A "Senior Trump Administration Official" penned a NYT Op-ed claiming there is a resistance within the admin. Not sure this is a good idea on any number of fronts.
What are we resisting? I did not like Obama, but I felt no need to resist. I do not like Trump, but I do not see a need to resist him either. Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump have been a lot of the same except for Trump runs his mouth off. Also, in my humble, not a Trump voter opinion, that article helps Trump and his “anti-deep state” positions (and the Alex Joneses of the world) more than it hurts.
Trumpsters will scream "deep state", of course. According to the quotes I have read from Woodward's book, it is less a resistance and more of working to protect national security interests from Trump doing exceedingly dumb things.
"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright." This guy is cuckoo for coco-puffs.
An anonymous senior official from within the Trump administration who submits an Op Ed to the NYT. Not very compelling.
That article definitely supports the "deep state" conspiracy theories. Though we like to think the parties are different, there is very little daylight between them on foreign policy. I may agree with the administration resistance but this clandestine resistance is not the proper method to demonstrate its resolve. The only thing I take from this op-ed is that Bob Woodward's book and anecdotes will be validated by father time.
I think there is a significant chance that the Administration is actually behind this op-ed. I'm not one of these people who thinks Trump is the genius (evil or good) playing 4-D chess with the rest of the country. However, he does know the media extremely well, which isn't that hard in the current era. They're about as predictable as the sun setting in the West and rising in the East. Think about what the op-ed signals. First, it gives tremendous credibility to the deep state theorists and motivates them. Alex Jones just got a bunch of listeners and made a bunch of money, which he needed after getting canned from the social media outlets. Trolling Marco Rubio on Capitol Hill (basically becoming the Stuttering John of Capitol Hill) is funny, but it doesn't pay the bills, including the divorce lawyer's and ex-wife's bills. Second, it signals a "we got this" message to some who have genuine fears of the Administration being unhinged. I'm not talking about partisan liberals who hate anybody with a R by his name. What they say about Trump, they previously said about virtually every Republican, including John McCain whom they idolized just a few days ago. I'm talking about normal people who hear the media characterization of Trump as unhinged every single day and worry about the country. Third, the op-ed puts out a positive message about what the Administration has been able to accomplish, whether it's because of or in spite of Trump himself - "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more." When was the last time the New York Times said anything that positive or used that friendly tone of rhetoric about the Trump Administration? Probably never. Obviously, there's bad stuff in the op-ed, but it's just regurgitation of what the Times has said about Trump ever since he became the Republican nominee. After all, if it didn't Trump-bash, it wouldn't be in the Times. What's unique is that it says something positive about the Administration's record. It's probably the fairest and most favorable coverage Trump has ever gotten from the New York Times. It's not as positive as the daily fluff pieces the Times normally runs about Democrats, but it's an improvement on what they usually say about Republicans, especially Trump.
Here's why I think this is dubious at best, and a fake at worst: - The media has already shown the willingness to play fast and loose with sources. We literally know nothing about this person, whether this is completely made-up, or whether the person is actually a non-paid intern pretending to be senior, or whether it's one of the thousands of "senior officials" who hold down a desk in Washington. We don't know. - The article claims to be by someone who likes a lot of what Trump is doing. And they claim to be part of the "resistance." That's not how any of that works - and anyone who's an actual conservative would get that the "resistance" isn't just about resisting Trump, it's about resisting all of the conservative agenda. So the idea that an actual conservative would align himself with people who hate him and the things he claims to want is ridiculous. He would more likely say "I'm not part of the resistance. I'm not a progressive. But that doesn't mean I want to give Trump free reign to do whatever he wants, and I'm willing to do what needs to be done to stop those impulses with which I disagree." - That last sentence just doesn't gibe with most conservative thoughts on government. Progressives view law as an expedient to be used as a weapon and thrown aside when it's not convenient. Conservatives just don't typically take that attitude. Maybe this person is different. Who knows. - Washington conservatives hate the New York Times. Maybe the deeply embedded people don't care that the Times rips them continually, maybe they're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and are just desperate for a kind word from them... but I just don't believe an actual conservative would go to the Times with this.
