White House 'resistance': act of protection, or unadvisable 'soft coup'?

From The Christian Science Monitor


After The New York Times published an anonymous opinion piece from a “senior administration official” outlining an alleged quiet resistance to President Trump among his own top advisors, the first question that rattled through Washington’s political world was, “Who wrote it?”

But perhaps the more important query, one that gradually dawned on many after gleefully chewing over possible authors, might be this:
“What’s going on here? Are these people really doing the right thing?”

The op-ed article by an unnamed Trump staffer asserted that a loose team of “unsung heroes” who believe Mr. Trump to be dangerously unstable are secretly working to block the president’s “worst inclinations.” Combined with revelations from Bob Woodward’s upcoming book on the administration, “Fear,” an extraordinary portrait is emerging of a president hemmed in by his own handlers, unaware when some of his orders are ignored, changed, or delayed.

On its face, the op-ed seems to be an attempt to reassure voters who may be concerned about Trump’s impulses. But the anonymity of the writer raises credibility questions. What’s the real motive? Why not go public? Won’t revealing this effort, if it truly exists, infuriate the president and defeat its purpose?

COMMENT:-

That's kind of what I think about the Kavanaugh fight right now. Ship him out and Trump will come up with someone much worse, because he's Trump.

The problem is His followers. They want a Trump dictatorship.

Question: while the discussion revolves around whodunnit and denials, and whether it was proper to do so, or in Trump's case "treason" or a national security issue, has anyone come forward to say that what the official described was false?

What good would it have done to "go public" about Hitler or Saddam Hussein?

When things are as far off the rails as they are now, with Congress hovering between terrified not to act like they're fully in his camp and strategizing how to make use of his faux conservatism, with absolutely no intention of doing anything more than mildly demurring and that only when Trump does something as heinous as separating young children from their parents to try to show them that America is worse than the hellholes they came from ... when things are that bad ... what are the people in the White House to do?

If they say anything in public, they're not in the White House anymore, and whatever these people's motives are, the alternative of having no one in the White House to stop Trump is worse.



The op-ed author may have invited some shame onto themselves for not doing something even more dramatic (however shortlived) but mostly the op-ed shamed the people who actually have the power to stop Trump but who aren't doing so. Even if Congress didn't want to remove Trump, they could block the tariffs, for example. They could end the madness. They could reclaim their Constitutional power and duty. And the op-ed makes it glaringly clear that they need to.

Nickyjo said:

Question: while the discussion revolves around whodunnit and denials, and whether it was proper to do so, or in Trump's case "treason" or a national security issue, has anyone come forward to say that what the official described was false?

Click to expand...

Some people have denied making some or all of the insults against Trump which were attributed to them.

Has anyone claimed that Trump is not making alarming orders and needing to be talked off the cliff? I don't know.

Amelia said:

What good would it have done to "go public" about Hitler or Saddam Hussein?

When things are as far off the rails as they are now, with Congress hovering between terrified not to act like they're fully in his camp and strategizing how to make use of his faux conservatism, with absolutely no intention of doing anything more than mildly demurring and that only when Trump does something as heinous as separating young children from their parents to try to show them that America is worse than the hellholes they came from ... when things are that bad ... what are the people in the White House to do?

If they say anything in public, they're not in the White House anymore, and whatever these people's motives are, the alternative of having no one in the White House to stop Trump is worse.



The op-ed author may have invited some shame onto themselves for not doing something even more dramatic (however shortlived) but mostly the op-ed shamed the people who actually have the power to stop Trump but who aren't doing so. Even if Congress didn't want to remove Trump, they could block the tariffs, for example. They could end the madness. They could reclaim their Constitutional power and duty. And the op-ed makes it glaringly clear that they need to.

Click to expand...

Very powerful words Amelia, nicely written.

Amelia said:

What good would it have done to "go public" about Hitler or Saddam Hussein?

When things are as far off the rails as they are now, with Congress hovering between terrified not to act like they're fully in his camp and strategizing how to make use of his faux conservatism, with absolutely no intention of doing anything more than mildly demurring and that only when Trump does something as heinous as separating young children from their parents to try to show them that America is worse than the hellholes they came from ... when things are that bad ... what are the people in the White House to do?

If they say anything in public, they're not in the White House anymore, and whatever these people's motives are, the alternative of having no one in the White House to stop Trump is worse.



The op-ed author may have invited some shame onto themselves for not doing something even more dramatic (however shortlived) but mostly the op-ed shamed the people who actually have the power to stop Trump but who aren't doing so. Even if Congress didn't want to remove Trump, they could block the tariffs, for example. They could end the madness. They could reclaim their Constitutional power and duty. And the op-ed makes it glaringly clear that they need to.

Click to expand...

I hope President Trump does not join in the Democratic Party's agenda of shifting the last American jobs for foreign child labor sweatshops.

joko104 said:

I hope President Trump does not join in the Democratic Party's agenda of shifting the last American jobs for foreign child labor sweatshops.

Click to expand...

Trumps own Designer™ clothing line is made in China sweatshops.

Nickyjo said:

Question: while the discussion revolves around whodunnit and denials, and whether it was proper to do so, or in Trump's case "treason" or a national security issue, has anyone come forward to say that what the official described was false?

Click to expand...

I believe that Mr. Trump has (in effect) stated that the whole thing is a pack of lies.

I do hope that you will bear that in mind when you place your bets.

joko104 said:

I hope President Trump does not join in the Democratic Party's agenda of shifting the last American jobs for foreign child labor sweatshops.

