Senior Trump administrator pens anonymous op ed to NYT
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
OpEdThroat could be any of a number of people. I suppose I should feel grateful that he/she claims they are secretly protecting us from Trump, but I don’t. Those people have a moral duty to invoke the 25th amendment, not hope that this lunatic doesn’t do something devastating and irreversible. He’s already chipping away at the moral and civic fiber of our nation. IMO, these people that are suddenly concerned with having an unhinged, amoral racist in the Oval Office, know the ship is going down and are seeking not only absolution for their complicity, but future sainthood.
Ever heard of Trump's tricks in the 80s, using a guy named Barron to call people and praise the glories of Donald Trump? Crows coming home to roost?
I hope Rudy stays around for a long, long time. He seriously is comedy gold.
Last edited:
That's hilarious how his cackle becomes a whimper-cluck-sigh.
Nah, Nixon's White House leaked like a sieve . . . Haldeman and Ehrlichman's entire jobs were to keep discipline within the White House staff and they had to resort to fairly draconian measures to do so, only to have Deep Throat undermine them.
What's new is that the NYT is complicit with the administration official to give this administration official space for his/her message rather than the NYT pointing its reporters in the direction of the official and then independently reporting news - confirmed by multiple sources, of course, in accordance with good journalistic standards. What we've ended up with isn't news or even information; we have a political advertisement under the paper of record's editorial byline.
This is screwy. I'm not sure that it's a soft coup against Trump so much as it's more like a soft coup against the very institutions that the op-ed professes to want to protect.
I ain't taking this bait, at least not until we know who the author is and what his/her motivations are and maybe not then. In the meantime, I'd ask for the resignations of the entire NYT editorial staff for their lack of good judgment in making this op-ed available on its op-ed page.
Last edited:
Bad idea. Unless Trump capitulated, it takes 2/3 of both houses to permanently remove him. That won't happen currently, and the entire Executive branch would be left a smoldering ruin with the Cabinet gone and Trump still in charge. I could see an actual military coup resulting.
But Nixon wasn’t crazy, just criminal. Trump is both. That was what I think is unchartered territory. Having his cabinet talking about the 25th openly among themselves. Not sure what I think about NYT printing this anonymously. Have to give that more thought.
Nixon was paranoid . . . I would guess that he was pretty crazy by the time he resigned. The primary differences between Nixon and Trump are that (a) Nixon had a sufficient grasp on some of reality to recognized he didn't belong in office any more, and (b) Democrats controlled Congress.
The beginning of the end? I think we will know with certainty the identity of the author within a week or less. And the person who wrote this piece understood that would happen.
People debate what it would mean to have a Big C "Constitutional Crisis". (Maybe we're already having one.) But like you, it has always seemed obvious to me that we were headed for some sort of crisis if we elected the corrupt unfit imbecile.
Here's a thing that pisses me off: It ought to be possible for Republicans to get tax cuts and right wing judges without f#cking up the entire country with (and this is now my favorite description) an insane moral degenerate and a threat to the Republic. Obviously I don't mean to hang that on you -- you've been impeccably anti-Trump. Still. It's a real pisser.
If that's the case, why didn't the author take the high road and publicly disclose himself/herself as the author? If this will be known within a week, then there's no potential for this person to be considered a leader; only an insider who operated like Trump does, which ain't enough of a contrast to make the difference here.
If anything, this episode takes Woodward's book off the news outlets, and weakens that whole disclosure.
The timing - one day after Woodward's book exploded on the news - is suspect, IMO.
Yep (except the military coup possibility). Invoking the 25th would be ruinous. It was never intended for a situation like the present. Trump somehow must be swayed to leave on his own accord.
The NYT provides a link for asking about their vetting process for this very op-ed. Maybe you should click on it...
Why? To build your forces within the White House without prematurely falling on your own sword.
How many people could have written this?
THe NYT wrote: "the author, a senior official in the Trump administration"
THe NYT wrote: "the author, a senior official in the Trump administration"
With the coup thing, I was envisioning a scenario where after the Cabinet is laid waste and Pence is neutered, Trump orders a first strike on NK because he's pissed at them for not totally dismantling the nukes as they "promised". At that point the generals have to decide who they really serve.
