Something is Rotten

[Amelia]

1. These people should stand up for their principles and identify themselves, then quit. (perhaps)
2. Trump is dangerously unstable and the country is at risk so long as he wields Executive power.

Just a reminder that both of these statements can be true simultaneously.

If they quit they quickly become Comey-ed or Omarasa-ed. True, those two didn't quit, but there would be even more passion in doing that to this person than to those two.

This person made a deal with a devil when they took this job, but having taken the job, they were in a unique position to help stop Trump from running the country as far off the rails as he has wanted to.



As much of an abomination as Trump is, we have been wondering how long his Teflon coating would protect him. The wait for any signs of cracks has been interminable. How do you take on the man who really could kill someone in broad daylight and still keep his followers, someone that GOP legislators -- even women -- are supporting even though he bragged about sexually assaulting women? You have to wait for your moment ... a moment which looks like it may never come ... and then seize it when it does.

If they did it with a name, they would quickly be destroyed. By doing it without a name, it widens the opening, since for now it could be anybody and everybody who has had a front row seat to the unfolding national crisis.

 

[PLizzy]

I agree completely.

The GOP may eventually hit the point where they believe the damage Trump is currently doing to them, is becoming worse than what the base will do to them if they dump him. A killer Blue Wave in November, may hasten the process.

The only thing that could force Trump from office is to review his tax returns and try to determine why is Trump constantly being audited.

There's a reason he won't tell us.

 

[Gina]

Going solely off what you wrote:

"They are putting their own political interests first in making Trump a "useful idiot" so they can accomplish their own agenda."

That's a statement of fact. Without knowing the identity of the author, do you know that to be true? Why isn't it just as easy to imagine that the author is a benevolent intervenor, who is singularly devoted to protecting the Democratic norms of the country but is also incompetent or naive?

Btw, the latter was my own theory for an hour. Which then split off into five theories (see poll). Then I had to keep adding theories until I arrived at ten, at which point I was forced to say, "Houston, we have a problem."

In my head, I'm thinking "if this is true". I should have prefaced the entire OP with IF. If we are to take it at face value, then we shouldn't be comforted because...read OP.

If there are multiple people in the administration are doing as the person told us, thwarting Trump, they are not protecting democracy, in my opinion. Regardless if they believe they are doing it from benevolent love of country. It's wrong to decide to overlook Trump's behavior if they are truly concerned, IMO. He's not a true republican in their view and "his" accomplishments (deregulation, tax cuts etc...) have come despite him not due to him. So due to who then? Them as part of their agenda?

I don't have a true theory. The OP is just some basic extrapolation from what was written.

 

[Gina]

If the GOP really want to protect the party, they should sack Nunes. They should actually conduct a bi-partisan investigation. Backing up Trump is going to put them on the wrong side of history.

I agree 100% with that.

 

[PLizzy]

If they quit they quickly become Comey-ed or Omarasa-ed. True, those two didn't quit, but there would be even more passion in doing that to this person than to those two.

This person made a deal with a devil when they took this job, but having taken the job, they were in a unique position to help stop Trump from running the country as far off the rails as he has wanted to.



As much of an abomination as Trump is, we have been wondering how long his Teflon coating would protect him. The wait for any signs of cracks has been interminable. How do you take on the man who really could kill someone in broad daylight and still keep his followers, someone that GOP legislators -- even women -- are supporting even though he bragged about sexually assaulting women? You have to wait for your moment ... a moment which looks like it may never come ... and then seize it when it does.

If they did it with a name, they would quickly be destroyed. By doing it without a name, it widens the opening, since for now it could be anybody and everybody who has had a front row seat to the unfolding national crisis.

There's only one offense that could get Trump forced from office: tax fraud.

I don't give a **** how "Teflon" he is, he won't survive that. The fact that he won't release his tax returns is constantly audited (his claim) and surrounds himself with tax frauds, certainly makes one naturally ask the question.

 

[Kobie]

I doubt they have Presidential ambitions. I doubt they are interested in boosting their ego.

This is unprecendented. I don't think this was done as some long term political strategy. That is a conspiracy theory at best right now. I think the Cabinet may be foreshadowing a 25th Amendment solution. They are testing the waters, so to speak.

The only person who really stands to gain from all of this is Mike Pence. He's not the source. My money is that it is an intelligence Secretary.

My money’s on Dan Coats, but I’d rather not be rolling these dice.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Head cheese perhaps.

I was thinking smelly feet limburger, all that running around.

 

[PirateMk1]

I didn't want to derail the thread in the Polls forum to respond to this:




Terribly rotten. Whoever these people are, "thwarting" this "amoral" president, they are not putting the country first. They are putting their own political interests first in making Trump a "useful idiot" so they can accomplish their own agenda. Trump is president, not these nameless, faceless conspirators to keep him in power.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html


There is no such thing under the Constitution as a two-track presidency and these people are not heroes. They are covering up for an executive who may be mentally incompetent and exploiting that incompetence for their own ends. They should be reaching out to senators and representatives to voice their "concern" and explain why they feel they need to thwart and deceive him. Or they should stop covering up for him if they don't think it rises to 25th Amendment bad. They should not continue to operate a "two-track presidency".