Just read Deez's take, and while I'm not sure I'm ready to give Trump THAT much credit, it's more plausible than one of his cabinet members leaking this to the NYT.
That initially crossed my mind. NYT would have to be brain dead not to vet that possibility before going to print.
If this "anonymous senior official" really and truly believes Trump is endangering the United States, isn't it his/her sworn duty to come forward and say so? Coming forward anonymously gives no credibility to their claims.
I have a hard time believing Trump would ever intentionally leak an essay that paints him as unstable and implies that he is soft on Russia. I would bet that this memo was fabricated by the NYT loosely based on one or several sources (possibly second hand sources). The memo is just odd and not internally consistent. It reads as a liberal pretending to be a conservative in order to give the essay some credibility.
I don't see how they could vet it with much certainty. I don't think Trump is pulling a "John Miller" and pretending to be the source himself. What I suspect is that Trump instructed a senior aide to contact the Times and submit the op-ed. There's no way for the Times to know whether that happened.
I know it sounds crazy, but keep in mind that Trump faked being his own publicist and has leaked stories about himself. Not all of those stories were positive at least in the normal sense of thinking. To put it mildly, he has very unorthodox methods for dealing with and sometimes manipulating media outlets.
LOL. The guy is a nutjob for sure. I don't remember the specifics of the leaked stories but did any of them paint him in an unflattering light.
I believe there’s a strong chance that the op-ed is legitimate. The timeliness of the article in conjunction with release of the Woodward book is awful coincidental don’t you think? Interestingly, someone picked up on the word ‘lodestar’ appearing at the end of the article which has been used frequently in the past by VP Pence (see video below). Pence is a champion of the Neocons and would fit in seemlessly with the Intel and State Department agencies. Just sayin...
Per Rudy today, POTUS refuses to provide even written responses to Mueller's questions of obstruction of justice. But Marco Rubio wants to connect WH staff to lie detectors to find the author of a letter that accuses POTUS of being an mentally unstable liar.
I am suspicious of this all the way around. But no doubt this is a serious concern to national security. They should take whatever means necessary to find out who it is. I even heard a NY Times employee state that if it was published by their Editorial Board, the name should be released. However, the Times specifically gave it to the Op Editorial Board so they would not have to release the name. Screw lie detectors, let’s waterboard the entire NY Times staff.
That isn't what he said, but ya know, in the words of Pontius Pilate, "what is truth?". Nevertheless, I'm under no illusions. Trump will talk to Mueller right after he releases his tax returns . It's probably not gonna happen. But if you're Trump, why should you answer any questions? Legally he can probably avoid it. In fact, legally he can fire Mueller and tell him to go to hell. Mueller's authority over Trump (if he has any) comes from political credibility and precedent, not the law. Well, the most recent precedent involving high level political figures under investigation was Hillary Clinton's email controversy. Did she answer questions under oath? No. She granted an interview that was not recorded and not under oath (meaning she could plausibly deny anything they could claim she said). And of course, she was a private citizen at the time and could have been subpoenaed for under oath testimony, unlike Trump, but that didn't happen. Furthermore, I don't remember any of the people who are upset about Trump's refusal to testify now caring about her not giving under oath testimony. So why should Trump hold himself to a dramatically higher standard than she did? Frankly, that's the biggest obstacle to Mueller. His power is political, but the outrage machine that is self-righteously cheering him on and trying to build his political momentum spent 8 years not giving a crap if public officials dodged questions and told investigators to screw off. So they don't have any credibility. I googled Marco Rubio and lie detector and didn't see anything about this.
