Dangers of a Trump Presidency--Part 7

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
29,687
There's not a snowball's chance it's Ivanka. I suppose it's just possible it could be Kellyanne. But the Weekly Standard has an interesting rundown of four likely candidates. https://www.weeklystandard.com/michael-warren/these-are-the-four-people-most-likely-to-be-behind-the-anonymous-new-york-times-op-ed-from-the-resistance-inside-the-trump-administration?_amp=true
I think they are off-base with the suggestion of Pompeo. But Coates fits a bit. Mostly because he has nothing to lose if he’s outed.
 

snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,428
Lawrence O’Donnell says he thinks it’s Dan Coates. Same reasoning - nothing to lose, all the right access to know what’s going on.
 

ribbon

Well-Known Member
Messages
191
I found it to be rather self-serving, and self-righteous. Seems to me if they really wanted to do something they could invoke the 25th, even though the writer said they had thought about it.
Self serving and self righteous describes just about everyone in the GOP and administration, so it will take a while to find the author.
 

skatingguy

Golden Team
Messages
5,433
He's okay with Trump firing Sessions which could be viewed as obstruction of justice,
I think given the coming midterms and then the time it would take to approve a new Attorney General in the Senate will make it two years since Trump took office and the president should be entitled to a cabinet who was his confidence. It might be a positive in the long run if the president didn't have a target at the head of the Department of Justice which he uses to undermine the system.
 

skatingguy

Golden Team
Messages
5,433
I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

It backs up everything Omarosa Manigault Newman and Bob Woodward have said on the subject.

Please stand by for a Presidential meltdown.

:watch:
It could be a dangerous precedent for future presidents. If the next president gives an order to military commanders, for example don't attack country X, and the military commanders disagree will they ignore the president's order. Of course, we really don't know who wrote this, and what role they have in the government. I have to imagine that the Times would not have agreed to print an anonymous Op-Ed if it came from a low level staffer at a random government agency.
 

Cachoo

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,090
Should you undermine a bad president to save a country or should you quit, knowing that constitutionally you are actually wrong to be doing this---no matter how good your intentions are at the time? I think I'm for the latter as we have a 25th amendment that shows us a path to remove a president who might be a threat. Unfortunately Congressional Republicans are mostly cowards these days.
 

skatesindreams

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,377
Everyone with a substantive role in the Administration who takes an oath, needs to be reminded that it is to "defend the Constitution"; not to Protect the President!
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,264
Should you undermine a bad president to save a country or should you quit, knowing that constitutionally you are actually wrong to be doing this---no matter how good your intentions are at the time? I think I'm for the latter as we have a 25th amendment that shows us a path to remove a president who might be a threat. Unfortunately Congressional Republicans are mostly cowards these days.
Twenty-Fifth Amendment (Quotes below are from Section 4).

In the first instance, the onus is on the Vice-President and the Cabinet, not on Congress:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
(Congress has never enacted such legislation as the Amendment authorizes.)

It is only if the Presient and Acting President are at odds that Congress becomes involved:
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
The anonymous Op-Ed writer says:
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Publishing the Op-Ed piece, however, is itself precipitating a constitutional crisis; the Constitution does not empower the Cabinet or the White House Staff to exercise executive powers contrary to the directions of the President or Acting President.

Congress should be investigating this, but I am not holding my breath.
 

FiveRinger

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,155
Pence has the most to gain by writing such an op ed, and the least to lose.
But, the NYT says that this person was appointed by Trump. Pence was elected. Doesn’t that automatically disqualify him? I can’t begin to imagine who actually wrote this. Thank you, anonymous contributor. I can’t wait until you are officially revealed. I think it might be a collaborative effort.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
47,687
TBH I don't care who wrote the op ed. I am enjoying the drama. This is like 'Who shot JR?'

It is laughable that Trump considers this Treason. He thinks everyone's job is to protect him, country be damned.

Could Trump have asked someone to write this, just to create a new controversy? He thrives on contraversies that portray him as a victim.

We do need to consider the fact that the person who wrote it must be well educated (be able to write a publishable op ed). That eliminates Donanld and Melania Trump. It can't be one if his children or Jared. They are too loyal to him.
 
Last edited:

FiveRinger

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,155
TBH I don't care who wrote the op ed. I am enjoying the drama. This is like 'Who shot JR?'

It is laughable that Trump considers this Treason. He thinks everyobe's job is to protect him, country be damned.

Could Trump have asked someone to write this, just to create a new controversy? He thrives on contraversies that portray him as a victim.

We do need to consider the fact that the person who wrote it must be well educated (be able to write a publishable op ed). That eliminates Donanld and Melania Trump. It cant be one if his children or Jared. They are too loyal to him.
That’s a thought. John Barron wrote it. Isn’t that his alter ego?
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,507
I think given the coming midterms and then the time it would take to approve a new Attorney General in the Senate will make it two years since Trump took office and the president should be entitled to a cabinet who was his confidence. It might be a positive in the long run if the president didn't have a target at the head of the Department of Justice which he uses to undermine the system.
Trump's "confidence" issues don't come from Sessions job performance. They come from the fact that Trump thinks the DOJ's Job is to protect the President and the GOP. He expected Sessions to shield him from the Mueller investigation and he expected Sessions to shield the two Republicans from the investigation. If Sessions goes, that is who Trump will appoint. Someone who will protect Trump and kill investigations. And maybe even go after Trump's political enemies.
Say what you want about Sessions and I certainly think he should never have gotten the job in the first place but as racist as he is, he still seems to have some weird sense of integrity. He currently keeps the DOJ as independent as possible. If he goes, that independence goes and the US is one step closer to a dictatorship where the President is above the law.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,507
If the contents weren't so serious, I'd find it hilarious that the headlines are full of officials denying they're the author of the NYT op-ed. It's just so surreal. Booker is taking on the GOP and releasing emails, there's a Trump-puppet about to be confirmed for SC, hundreds of children have still not been reunited with their parents and officials are busy denying they didn't write an op-ed.
 

