is whether the op ed gives an accurate picture of Trump and his advisers at work.
Count me among the believers. The energy being expended to find the mole, coupled with the specious national security claim confirms me in that belief. Trump wants Sessions to sic the FBI onto the mole for laughable national security reasons, and also wants to stop the special investigations of alleged collision and obstruction relating to a genuine national security issue.
We can take it that there is a close relationship in Trump's mind between his own personal insecurity and the meaning of national security. A classic example of his ridiculous management style and his ignorance of basis constitutional principles.
There are the obvious caveats that Twitter is not an ideal medium for textual analysis (though it is ideal from the perspective of availability and searchability), but the analysis concludes that the author is probably someone at the office of the Vice President, the State Department, or the Department of Commerce.
That may be the conclusion of "Major Major Major Major" in the Balloon Juice post you link to, but it doesn't seem to be that of the professor himself. Prof. Kearney wrote his own article saying
This exercise is useful for illustrating how it’s possible to use data science to estimate the similarity between multiple texts, but it does not provide any conclusive evidence to answer the question of who authored The New York Times op-ed.
Anyway the Balloon Juice "conclusion" makes no sense. The analysis only considered tweets from 40-odd accounts associated with cabinet members, so the analysis is really trying to match the op-ed with text from the individuals who happen to run those Twitter accounts. It can't say anything about an entire office, let alone a Department; and how likely is it really that the op-ed author just happens to run one of those accounts?
Besides, no evidence is offered at all to support the idea that this "textual analysis" has any validity as a means of detecting likely authorship of a text. There's practically no explanation of what this correlation is supposed to represent, how much it might rely on the just the frequency of words (e.g. "Trump", "Korea", "Russia"), or what typical values are when comparing texts by the same or different authors. Note that according to the professor, the second highest correlation he found was with Trump's Twitter account, and that the correlation with the Dept. of Transportation Twitter account was negative(!) - from which we should perhaps conclude (if we were so gullible) that, if not Pence, then Donald Trump is the most likely author, and that the DOT may be tweeting in a non-Indo-European language.
If it's true that Trump's handlers in the WH are working behind the scenes behind his back, it means the country is being run by people who were not elected to the post. That bothers me a great deal.
If it's true that Trump's handlers in the WH are working behind the scenes behind his back, it means the country is being run by people who were not elected to the post. That bothers me a great deal.
As I said earlier, this is an unusual instance in which Trump's "Deep State" arguments can actually look sound. Maybe it is Trump. Or Steve Bannon.
I'm not convinced the author's identity matters. Mousethief is right: we apparently now have a bunch of panicked, ill-informed, competing, and un-elected people running the US presidency. In some cases, these folks, in addition to their panic, racism, nasty competitiveness, and self-aggrandizement, also have no experience in government coupled with no knowledge of how government works or apparently any desire to learn. Gee, Ms.-or-Mr.-Adult-in-the-Room, that's SO reassuring.
What Security Agreement has Trump reneged on? The Iranian Security Agreement. Trump is the only one that withdrew. All other signatories are upholding it. Even Iran has not violated it.
Two points...
1. By "security agreement", I assumed what was meant was "military alliance".
2.
Republicans.
I do agree, tearing up that agreement was a really bad thing to do.
As for NATO, well publically spouting off against an alliance isn't the most politic thing to do, but, given the apparent affection for said alliance, I don't think the US will have trouble convincing people to stay in it after Trump is gone. (That being the original point of discussion here, ie. how it Trump harming future adminiostrations.)
I am not buying your explanation. By definition the word security means:
the state of being free from danger or threat.
The Iranian agreement is intended to provide a state of being free from danger or threat. Granted, the Israelis disagree, but the Europeans are satisfied with what it is promising.
I am not letting you weasel out on this.
Turning to other matters:
I am very pleased Obama has come out swinging. It is good to see him back on the scene. I think the Dems are going to use him to turn out the young adult vote. That is the way he won his first presidential election. He made some very strong points about how the Republican party has lost its way. I note he was critical of the anonymous op-ed because it means someone who is unelected is deciding what to do with tRump.
