independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 25th Sep 2018 9:36am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump's cabinet considered 25th Amendment
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 09/05/18 3:58pm

benni

Trump's cabinet considered 25th Amendment

THIS IS HUGE!

The NYTimes op-ed offers a first-hand account that corroborates key themes of a new damning book about Trump's presidency by the veteran journalist Bob Woodward: that some of the President's top advisers have a dim view of the commander in chief and are quietly working to thwart Trump's most reckless and impulsive decisions from becoming a reality.

The author writes the resistance inside the Trump administration is not the same "resistance" of the left against Trump and said they and like-minded colleagues working to thwart some of Trump's actions "want the administration to succeed ... But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

"That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

The result, the official writes, has been a "two-track presidency" in which Trump's own worldview -- uttered both in public and private -- diverges from some key actions taken by the administration, like those involving additional sanctions against Russia.

A dramatic alternative to the quiet effort to thwart some of Trump's more concerning actions was, however, considered, the official said: invoking the 25th Amendment.

The official alleges there were "early whispers within" Trump's Cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would require a majority of Cabinet officials to declare to Congress they believe the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

Explaining the "resistance" effort, the senior administration official offers a damning portrait of Trump's character and leadership ability.

The author argues the "root of the problem is the President's amorality" and assails Trump's "reckless decisions," "erratic behavior" and what he describes as Trump's "impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective" leadership style.

"The root of the problem is the President's amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making," the official writes. "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."

The senior administration official's op-ed offered extensive insights into the unvarnished thoughts of a top official, but the op-ed was in keeping with reports throughout Trump's presidency. In those reports, numerous senior administration officials have described Trump's impulsive decision-making and the chaos that has often animated the President's inner circle.

It's both a confirmation of the portrait of the President painted by Woodward and reporters covering the Trump administration as well as an attempt at reassurance.

"It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when Donald Trump won't," the official writes. "This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady state."

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders also issued a scathing statement in response to the op-ed.

"The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States," she wrote. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign."

A Times spokeswoman said op-ed anonymity had been granted a handful of other times in the paper's history, most recently for a piece in June by an unnamed asylum seeker ...l Salvador.
In this case, The Times said it granted anonymity "at the request of the author" because the person's job "would be jeopardized by its disclosure."

The newspaper also pointed out that its opinion editors know the person's identity, so he or she is anonymous to the public, but not to the Times.

CNN's Brian Stelter contributed to this report.
This story has been updated.

CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect the author of the piece is a senior administration official.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 09/05/18 6:22pm

onlyforaminute

Just saw some of this in the news. Interesting. The wheels are turning.
"If you want the wise man to be as angry as the unworthiness of the crimes demands, he must become not angry but insane."
- Seneca, On Anger 2.9.4
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 09/05/18 7:39pm

PennyPurple

avatar

CNN is suggesting that it may very well be John Kelly who is the source.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 09/06/18 3:41am

benni

PennyPurple said:

CNN is suggesting that it may very well be John Kelly who is the source.


I would think that a general would focus more on the safety of America when the piece discussed the Republican agenda, and would not have listed (I think) the economy first or tax reform (whichever it was). A general would tend to think more along the lines of defenses and would naturally think of those things first. I think the increase in military was listed last. Unless he did that to throw people off.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 09/06/18 4:22am

PennyPurple

avatar

benni said:

PennyPurple said:

CNN is suggesting that it may very well be John Kelly who is the source.


I would think that a general would focus more on the safety of America when the piece discussed the Republican agenda, and would not have listed (I think) the economy first or tax reform (whichever it was). A general would tend to think more along the lines of defenses and would naturally think of those things first. I think the increase in military was listed last. Unless he did that to throw people off.

Pence has been suggested too.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 09/06/18 4:23am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

PennyPurple said:

CNN is suggesting that it may very well be John Kelly who is the source.

Ok if nothing becomes of this and it was a ghostwriter this will blow up in Dems and mainstream media face.

I think we can all collectively say.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 09/06/18 4:30am

PennyPurple

avatar

SuperFurryAnimal said:

PennyPurple said:

CNN is suggesting that it may very well be John Kelly who is the source.

Ok if nothing becomes of this and it was a ghostwriter this will blow up in Dems and mainstream media face.

This is no ghost writer. And since it is a person close to the Prez in the WH, chances are they are republican. Don't try to shift the blame to the Dems or to the media.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 09/06/18 4:35am

benni

PennyPurple said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Ok if nothing becomes of this and it was a ghostwriter this will blow up in Dems and mainstream media face.

This is no ghost writer. And since it is a person close to the Prez in the WH, chances are they are republican. Don't try to shift the blame to the Dems or to the media.



They were definitely Republican, because they were PROUD of what they had accomplished on the Republican agenda.

It wasn't a ghost writer, SuperFurry. They vetted this person, had someone else approach them telling them that this insider wanted to write an op-ed, but anonymously. They spoke with the individual, confirmed who it was, but because if they reveal this individual their job, their livelihood would be on the line, they've agreed to protect that source.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 09/06/18 4:37am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

PennyPurple said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Ok if nothing becomes of this and it was a ghostwriter this will blow up in Dems and mainstream media face.

This is no ghost writer. And since it is a person close to the Prez in the WH, chances are they are republican. Don't try to shift the blame to the Dems or to the media.