Giuliani first told The Associated Press in an interview: “That's a no-go. That is not going to happen," and "there will be no questions at all on obstruction." But later, when asked by NBC News, Giuliani said those questions are "not ruled in or out." Giuliani tells AP Trump won't answer Mueller's obstruction questions, then backtracks But you are right, Deez, it was not Marco Rubio that said that. Forgive me. It was libertarian Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who said Thursday afternoon that he believes President Trump would be justified in using lie detector tests to figure out which senior administrative official wrote the anonymous New York Times op-ed. Rand Paul: Trump would be 'justified' in using 'lie-detector' tests to find anonymous author
I misread your original post. He did initially say no questions on obstruction. I think Paul is correct that Trump COULD use lie detector tests. The federal law against polygraphs on the job exempts federal government employees. He's a big critic of the "deep state," so I understand why he favors it. I think he's wrong that it would be justified. Just because it might be legal doesn't mean it would be right.
I roll my eyes at all this talk. Politics is a cut throat business. Less so in the US than other places in the world but it's still the same game. Politicians use every law they can to force the other to do what they want and they flout any law they can get away with to do the same. Maybe that wasn't always the case in the US, but that has been the reality for at least 30 years if not more. So let's quit making a big deal of it. They are all lying, cheating, and stealing and we as voters keep electing liars, cheaters, and thieves. People loved Clinton who was a serial rapist and liar. People loved Bush who started the program to record all our private conversations. People loved, more than loved, worshipped, Obama, who ordered drone murders, even of a US citizen, had a movie maker jailed to cover his administrations tracks, harassed non-profits who supported his political opponents, and even spied on journalists. But people still believe he was the "scandal free" President. The point being we now have Trump who says outrageous things, is openly immoral, creates barriers to free trade, and pursues policies that are at least nominally racist. The next 2 years are going to be ugly. Not because of Trump, but because the US political landscape is ugly. And guess what it will get worse.
OMG! I forgot about Putin! The worst of the worst in history! If only we had a President who didn't want to work so closely! Like Obama or Clinton! Oh wait, they were the "reset" duo who moved missile systems at Putin's request and opened up the US financial system to invest in Russia. Oh, and Tony Podesta, aka Paul Manafort's twin. Nevermind.
The reason why this is true is because federal elections have become too high-stakes. Leftists are crapping their pants because they might lose the Supreme Court, and if that happens, their entire political paradigm is shot to hell. For 60 years, they've been able to turn to a federal court to force their will against an unwilling electorate, and they're having a hard time with the prospect of losing that. Ditto with the federal bureaucracy. The stakes simply shouldn't be that high. The Supreme Court shouldn't be that important. The bureaucracy shouldn't be that powerful. But they are, and that's why people play so dirty nowadays. What's sad is that the founding fathers created a system to deal with this problem, and it's called federalism. The early Americans disagreed on tons of issues, so they created these cool things called states, and states created cool things called counties and cities. They did that so that people who generally have the same values, culture, etc. can create their own systems and run them as they choose, while leaving a very well-defined and very narrow set of issues (on which we actually have fairly broad agreement) in the hands of the federal government. The system works great until we get busybodies who want to dictate what happens in states and communities that are none of their business. If you live in Massachusetts and can't deal with Alabama banning abortion, you're a busybody. Shut up, and worry about Massachusetts. If you live in Alabama and can't deal with Illinois banning guns, you're a busybody. Shut up, and worry about Alabama. The fact that we have a bunch of busybodies on both sides who want to force their will on other communities is the root of the problem.
And yet, @Mr. Deez and many other Americans cannot comprehend what the war between the states was actually about or what so many majority non-slave owning southerners were fighting over. Everyone focuses on the individual issue (slavery, which the south was wrong about) where the general conflict of federalism came to a head. The confederate flag, monuments, etc truly stand for the concept of “invidivual communities governing themselves and minding their own business”. However, the left hates this and has successfully fought federalism in favor of all powerful central control by painting federalism as racism and white supremacy. @Mr. Deez, Nikki Haley and other plays play along not comprehending they are helping kill the concept of federalism they believe in. When confederate monuments and symbols go, so do the concepts of federalism and regional pride. Fenves and others at UT continue the war against regional identity and pride by removing the six flags of texas, statues of non-confederate texans, etc. They have won the battle against the South. Now they are attacking Texan identity.