Regards, tRump firing the Vice President: since the VP is also elected by the electoral college, he cannot be removed mid-term unless he is impeached or forced to resign. Spiro Agnew comes to mind. At the time of the re-election of the president, the president can name another vice presidential candidate.
Now to the 25th Amendment allowing the VP and the majority of the cabinet can relieve the president of his duties, the president can challenge the removal and then it has to go to the Congress to affirm the removal by 2/3rds majority of both houses within 60 days of the removal. If they do not affirm the removal, the president will automatically return to office.
If it's true that Trump's handlers in the WH are working behind the scenes behind his back, it means the country is being run by people who were not elected to the post. That bothers me a great deal.
Senior administration has always had this ambiguity. You try to protect the authority of the office despite the limitations of the office holder. What's different about Trump is this combination of overwhelming incompetence and arrogant self-belief. He presents the gatekeepers with a unique and probably very stressful set of challenges. It doesn't help that some of his gatekeepers also seem to have a pretty limited understanding of what the job entails.
What Security Agreement has Trump reneged on? The Iranian Security Agreement. Trump is the only one that withdrew. All other signatories are upholding it. Even Iran has not violated it.
Two points...
1. By "security agreement", I assumed what was meant was "military alliance".
2.
Republicans.
I do agree, tearing up that agreement was a really bad thing to do.
As for NATO, well publically spouting off against an alliance isn't the most politic thing to do, but, given the apparent affection for said alliance, I don't think the US will have trouble convincing people to stay in it after Trump is gone. (That being the original point of discussion here, ie. how it Trump harming future adminiostrations.)
I am not buying your explanation. By definition the word security means:
the state of being free from danger or threat.
The Iranian agreement is intended to provide a state of being free from danger or threat. Granted, the Israelis disagree, but the Europeans are satisfied with what it is promising.
I am not letting you weasel out on this.
Well, I'm being quite sincere when I said that I thought "security agreement" was refering to a military alliance, like NATO. But I'll admit I wasn't thinking of the Iranian agreement, under any nomenclature, when I wrote the request for someone to name a "security agreement" that Trump had pulled out of.
So, taking the broader definition of "security agreement"(which from what I can glean, does not actually exist as a term in international law), sure, that's one he's pulled out of. I'm still of the opinion that any other GOPer would have done the same thing, though I'd be interested if anyone can recollect their positions on that subject during the primaries.
If it's true that Trump's handlers in the WH are working behind the scenes behind his back, it means the country is being run by people who were not elected to the post. That bothers me a great deal.
Like when Nancy Reagan's astrologer was calling the shots?
Frankly, I'd rather have anyone -- even Mike Pence's pet rabbit -- running the show rather than the Commander of Cheese.
Yes but that's beside the point. If we are to be a nation of laws, a nation governed under a Constitution, then people ruling the country who are not appointed under that Constitution to do so means our nation no longer exists in accordance with that Constitution. Whether it's Nancy Reagan's astrologer, or Woodrow Wilson's wife, or Trump's handlers. And that is very worrying.
Yes but that's beside the point. If we are to be a nation of laws, a nation governed under a Constitution, then people ruling the country who are not appointed under that Constitution to do so means our nation no longer exists in accordance with that Constitution. Whether it's Nancy Reagan's astrologer, or Woodrow Wilson's wife, or Trump's handlers. And that is very worrying.
But the Constitution, as far as I know, is silent about whether and to what extent the president can rely on advisers, formal or informal, in his decision-making. I'll admit there is, in practice, a pretty big difference between Barack Obama, for example, asking Michelle over the pillow what she thinks Health And Human Services can do about teen obesity, and Ronald Reagan asking an astrologer what the State Department should do about the Soviets in Afghanistan, but I don't think it's one that lends itself to a clear delineation between "constitutional" and "unconstitutional".
That said, if Trump's handlers have actually been hiding documents from him, that's a few steps beyond friendly advice(though I'm still not sure if it's a constituional problem). As for Wilson, from what I've heard, the worst thing about his situation post-stroke was not that he was taking advice from his wife, but that he was too physically and mentally incapacitated to engage in any real decision making. Which I think actually IS a constitutional problem, though tellingly enough, no one at the time seemed to think that aspect of the issue was worth raising.