WillyElliot

Tanning one day, then wearing a winter coat today.
Messages
662
He expected Sessions to shield him from the Mueller investigation and he expected Sessions to shield the two Republicans from the investigation. If Sessions goes, that is who Trump will appoint. Someone who will protect Trump and kill investigations.
Speaking of which there was the latest update on Duncan Hunter, and apparently he used campaign funds to pay for at least five affairs. The prosecutor even says he has photographic proof, LOL, so no screaming "Fake News!!!" He's apparently one of those "family values" republicans too...
 

once_upon

New condo owner
Messages
12,218
The op-ed report stating the Cabinet and other senior officials have taken measures thwart trumps actions, is going to ignite the trump followers and their belief that Washington is corrupt.

This one thing will have his supporters out on election day to keep GOP in power. This is not a good thing or something that will lead to 25th amendment action.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,507
This one thing will have his supporters out on election day to keep GOP in power. This is not a good thing or something that will lead to 25th amendment action.
His supporters alone are not enough especially not if Dems manage to get voters to turnout. The question is how many general Republican voters turnout.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
22,231
I think the article just confirms what everyone kind of knows and has already said. There is a lot of ar$e covering (Trump's) and someone just told what it is like. And it almost came along like Trump is a puppy p*ssing all over the place and everyone's job is to clean up the mess he is making.

The thing Trump likes most is having his ego massaged. This certainly doesn't do that and I am sure he will out to have someone's head and play the tough guy. But it isn't his own business, this is the country that he is charge of. People are not always going to bow down to him.

If anything the article is almost a brag piece telling everyone that we have to manage the monster so he doesn't get too out of control. That someone also felt that strongly that they had to write something demonstrates just how dysfunctional the WH is these days.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,352
I have read enough of your posts to know that you are wise enough to know that these aren't the only things that centrist Democrats do.

Take the Affordable Care Act, for example. Every single Democratic Senator voted for it. No Republican did.
Yea, they voted for it but they did not support single payer act. But if we're cherry picking :)

But those same centrists democrats did vote for the Bush tax cuts originally. Also, they help made those same tax cuts permanent.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,507
Yea, they voted for it but they did not support single payer act. But if we're cherry picking :)
There needs to be some major budget shifting before single payer can become a reality though and that budget shifting is not going to happen for as long as Democrats don't have the majority to do it. So, even if they supported single payer, it's just not feasable at the moment.
The ACA needs an overhaul and is far from perfect but it's the best they can do right now.
 

skatingguy

Golden Team
Messages
5,433
Trump's "confidence" issues don't come from Sessions job performance. They come from the fact that Trump thinks the DOJ's Job is to protect the President and the GOP. He expected Sessions to shield him from the Mueller investigation and he expected Sessions to shield the two Republicans from the investigation. If Sessions goes, that is who Trump will appoint. Someone who will protect Trump and kill investigations. And maybe even go after Trump's political enemies.
Say what you want about Sessions and I certainly think he should never have gotten the job in the first place but as racist as he is, he still seems to have some weird sense of integrity. He currently keeps the DOJ as independent as possible. If he goes, that independence goes and the US is one step closer to a dictatorship where the President is above the law.
I believe the Senate would vote against any nominee that wouldn't confirm in a hearing that they would allow the investigation to continue to its natural conclusion. If the nominee refused to answer the question, or advised that they would end the investigation I don't think they'd get 50 votes.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,352
Piggy backing off Chuck Schumer's deal with Mitch McConnell to fast track judicial nominees which several centrist democrats voted yes on; WH announced the following.

The Trump administration on Thursday moved to abandon a longstanding court settlement that limits how long immigrant children can be kept locked up, proposing new regulations that would allow the government to detain families until their immigration cases are decided.
Such cases can drag on for years, and some immigrants stop showing up to court when it becomes clear their asylum requests are going to be denied.
The newly proposed rules would allow the government to hold families in detention until their cases are completed.
The change would also allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to create more family detention centers, known as “family residential centers.” These centers would be audited by a “third-party entity engaged by ICE”
aka private prisons where there will be no accountability and they use those seeking asylum for cheap labor, illegal adoptions, human trafficking.

Stacking the courts for conservative judges = no obstacles to limiting what they can do.


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/trump-administration-sidestep-limits-child-detention-180906152044812.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-bc-us--immigration-family-detention-20180906-story.html
 
Last edited:

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,507
I believe the Senate would vote against any nominee that wouldn't confirm in a hearing that they would allow the investigation to continue to its natural conclusion.
Because no nominee has ever said one thing during their confirmation and then did another thing once in office and they can absolutely be trusted. :shuffle:

If the nominee refused to answer the question, or advised that they would end the investigation I don't think they'd get 50 votes.
Was there any Republican who has opposed a nominee so far? Sessions may be standing up to Trump right now but he only does so to a certain extent and along with DeVos he was probably the worst nominee and yet, he was confirmed. Look at Pruitt and how long he hung on. Look at Kavanaugh. He's on track to be confirmed and the only ones opposing him are Democrats. From the way the confirmations have gone so far, I'd say that unless there is something extraordingary, it's pretty much a given that any Trump nominee will be confirmed.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 12, Guests: 11)

Top