I am making a prediction the next president is going to learn from this **** show and fire everybody they can, totally clean house and purge everything. They would be stupid not to.

 

[Chomsky]

The only thing that could force Trump from office is to review his tax returns

Mueller has surely done this.

and try to determine why is Trump constantly being audited.

There's a reason he won't tell us.

I'm not so sure. I suspect complicated huge orgs get audited regularly.

 

[PLizzy]

I agree 100% with that.

When (not if) the Democrats get control of the House oversight committees, the Republicans better pray there is nothing earth shattering in Trump's financial records,or they will be judges harshly by the public for not uncovering it when they had control.

The fact that Trump goes into freak mode whenever anyone comes within a mile of those documents, doesn't exactly support the theory that has nothing to hide.

 

[PLizzy]

Mueller has surely done this.

I'm not so sure. I suspect complicated huge orgs get audited regularly.

It depends on the business they're in.

Of course, when you're constantly going "oops, forgot I owned that!" like Kushner, you tend to get audited a lot.

 

[Cardinal]

Both can certainly be true and the best possible way to insure that no unstable person can put the country at risk is to insure that no office of the government and no combination of offices of the government has enough power to really do us in. In short, SHRINK THE DAMNED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!! That's the answer to about 75% of all government problems.

Alternate proposals:

1)Don't elect candidates for the highest offices that have zero experience.
2)Don't elect candidates with a known propensity for scams and abuse of other people.
3)Don't elect candidates for the purpose of "turning him into a missile and aiming it as Washington."

The problem wasn't Federal government; the problem was the motives of the people who voted for the President.

 

[Gina]

When (not if) the Democrats get control of the House oversight committees, the Republicans better pray there is nothing earth shattering in Trump's financial records,or they will be judges harshly by the public for not uncovering it when they had control.

The fact that Trump goes into freak mode whenever anyone comes within a mile of those documents, doesn't exactly support the theory that has nothing to hide.

I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch. Should the Democrats get control of the House, then yes, they should defo execute proper oversight over this administration. The GOP has had their chance and didn't exercise proper due diligence. And yep, it won't look good should they find things that are not good.

 

[Chomsky]

Alternate proposals:

1)Don't elect candidates for the highest offices that have zero experience.
2)Don't elect candidates with a known propensity for scams and abuse of other people.
3)Don't elect candidates for the purpose of "turning him into a missile and aiming it as Washington."

The problem wasn't Federal government; the problems was the motives of the people who voted for the President.

Hear! Hear! :thumbs:

 

[Gina]

Alternate proposals:

1)Don't elect candidates for the highest offices that have zero experience.
2)Don't elect candidates with a known propensity for scams and abuse of other people.
3)Don't elect candidates for the purpose of "turning him into a missile and aiming it as Washington."

The problem wasn't Federal government; the problems was the motives of the people who voted for the President.

Well said.

 

[Cardinal]

If they quit they quickly become Comey-ed or Omarasa-ed. True, those two didn't quit, but there would be even more passion in doing that to this person than to those two.

This person made a deal with a devil when they took this job, but having taken the job, they were in a unique position to help stop Trump from running the country as far off the rails as he has wanted to.



As much of an abomination as Trump is, we have been wondering how long his Teflon coating would protect him. The wait for any signs of cracks has been interminable. How do you take on the man who really could kill someone in broad daylight and still keep his followers, someone that GOP legislators -- even women -- are supporting even though he bragged about sexually assaulting women? You have to wait for your moment ... a moment which looks like it may never come ... and then seize it when it does.

If they did it with a name, they would quickly be destroyed. By doing it without a name, it widens the opening, since for now it could be anybody and everybody who has had a front row seat to the unfolding national crisis.

A couple points:

Yes, if they publicly out themselves they become "Comey-ed." But only in the eyes of Trump's base. They're called his "base" for a reason. They don't matter in the larger discussion. Wondering when they will "crack" is an exercise in masochism. Stop waiting for them to "see the light." They won't.

No, this is not a one-size-fits-all argument against anonymous reporting. Far from it. But this is a unique situation in which the status of the author, the ambiguity of his identity and therefore the ambiguity of his/her motivations are such that the article has caused far more chaos than reassurance...assuming that reassurance was the motive to begin with. (We have no idea).

 

[OldFatGuy]

Trump looking crazy is extremely smart, and very good at manipulating people, it is very possible he is being manipulated, but it is also very possible the op of that article is manipulating anti trumpers in an effort to weed out traitors within the administration, think about that for a second.

I saw this movie, about Fredonia, the Marx Brothers in chaos causing chaos:

 

[Amelia]

There's only one offense that could get Trump forced from office: tax fraud.