I think the issue of 'implied delegated authority' becomes serious if POTUS, as Commander in Chief, gives a direct order, say, to launch a nuclear attack on North Korea. Short of that, an administrative decision to sit on a Presidential order given in anger, and wait for him to calm down, would not be insubordinate, just prudent. With any normal President anyway.
How senior administrators cope with challenges like this is a matter of good judgment. Trump says so many contradictory things that I would imagine there is plenty of scope for checking back, if you have the guts and wisdom to play such cards
A similar argument applies to decisions to, say, present paperwork to the Chief of Staff, even if the President asks for it directly. If Kelly has said 'everything comes through me' then he's the gatekeeper over what the President gets to see and when he gets to see it. That's his job. And he's welcome to it, with the current incumbent.
Having worked in the UK system, and having laughed often enough about the hilarious accuracy of the relationship between top politicians and civil servants portrayed in Yes Prime Minister, I kind of thought that the portrait of the Trump White House was only shocking in its revelation of the degree of dysfunction. Admin checks and balances to protect the office and the office holder are a normal part of any system.
What is unique in the media revelations is the confirmation of the contemptible character and hopeless incompetence of the present incumbent, and the lack of respect of many who are close to him. I'm a good deal less shocked by the revelation that administrators are doing their best to moderate at least some of his amoral, unprincipled and reckless behaviour.
If it's true that Trump's handlers in the WH are working behind the scenes behind his back, it means the country is being run by people who were not elected to the post. That bothers me a great deal.
me too. Since when has bombing the shit out of the Presidential Palace and the last known location of a murderous dictator who uses poisonous gasses on his own people to stay in power been outside the realm of possible foreign policy action? I"M LOOKING AT YOU JIM MATTIS.
First, I'd like to see some of the solutions to Henry's administrative problems implemented in this administration. There's also a great bit in the mini-series when Henry chastises Cromwell when Henry's policy decision that Crommers opposed goes pear-shaped. "You didn't try hard enough to convince me you were right." Very Trumpian.
I have heard, just as an aside, that in the US system, it is Congress that is supposed to check the President, not Cabinet. Nevertheless, I must object to the notion that leaders ought not consult astrologers when making decisions. The Romans consulted the entrails at the drop of a hat, and look how well they managed an empire. Astrology is a well-credentialed tool of statecraft.
That said, if Trump's handlers have actually been hiding documents from him, that's a few steps beyond friendly advice(though I'm still not sure if it's a constituional problem). As for Wilson, from what I've heard, the worst thing about his situation post-stroke was not that he was taking advice from his wife, but that he was too physically and mentally incapacitated to engage in any real decision making. Which I think actually IS a constitutional problem, though tellingly enough, no one at the time seemed to think that aspect of the issue was worth raising.
Yes. That was what I was referring to, not friendly advice. Which I made pretty clear in what I wrote, with the phrase "behind his back."
That said, if Trump's handlers have actually been hiding documents from him, that's a few steps beyond friendly advice(though I'm still not sure if it's a constituional problem). As for Wilson, from what I've heard, the worst thing about his situation post-stroke was not that he was taking advice from his wife, but that he was too physically and mentally incapacitated to engage in any real decision making. Which I think actually IS a constitutional problem, though tellingly enough, no one at the time seemed to think that aspect of the issue was worth raising.
Yes. That was what I was referring to, not friendly advice. Which I made pretty clear in what I wrote, with the phrase "behind his back."
I did indeed miss that phrase in my first reading. Apologies.
Still gonna stand on it probably not being a constitutional problem per se, though I guess you could say it violates the spirit of the document.
What is unique in the media revelations is the confirmation of the contemptible character and hopeless incompetence of the present incumbent, and the lack of respect of many who are close to him. I'm a good deal less shocked by the revelation that administrators are doing their best to moderate at least some of his amoral, unprincipled and reckless behaviour.
I think you misunderstand me. It's not the contents of the revelations so much as the fact that they are deliberate. Whoever it is has chosen to publicise their actions, anonymously, and presumably try and use that publicity to manipulate events. The way the media is bound up in the unfolding of this presidency is what I find unprecedented.