Do you really think Trump is psychotic? Really? Remember what he said he'd do after losing the election? Take a long vacation. I don't think he wants to commit suicide.
Well I do agree that a military refusal like that is a possibility. But I don’t equate that with a military coup. Still, it does highlight one of the problems with trying to invoke the 25th. In the case of Trump that would effectively be a “cabinet coup.”
That's interesting. Coates is among those I'd least suspect of some nefarious purpose.
I agree... totally unprecedented coming from within. But point is....it's not really news to anyone with all their neurons firing. I made the same point last night re: Woodward book.
Coats is going on 75, nothing really to lose, maybe he wants to retire anyway and he's got that lofty motive.
They are implying the writer is definitely from the IC community -- so either Pompeo or Coates.
Pompeo is younger and ambitious and has a bit of runway (left) post-Trump. Coats is a straight-up Repub, and his last public gig -- and may have been inspired to do so after McCain's death (and assume his last public letter.)
In my opinion, it’s more likely than not that we are heading towards a national crisis. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that it is highly unlikely to be resolved in the current environment. I find it improbable that Republicans will entertain either the 25th or impeachment until things get much, much worse. For the record I don’t think much, much worse means a Democratic House it will have to be something truly earthshaking (see Russia).
In that context, this op-ed makes more sense strictly from a timing perspective.
Just a side note. As a citizen of this country and for the record I hope I’m wrong on everything above.
Removing Trump from office via the 25th would be one of the few events that could happen that would damage the country even more than electing the unfit imbecile in the first place. If Trump truly needs to be neutered to save the country, the sort of soft coup described by the op-ed is the only politically feasible way to do it (although in that case, publicizing the fact they are doing it was not a smart move).
That’s why I suspect the “soft coup” is more image restoration than real. I’m sure there are a few good Americans in the administration that do what they can to minimize the risks of Trump being Trump, but by publicizing the “soft coup”, they’re really hoping to help the Dems in the mid term elections, resulting in the necessary neutering of Trump.
It’s too damn late.
It’s almost as if the GOP is starting to realize the ramifications of the deal with the devil they made- and they’re rationalizing what they’ve done.
Seriously, this is pretty chicken chit behavior. If someone wanted to make real waves, they should’ve signed their name to the op ed.
All this will do is make him even MORE unhinged. Perhaps that’s the intent behind it? To basically make him self-immolate? He’s doing a damn good job of it himself.
1. Based on the text, the op-ed writer was one of the early appointees.
2. He's probably not military because the text seems civilian.
3. He's not one of Trump's own guys from the past.
4. He's a good writer. (Maybe they all are.)
5. He's a straight-up conservative with credentials.
6. He believes in "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." He's against "
anti-trade and anti-democratic." He's for "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."
7. Chances are he's written texts that are in the public domain and it wouldn't be too hard to recognize his writing style if you're familiar with his earlier texts.
2. He's probably not military because the text seems civilian.
3. He's not one of Trump's own guys from the past.
4. He's a good writer. (Maybe they all are.)
5. He's a straight-up conservative with credentials.
6. He believes in "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." He's against "
anti-trade and anti-democratic." He's for "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."
7. Chances are he's written texts that are in the public domain and it wouldn't be too hard to recognize his writing style if you're familiar with his earlier texts.
Not if he/she sees himself/herself as the guardian of their universe and can let Trump do whatever he wants. Just like Mathis or Kelly, they have to be inside to tend to the chicken coop.
I don't see it as chicken poop if that their prism though its a touch self-serving.
No matter how bad it gets, you can always do more good from inside. That doesn't mean we should assume someone working for Trump is doing it for the right reasons. Obviously, we shouldn't. Many people are, in fact, self-serving. But it's simply not justifiable to demand that anyone with scruples would walk away - or torpedo himself. I'm sure some of the people in the White House are good public servants (and I have an idea who those people likely are), and we're better off with them staying right where they are.
