This.
And this. Frankly, I can hardly think of anything that could be more destabilizing and give one less confidence in the current so-called government. There’s apparently a (awkward, untested) process for removal of a sitting President for incompetence. Whoever this supposed group of resistants is, come clean, activate the process and knock it off with the Star Chamber bullshit.
Yes; they are saying stuff out of line with the rest of what we know from this administration: they are saying there are people with high moral principles in this administration.
And some of us just don’t believe it: while there are lots of administration people ignoring or doing things differently from what Trump wants they are doing it for their own selfish reasons. This might range from doing something to gain favor from future employers or improve their political status in the media…
I understand the misgivings, but this isn’t the Deep State that we’ve all been hearing about. These are Trump’s own people doing this to him. One qualification of a president is to appoint people to carry out his agenda. If We The People don’t like what those appointees do, our recourse is to throw out the bum who appointed them.
The thing is, if Trump was any kind of decent manager, they couldn’t be hiding things from him of any real import. Imagine during the Obama administration if nothing about the Affordable Care Act showed up in his inbox for a few weeks. I’m pretty sure he’d have noticed. If Trump had any kind of follow-through on his promises, hiding documents wouldn’t matter; if he wanted his administration to do things, or even remembered what those things were, he’d push to see that they got done.
As for this being some shadowy cabal, well, maybe they didn’t go by-the-book in invoking the 25th Amendment, but someone did announce it in the New York Times.
Benjamin Wittes said it best on Twitter:
“I have no respect for someone who would say these things—of whose truth I have no doubt—in an anonymous oped, rather than in a public resignation letter copied to the House Judiciary Committee.”
Absolutely. And when whoever it is finds his name released, and is, as a result, unemployed, he will try to tell us that he is the real victim here.
On average, despite statements otherwise, Trump didn’t hire only the best. While it may be true that the respectable and honorable strategy is elsewise, what we got is probably the closest to that, that a Trump appointee is likely to mount.
Though, based on Wittes’ further statements in the Rational Security podcast that was released today (recorded before the op-ed), I think his statement about how Jim Mattis should be responding to things is fairly on-point. If Mattis wrote the op-ed, then I would be quite disappointed. If it’s Sessions or someone, though, then like I said - it’s not the cream of the crop.
Don’t read the papers much, do you? Newspapers routinely print op-eds from contributors with views far off from from the editorial board’s.
Another vote for “What was the Times thinking?” If this is true, it is significant news; if it is false, or misleading, it should not have been printed.
Have they written an editorial on the decision to print yet?
Thanks. I think we could have expected a gradual and subtle lessening of public support for Trump by the congress, followed by impeachment hearings if the Democrats took the House. However, the op-ed will have thrown everything into a tizzy.
I am not a defender, but I will complain no one can commit treason at this point.
Being a traitor is possible; only treason is defined in the constituent, not it’s commonly associated noun, traitor.
Yes, very much so. He isn’t just crazy Uncle Don or royalty; he is an elected and sworn head of state and servant of the people who can be openly removed from office if necessary.
All of us have imagine his staff running around removing dangerous things like pens from his grasp while distracting him with bright shiny objects, but it is horribly irresponsible of his staff to do so instead of addressing the issue directly.
They did.
It was included in the article, as you’d know if you read it.
Quick mnemonic tip to differentiate them: Thompson never nuked anyone.
A woman with a Slovenian accent, maybe?
I gotta go with Kelly or Mattis, perhaps one of their deputies.
Betting markets (at least PredictIt) bettors think it’s Coats. On the day the op-ed came out, the betting line for “Will DNI Coats still be DNI at the end of 2018” went from ~90 to ~40.
Agree, pretty much. A lot of the White House guys are Politicians and understand that building consensus is the basic skill of their job. Just resigning and complaining won’t be as effective as reducing Trump’s base of support — and the editorial has a chance of lowering Trump’s support among Republican politicians.
Which could trickle down to some semi-rational conservative voters.
The editorial can be viewed, as you suggest, as a very visible trial balloon for removal of the Prez. But Trump’s popularity needs to fall a bit more in order to make that a viable alternative. If removal was attempted now, with Trump’s approval rating around 40%, there would be chaos and probably violence.
That describes some forms of royalty as well; right now I’m drawing blanks on several of the monarchs of Spanish kingdoms who were procedurally and pacifically removed from office but I know there were more than Sancho el Craso (removed because he was busier hunting down the kitchen than doing his job, lost half his body weight and was allowed to retake the throne).
The one thing that kind of surprises me is the coming out and saying it but not quite out loud, but then, that’s exactly the kind of behavior we see from the Trump administration (a lot of the time they opt for its sister, “loud and blatant but unclear to anybody who’s been living on the moon”). Speaking on the record and clearly seems something they all have problems doing.
Completely speculative guess, but I go with the guy that carries the nuclear football.
He’d see most of this stuff, and he would be the single most nervous person about having trump in his chain of command.
He has no power to do anything about trump, and resigning means handing the football to someone who maybe won’t dive out a window rather than hand it over if trump asks for it.
Here is the root of this op ed problem. The President seems to ask a lot of questions on policy because he is new to it as a non politician and outsider. While the establishment goes crazy over his questions and says they are unhinghed, I believe they are healthy to have these discussions to educate him and to make people think outside the box.
But this is the high school douchebaggery down in DC that people hate. The career folks are the worst. They are know it alls.
At least you admit the guy is both completely unprepared and uneducated for the position he holds, Chip. 
This presumes that Mike Dense could win an election for president on his own. And while the nation proved in 2016 that it would indeed elect an idiot, the Veep isn’t really the type of idiot who motivates the idiots who vote for idiots.
And Chip strikes another blow in the War on People Who Know Stuff!
I concur with this and all other like-minded perspectives . . .
. . . and yet, I also empathize with the politician who, finding themselves in the middle of the swamp, feels that they are left with two choices: speak up and quit or be fired, and be replaced by a dangerous, anti-Democracy Trump-selected know-nothing, or stay and try to preserve the Republic through this crisis.
What would I do? If I felt that I was an important part of keeping America from falling into chaos, but the only way to do so was by playing a basically supporting and supportive role in all sorts of distasteful and dangerous shit? And then what, ultimately, is the difference between myself and a true acolyte?
It’s a truly complicated moral calculus, and not one with a straightforward hero/villain dichotomy.
What is worse for America in the long run; two (or shudder six) more years of a Trump presidency, or an impeachment? Or a flight of those Republicans who feel like they’re keeping the wolves at bay (to be replaced with more enthusiastic wolves), with no impeachment?
Again, I agree that the author of this letter is no hero, and is in fact engaging in some heinous action that threatens our very idea of a Democracy. However, I can also understand the conclusion that this is the lesser evil.