And Mr Trump hasn't used/abused the media at all? I wondered if Watergate being exposed by the media is a parallel situation but on second thoughts that was journalists doing their job rather than someone using the media to do their dirty work.
Of course he has. That's why I said this event is quintessentially Trumpian.
I wondered if Watergate being exposed by the media is a parallel situation but on second thoughts that was journalists doing their job rather than someone using the media to do their dirty work.
That is indeed what I've been trying to say, somewhat unsuccessfully it seems, for several posts now.
I did get that. I'm just not sure just who in the White House is in on the act. I wouldn't be surprised if this deliberate action has tacit but deniable approval from a very high level in the White House.
The contents of the op-ed reveal all too clearly, as does Woodward's book, the unprecedented difficulties faced by the adults in the room. I'm not this is a sign of administrative coup. Maybe they just want to put a spoke in his wheel? Show some muscle?
But this again is quintessentially Trumpian. It's like Melania's coat.
The focus shifts from the actual issues to endless speculation about something that appeared in the media - did she choose it? did Trump? was it a statement? what about? (and that's just the PBS article!).
The thing that gets the most media coverage is... media coverage. The media can't seem to help falling into the trap of becoming its own story material. I so detest this*. It's far too easy to manipulate - and as @The Rogue says, it's a million miles from the kind of journalism that broke Watergate.
==
*Not Trumpian, but looking at the BBC's summary of the daily UK papers paints a similarly depressing picture. A vast majority of them lead on stories about stars of reality TV programmes (Love Island, Strictly Come Dancing, and the Great British Bakeoff being the favourites), and not just in the tabloids. This is not "news".
But let's face it. Palace intrigue is ..... intriguing!
PS. The op-ed is probably more circus than bread. Woodward's book? I'll let you know after I've read it. Based on his track record, my guess is there is a lot of bread there.
It's the fact that the media have largely become part of the circus instead of confining themselves to reporting on it. Who is spinning who? I increasingly think the NYT has been manipulated, and that Trump is actually on point for once when he says that publishing the piece is bad for its reputation.
It's the fact that the media have largely become part of the circus instead of confining themselves to reporting on it. Who is spinning who? I increasingly think the NYT has been manipulated, and that Trump is actually on point for once when he says that publishing the piece is bad for its reputation.
Well, it's kind of a conundrum, because you COULD argue that the fact someone working in the White House was willing to write the piece and send it to the NYT in the first place is, in and of itself, newsworthy, because it shows us how much dysfunction there is in the administration. Even if we think the actual content of the piece is self-serving, underwhelming, misses the point, etc.
Well, it's kind of a conundrum, because you COULD argue that the fact someone working in the White House was willing to write the piece and send it to the NYT in the first place is, in and of itself, newsworthy, because it shows us how much dysfunction there is in the administration.
That's true. It's hard to imagine the NYT binning the piece, either... and yet. What would have happened if the NYT had treated the author as a confidential, off-the-record source à la Deep Throat, kept a lid on the piece, and instead pressed for more, and more substantive info? Wouldn't that have made for a better journalistic investigation (and test of the source's motivations)?
Well, it's kind of a conundrum, because you COULD argue that the fact someone working in the White House was willing to write the piece and send it to the NYT in the first place is, in and of itself, newsworthy, because it shows us how much dysfunction there is in the administration.
That's true. It's hard to imagine the NYT binning the piece, either... and yet. What would have happened if the NYT had treated the author as a confidential, off-the-record source à la Deep Throat, kept a lid on the piece, and instead pressed for more, and more substantive info? Wouldn't that have made for a better journalistic investigation (and test of the source's motivations)?
Yeah, that would have been the ideal situation. But, what if the guy says NO, he's only going to give them the op-ed and that's it(which seems to me like a plausible result, given how self-serving the piece seems to be)? If he's not gonna give them anything else, what do they do with the piece then?
And, just a guess, but I'd say it's likely that they the NYT would have at least asked the guy if he wanted to reveal some more stuff. Hard to imagine them not doing that.
And, just a guess, but I'd say it's likely that they the NYT would have at least asked the guy if he wanted to reveal some more stuff. Hard to imagine them not doing that.