I don't give a **** how "Teflon" he is, he won't survive that. The fact that he won't release his tax returns is constantly audited (his claim) and surrounds himself with tax frauds, certainly makes one naturally ask the question.

But with as much time as his returns have spent being audited, there would have to be some new information from his criminal cronies to stick him with anything that way.

I bet his returns would just be embarrassing -- to anyone in the GOP who is still pretending to have a principle -- but not enough to hurt him legally.



I think this shadow government has been organic in its evolution, unintended, but still a natural response to people faced with an insane president who has gotten a ridiculously flattering bill of health from the presidential physician who was so far up Trump's ass that he even added two inches to Trump's height.

So the shadow government snowball built, as we waited for something to finally shake Trump's enablers loose, and hopefully we're there.


The next few weeks just got really interesting.

 

[KerouacJack]

A couple points:

Yes, if they publicly out themselves they become "Comey-ed." But only in the eyes of Trump's base. They're called his "base" for a reason. They don't matter in the larger discussion. Wondering when they will "crack" is an exercise in masochism. Stop waiting for them to "see the light." They won't.

No, this is not an all-size-fits-all argument against anonymous reporting. Far from it. But this is a unique situation in which the status of the author and his/her motivations are so singularly ambiguous that the article has caused far more chaos than reassurance...assuming that reassurance was the motive to begin with. (We have no idea).

Or it could be frustrated cry for help and you're reading to much into it.

 

[Cardinal]

In my head, I'm thinking "if this is true". I should have prefaced the entire OP with IF. If we are to take it at face value, then we shouldn't be comforted because...read OP.

If there are multiple people in the administration are doing as the person told us, thwarting Trump, they are not protecting democracy, in my opinion. Regardless if they believe they are doing it from benevolent love of country. It's wrong to decide to overlook Trump's behavior if they are truly concerned, IMO. He's not a true republican in their view and "his" accomplishments (deregulation, tax cuts etc...) have come despite him not due to him. So due to who then? Them as part of their agenda?

I don't have a true theory. The OP is just some basic extrapolation from what was written.

Yeah, too much need for extrapolation, too few facts.

If it was this person's intention to give reassurance, he failed. If it was this person's intention to blow up the national equilibrium, he succeeded with flying colors.

That's all I got.

 

[Cardinal]

Or it could be frustrated cry for help and you're reading to much into it.

Sure, why not. Add it to the (exponentially growing) list.

 

[Chomsky]

Truthfully knowing trump I would not be surprised if this is some stunt to get traitors to crawl out of the woodworks so he can purge them from his administration.


However if true it is fairly vile, it would not only prove the shadow govt theory(which is actually a real thing it has affected govts going back thousands of years) but also prove the govt is treasonous against the constitution and the president. In my opinion if something so extreme the 25th needs be invoked, the american people hold full right to know about the reasoning, going behind their backs would indicate to me there was no basis to invoke the 25th, and that those govt officials are trying to usurp the presidents power and essentially commit treason.

For the Times to print the article as such, Trump would have had to partner-up with a legit guy the Times would trust. So, I don't think this is a Trump stunt.

 

[Cardinal]

For the Times to print the article as such, Trump would have had to partner-up with a legit guy the Times would trust. So, I don't think this is a Trump stunt.

Agreed. If they simply reprinted an article by one of the most infamous White House trolls and that later came out, the damage that would do to the reputation of the Times would be pretty extraordinary.

 

[jnug]

They are accomplishing their political agenda.


They are protecting the party. In achieving those things, they give the GOP something to run on rather than having to deal with the fallout from the disasters they have thwarted. which would have tanked their prospects.

Nothing good comes from these folks working in the shadows.

Well that is going to be a fail as well because they are right smack in the middle of compelling a blue tidal wave that might just take them out of majorities in both House and Senate now. There simply are not enough true Trump believers to hold the line. He only got elected on 24% of the total Electorate in the first place and that includes "lets give Trump a try moderates". Good luck holding onto them.

But there are no heroes in any of these. These folks are stark raving mad and so obsessed with their own agenda that they have propped up this cripple of a President to get what they want. You can see it in the utter craven spinelessness of the GOP controlled Hill. They are going to force the country to replace them.

 

[Amelia]

A couple points:

Yes, if they publicly out themselves they become "Comey-ed." But only in the eyes of Trump's base. They're called his "base" for a reason. They don't matter in the larger discussion. Wondering when they will "crack" is an exercise in masochism. Stop waiting for them to "see the light." They won't.

No, this is not a one-size-fits-all argument against anonymous reporting. Far from it. But this is a unique situation in which the status of the author, the ambiguity of his identity and therefore the ambiguity of his/her motivations are such that the article has caused far more chaos than reassurance...assuming that reassurance was the motive to begin with. (We have no idea).

"the article has caused far more chaos than reassurance"

It's just the first day.