Click to expand...

You do realize that the "shifting" of American jobs has two primary causes, those being:

1. the increasing use of automation (and the consequent decrease in the number of workers required) in US based production facilities - as directed by the American owners of the American companies which have a legal duty under American law to maximize profits; and
2. the decreased cost of production outside the United States of America (and hence increase in profits available to be made) which is a factor in the decisions made by the American owners of the American companies which have a legal duty under American law to maximize profits;

don't you?

You do realize that those two factors have been (and will continue to be) at work REGARDLESS of whether the Democrats (AKA "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party"), or the Republicans (AKA "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party") has:

• the most seats in the House of Representatives;
• the most seats in the Senate; or
• control of the Office of the President of the United States of America;

don't you?

Rogue Valley said:

Trumps own Designer™ clothing line is made in China sweatshops.

Click to expand...

That's DIFFERENT!!!!

TU Curmudgeon said:

I believe that Mr. Trump has (in effect) stated that the whole thing is a pack of lies.

I do hope that you will bear that in mind when you place your bets.

Click to expand...

To quote from a long ago scandal, “He would, wouldnt he?” What I meant and might have missed was others from the administration saying “it’s not like that at all.”

Nickyjo said:

To quote from a long ago scandal, “He would, wouldnt he?” What I meant and might have missed was others from the administration saying “it’s not like that at all.”

Click to expand...

If you were working for Mr. Trump and had written the Op-Ed, would you be admitting to doing so?

TU Curmudgeon said:

If you were working for Mr. Trump and had written the Op-Ed, would you be admitting to doing so?

Click to expand...

Depends on how I evaluated the danger he poses. One liberal commentator suggested that if he were named, discussion would revolve around him, with FOX and company bringing up a “DWI he had in 1983,” rather than discussion of what he said. As it is, conversation is still more about whodunit than what he said.

This was and is a bald faced, self serving effort by Republicans in the administration to tell the country that your Grand Ole' Party has been riding to the rescue again, giving Republicans just what policy they want without the Trump bark on. What an utter load of tripe!

"Oh and don't forget to vote GOP in the mid-terms so we can keep doing it unencumbered by a House or Senate that actually functions."

GARBAGE...complete and total garbage. But it is professionally written garbage. I will give it that.

I understand why the NYT's printed it and I understand why the author penned it. I have buckets more respect for the NYT's for printing it than I have for the self serving POS that authored it and his Trump appointee mates.

Nickyjo said:

Depends on how I evaluated the danger he poses.

Click to expand...

Obviously the person who wrote the Op-Ed does not consider that Mr. Trump is a greater threat to the country than he is to the author's paycheque.

Nickyjo said:

One liberal commentator suggested that if he were named, discussion would revolve around him, with FOX and company bringing up a “DWI he had in 1983,” rather than discussion of what he said. As it is, conversation is still more about whodunit than what he said.

Click to expand...

Oh you don't have to be a "liberal commentator" to see that that is EXACTLY what would happen with Mr. Trump's supporters bringing up every single trivial and completely irrelevant detail while demanding that people "Stop Attacking The President" since the President is innocent as he hasn't been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced nor has he exhausted all levels of appeal, nor has anyone proven beyond ANY faint sliver of a ghost of a hint of a suspicion of a possibility that not even a theoretical miscarriage of justice has taken place. [That, of course, won't stop Mr. Trump's supporters from declaring that even the possibility of something that might conceivably be confused with something that looks like it might be mistaken for wrongdoing is quite sufficient to irrevocably prove the guilt of anyone who isn't firmly entrenched in "Team Trump".]

PS - If Ms. Clinton had been elected rather than Mr. Trump, only minor modifications to the above would be needed to tailor it to that changed situation.

Rogue Valley said:

Trumps own Designer™ clothing line is made in China sweatshops.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is my understanding.

TU Curmudgeon said:

You do realize that the "shifting" of American jobs has two primary causes, those being:

1. the increasing use of automation (and the consequent decrease in the number of workers required) in US based production facilities - as directed by the American owners of the American companies which have a legal duty under American law to maximize profits; and
2. the decreased cost of production outside the United States of America (and hence increase in profits available to be made) which is a factor in the decisions made by the American owners of the American companies which have a legal duty under American law to maximize profits;

don't you?

You do realize that those two factors have been (and will continue to be) at work REGARDLESS of whether the Democrats (AKA "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party"), or the Republicans (AKA "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party") has:

• the most seats in the House of Representatives;
• the most seats in the Senate; or
• control of the Office of the President of the United States of America;

don't you?

Click to expand...

No, law does NOT require any company to "maximize profits." None whatsoever.

TU Curmudgeon said:

If you were working for Mr. Trump and had written the Op-Ed, would you be admitting to doing so?

Click to expand...

I would not divulge military national security secrets even if I fully disagreed with it. Doing so is highly criminal and the person who authored the letter should be learned if any way possible and prosecuted. The FBI should interview EVERYONE on White House staff with a simple question: "Did you write any of the OP letter or otherwise provide any letter directly or indirectly to the New York Times?" If the person lies, it is a felony. If the person refuses to answer, President Trump should immediately fire the person and that person becomes suspect #1, with a search warrant for that person's computers and emails.

joko104 said:

No, law does NOT require any company to "maximize profits." None whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Actually it does.

Look up "fiduciary duty".