If he/she had said no, and I temporarily promote myself to the position of editor-in-chief of the NYT, I'd like to think I'd find strong arguments not to publish it. The press is supposed to be free, not twisted around every kiss-and-teller's little finger.
Not sure about that. The op-ed and the Woodward book are mutually self supporting. And yes, you can argue that the same faction responsible for the op-ed may have been manipulating Woodward, feeding him juicy half-truths. But Woodward is a verifier.
I'm sure the NYT saw the manipulation risks but we don't know how long they had had the op-ed. If it's a gamble with their reputation, Woodward reduced their risk.
What intrigues me most here is what did/does the author hope to achieve?
I understand the NYT decision to publish - having assured themselves of the veracity of the source- it clearly is news that the WH is so dysfunctional in this way.
But what is the source trying to achieve? The piece is undoubtedly self-serving and in my view, somewhat ridiculous but I cannot identify a constituency that it might appeal to and have some sort of positive outcome for the source... is there one?
Trump's base will cry treason. And obviously, already have.
Most Dem voters won't be impressed by the self-serving nature and the response of 'you really aren't an adult in the room seems common.
Are the Republicans who support Trump purely because he is not a Democrat but are worried about him? Will this group be reassured to vote GOP? Is that the aim?
If So, then it's probably not someone acting alone. As I said above there is info in the article that will identify the writer to at least one person. That's a really big risk to take. Unless that person is in on it.
I'm not convinced that makes sense but it's the best I've got so far.
What puzzles me is what is expected to be gained by publishing that people are removing documents so Trump cannot sign them. Surely the response from Trump would be to ensure that this doesn't happen any more? Thus the disclosure would strengthen his administration, not weaken it.
What intrigues me most here is what did/does the author hope to achieve?
Presumably to later reveal themselves and pose as the grown up in an otherwise dysfunctional administration (which mostly did what any other republican administration at this point in time would have done).
It's what Eutychus said above - Trumpian all the way down.
@Barnabas62 wow, is that on the right website? @Penny S indeed. Which is one of the reasons it's really odd. @chrisstiles Does that make any sense? I.e. what would the response to such a putative 'self-outing' be? Of course what the author expects is more important in this context than what is actually likely...
Comments
Thanks. Well worth the read. Very informative. And more than a little scary.
If true, that sort of takes a bit of the shine off of the whole "White House insider" mystique. Ambassador to Russia is a better job than I'll ever have, but it's still not quite what I have in mind when I think of a top-level White House staffter.
In addition, Saletan ignores details of actions that Huntsman, who presumably spends more time in Moscow than in Washington, was unlikely either to observe or to hear about, i.e. the swiping of documents from the Menace's desk -- and those documents seem to have been about the North & South Korean situations, not Russia. I have no replacement candidates to offer, but I don't buy this one, either.
I'm with Ohher on this. The evidence offered is thin and not attributable only to Huntsman. This seems to be yet another example of the media's fixation with Huntsman. Those who were paying attention to such things might remember a whole bunch of effusive articles in 2012 about how Huntsman was the Great Whitebread Hope that was going to save the Republican party from the crazies. It soon became apparent that Huntsman's only constituency of significant support was Beltway journalists (like William Saletan). I guess the craving for a Republican Daddy to come and fix everything is something some journalists never outgrow.
For another analysis there's this. A professor of journalism and informatics at the University of Missouri analyzed the Twitter feeds of various government agencies and officials looking for correlations. There are the obvious caveats that Twitter is not an ideal medium for textual analysis (though it is ideal from the perspective of availability and searchability), but the analysis concludes that the author is probably someone at the office of the Vice President, the State Department, or the Department of Commerce.
Count me among the believers. The energy being expended to find the mole, coupled with the specious national security claim confirms me in that belief. Trump wants Sessions to sic the FBI onto the mole for laughable national security reasons, and also wants to stop the special investigations of alleged collision and obstruction relating to a genuine national security issue.
We can take it that there is a close relationship in Trump's mind between his own personal insecurity and the meaning of national security. A classic example of his ridiculous management style and his ignorance of basis constitutional principles.
Anyway the Balloon Juice "conclusion" makes no sense. The analysis only considered tweets from 40-odd accounts associated with cabinet members, so the analysis is really trying to match the op-ed with text from the individuals who happen to run those Twitter accounts. It can't say anything about an entire office, let alone a Department; and how likely is it really that the op-ed author just happens to run one of those accounts?
Besides, no evidence is offered at all to support the idea that this "textual analysis" has any validity as a means of detecting likely authorship of a text. There's practically no explanation of what this correlation is supposed to represent, how much it might rely on the just the frequency of words (e.g. "Trump", "Korea", "Russia"), or what typical values are when comparing texts by the same or different authors. Note that according to the professor, the second highest correlation he found was with Trump's Twitter account, and that the correlation with the Dept. of Transportation Twitter account was negative(!) - from which we should perhaps conclude (if we were so gullible) that, if not Pence, then Donald Trump is the most likely author, and that the DOT may be tweeting in a non-Indo-European language.
link to tweet.
I am not buying your explanation. By definition the word security means:
the state of being free from danger or threat.
The Iranian agreement is intended to provide a state of being free from danger or threat. Granted, the Israelis disagree, but the Europeans are satisfied with what it is promising.
I am not letting you weasel out on this.
Turning to other matters:
I am very pleased Obama has come out swinging. It is good to see him back on the scene. I think the Dems are going to use him to turn out the young adult vote. That is the way he won his first presidential election. He made some very strong points about how the Republican party has lost its way. I note he was critical of the anonymous op-ed because it means someone who is unelected is deciding what to do with tRump.
Regards, tRump firing the Vice President: since the VP is also elected by the electoral college, he cannot be removed mid-term unless he is impeached or forced to resign. Spiro Agnew comes to mind. At the time of the re-election of the president, the president can name another vice presidential candidate.
Now to the 25th Amendment allowing the VP and the majority of the cabinet can relieve the president of his duties, the president can challenge the removal and then it has to go to the Congress to affirm the removal by 2/3rds majority of both houses within 60 days of the removal. If they do not affirm the removal, the president will automatically return to office.
Well, I'm being quite sincere when I said that I thought "security agreement" was refering to a military alliance, like NATO. But I'll admit I wasn't thinking of the Iranian agreement, under any nomenclature, when I wrote the request for someone to name a "security agreement" that Trump had pulled out of.
So, taking the broader definition of "security agreement"(which from what I can glean, does not actually exist as a term in international law), sure, that's one he's pulled out of. I'm still of the opinion that any other GOPer would have done the same thing, though I'd be interested if anyone can recollect their positions on that subject during the primaries.
Like when Nancy Reagan's astrologer was calling the shots?
Frankly, I'd rather have anyone -- even Mike Pence's pet rabbit -- running the show rather than the Commander of Cheese.
But the Constitution, as far as I know, is silent about whether and to what extent the president can rely on advisers, formal or informal, in his decision-making. I'll admit there is, in practice, a pretty big difference between Barack Obama, for example, asking Michelle over the pillow what she thinks Health And Human Services can do about teen obesity, and Ronald Reagan asking an astrologer what the State Department should do about the Soviets in Afghanistan, but I don't think it's one that lends itself to a clear delineation between "constitutional" and "unconstitutional".
That said, if Trump's handlers have actually been hiding documents from him, that's a few steps beyond friendly advice(though I'm still not sure if it's a constituional problem). As for Wilson, from what I've heard, the worst thing about his situation post-stroke was not that he was taking advice from his wife, but that he was too physically and mentally incapacitated to engage in any real decision making. Which I think actually IS a constitutional problem, though tellingly enough, no one at the time seemed to think that aspect of the issue was worth raising.
How senior administrators cope with challenges like this is a matter of good judgment. Trump says so many contradictory things that I would imagine there is plenty of scope for checking back, if you have the guts and wisdom to play such cards
What is unique in the media revelations is the confirmation of the contemptible character and hopeless incompetence of the present incumbent, and the lack of respect of many who are close to him. I'm a good deal less shocked by the revelation that administrators are doing their best to moderate at least some of his amoral, unprincipled and reckless behaviour.
It reminds me a bit of 'Wolf Hall'.
me too. Since when has bombing the shit out of the Presidential Palace and the last known location of a murderous dictator who uses poisonous gasses on his own people to stay in power been outside the realm of possible foreign policy action? I"M LOOKING AT YOU JIM MATTIS.
I have heard, just as an aside, that in the US system, it is Congress that is supposed to check the President, not Cabinet. Nevertheless, I must object to the notion that leaders ought not consult astrologers when making decisions. The Romans consulted the entrails at the drop of a hat, and look how well they managed an empire. Astrology is a well-credentialed tool of statecraft.
I did indeed miss that phrase in my first reading. Apologies.
Still gonna stand on it probably not being a constitutional problem per se, though I guess you could say it violates the spirit of the document.
I think you misunderstand me. It's not the contents of the revelations so much as the fact that they are deliberate. Whoever it is has chosen to publicise their actions, anonymously, and presumably try and use that publicity to manipulate events. The way the media is bound up in the unfolding of this presidency is what I find unprecedented.
The contents of the op-ed reveal all too clearly, as does Woodward's book, the unprecedented difficulties faced by the adults in the room. I'm not this is a sign of administrative coup. Maybe they just want to put a spoke in his wheel? Show some muscle?
There are many possibilities hereabouts.
The focus shifts from the actual issues to endless speculation about something that appeared in the media - did she choose it? did Trump? was it a statement? what about? (and that's just the PBS article!).
The thing that gets the most media coverage is... media coverage. The media can't seem to help falling into the trap of becoming its own story material. I so detest this*. It's far too easy to manipulate - and as @The Rogue says, it's a million miles from the kind of journalism that broke Watergate.
==
*Not Trumpian, but looking at the BBC's summary of the daily UK papers paints a similarly depressing picture. A vast majority of them lead on stories about stars of reality TV programmes (Love Island, Strictly Come Dancing, and the Great British Bakeoff being the favourites), and not just in the tabloids. This is not "news".
PS. The op-ed is probably more circus than bread. Woodward's book? I'll let you know after I've read it. Based on his track record, my guess is there is a lot of bread there.
Well, it's kind of a conundrum, because you COULD argue that the fact someone working in the White House was willing to write the piece and send it to the NYT in the first place is, in and of itself, newsworthy, because it shows us how much dysfunction there is in the administration. Even if we think the actual content of the piece is self-serving, underwhelming, misses the point, etc.
Yeah, that would have been the ideal situation. But, what if the guy says NO, he's only going to give them the op-ed and that's it(which seems to me like a plausible result, given how self-serving the piece seems to be)? If he's not gonna give them anything else, what do they do with the piece then?
And, just a guess, but I'd say it's likely that they the NYT would have at least asked the guy if he wanted to reveal some more stuff. Hard to imagine them not doing that.
But the big wheel keeps on turning. No such thing as bad publicity? We'll see when the mid term results come in.
I'm sure the NYT saw the manipulation risks but we don't know how long they had had the op-ed. If it's a gamble with their reputation, Woodward reduced their risk.
I understand the NYT decision to publish - having assured themselves of the veracity of the source- it clearly is news that the WH is so dysfunctional in this way.
But what is the source trying to achieve? The piece is undoubtedly self-serving and in my view, somewhat ridiculous but I cannot identify a constituency that it might appeal to and have some sort of positive outcome for the source... is there one?
Trump's base will cry treason. And obviously, already have.
Most Dem voters won't be impressed by the self-serving nature and the response of 'you really aren't an adult in the room seems common.
Are the Republicans who support Trump purely because he is not a Democrat but are worried about him? Will this group be reassured to vote GOP? Is that the aim?
If So, then it's probably not someone acting alone. As I said above there is info in the article that will identify the writer to at least one person. That's a really big risk to take. Unless that person is in on it.
I'm not convinced that makes sense but it's the best I've got so far.
Thoughts, wise people?
AFZ
To add to your intrigue, guess what I found on the Fox News website?
Presumably to later reveal themselves and pose as the grown up in an otherwise dysfunctional administration (which mostly did what any other republican administration at this point in time would have done).
It's what Eutychus said above - Trumpian all the way down.
@Penny S indeed. Which is one of the reasons it's really odd.
@chrisstiles Does that make any sense? I.e. what would the response to such a putative 'self-outing' be? Of course what the author expects is more important in this context than what is actually likely...
AFZ