Right then that person will have to come forward eventually or they will have to name the source. Otherwise, the credibility of NYT will be under scrutiny. You do realize if it is true someone in Trump's camp was stealing paperwork off from Trump's desk and reporting to it to NYT that we have a potential violation of national security. These claims by your buddies they need to be investigated.

I think we can all collectively say.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 09/06/18 4:39am

benni

SuperFurryAnimal said:

PennyPurple said:

This is no ghost writer. And since it is a person close to the Prez in the WH, chances are they are republican. Don't try to shift the blame to the Dems or to the media.

Right then that person will have to come forward eventually or they will have to name the source. Otherwise, the credibility of NYT will be under scrutiny. You do realize if it is true someone in Trump's camp was stealing paperwork off from Trump's desk and reporting to it to NYT that we have a potential violation of national security. These claims by your buddies they need to be investigated.


Actually, they stole paperwork off Trump's desk (which was an excerpt from the FEAR book) to prevent a national security crisis. They never revealed what those papers were. And it sounded like it was more than just one person doing it, but many in his cabinet or many of his staffers.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 09/06/18 4:40am

PennyPurple

avatar

SuperFurryAnimal said:

PennyPurple said:

This is no ghost writer. And since it is a person close to the Prez in the WH, chances are they are republican. Don't try to shift the blame to the Dems or to the media.

Right then that person will have to come forward eventually or they will have to name the source. Otherwise, the credibility of NYT will be under scrutiny. You do realize if it is true someone in Trump's camp was stealing paperwork off from Trump's desk and reporting to it to NYT that we have a potential violation of national security. These claims by your buddies they need to be investigated.

I don't think they have to reveal their source. NYT knows who it is. And remember deep throat..they are calling this one 'lodestar'. Lodestar was mention several times in the editorial, and is frequently used by Pence.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 09/06/18 4:44am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

PennyPurple said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Right then that person will have to come forward eventually or they will have to name the source. Otherwise, the credibility of NYT will be under scrutiny. You do realize if it is true someone in Trump's camp was stealing paperwork off from Trump's desk and reporting to it to NYT that we have a potential violation of national security. These claims by your buddies they need to be investigated.

I don't think they have to reveal their source. NYT knows who it is. And remember deep throat..they are calling this one 'lodestar'. Lodestar was mention several times in the editorial, and is frequently used by Pence.

The no credibility to the story. Especially if all those involved deny it.

I think we can all collectively say.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 09/06/18 4:45am

PennyPurple

avatar

SuperFurryAnimal said:

PennyPurple said:

I don't think they have to reveal their source. NYT knows who it is. And remember deep throat..they are calling this one 'lodestar'. Lodestar was mention several times in the editorial, and is frequently used by Pence.

The no credibility to the story. Especially if all those involved deny it.

Yes, there is.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 09/06/18 4:48am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

benni said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Right then that person will have to come forward eventually or they will have to name the source. Otherwise, the credibility of NYT will be under scrutiny. You do realize if it is true someone in Trump's camp was stealing paperwork off from Trump's desk and reporting to it to NYT that we have a potential violation of national security. These claims by your buddies they need to be investigated.


Actually, they stole paperwork off Trump's desk (which was an excerpt from the FEAR book) to prevent a national security crisis. They never revealed what those papers were. And it sounded like it was more than just one person doing it, but many in his cabinet or many of his staffers.

You see what just happened there? You are acting like it is fact when the source is anonymous. The story will fade into nothing it is all about the upcoming election. VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS!

I think we can all collectively say.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 09/06/18 5:27am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

PennyPurple said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

The no credibility to the story. Especially if all those involved deny it.

Yes, there is.

With an election 60 some days away.. Uh huh. SURE!

I think we can all collectively say.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 09/06/18 5:38am

benni

Here's a good article about when to trust "anonymous sources":


https://fivethirtyeight.c...d-sources/


1. Multiple sources add up.

2. Unverifiable predictions are suspicious.

3. Specifics matter.

4. Consider the outlet and the reporters.

5. Watch for vague or imprecise “denials” of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 09/06/18 5:44am

benni

The Code of Ethics in Journalism on using anonymous sources:


https://www.spj.org/ethic...nymity.asp


1. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
If the only way to publish a story that is of importance to the audience is to use anonymous sources, the reporter owes it to the readers to identify the source as clearly as possible without pointing a figure at the person who has been granted anonymity. If the investigating police officer confirms John Doe has been arrested, the officer is a “source in the police department” and not even a pronoun should point to the gender.

2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
Some organizations do not allow anonymous sources except in the most vital news stories. Journalists also should make sure they and their source are talking about the same agreement. Does off-the-record mean the information can never be used, can be used if another source confirms the information on the record or public records substantiate, or simply the information can be used as long as the source’s name is not used (a city official, an employee of the football team, etc.) And publishing information without verification from multiple sources, even if they are all off the record, is a dangerous practice.
Agreeing not to attribute the information to the source and then breaking the promise has two negative consequences for journalists. First, it damages the credibility of the promise-breaker and the media outlet he or she works for. Others with important information may decline to provide information off or even on the record if the reporter is not trustworthy. And second, there is at least one instance in which a person lost his job because the reporter who promised him confidentiality broke it, and the unemployed source sued the newspaper and won

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 09/06/18 5:46am

benni

SuperFurryAnimal said:

benni said:


Actually, they stole paperwork off Trump's desk (which was an excerpt from the FEAR book) to prevent a national security crisis. They never revealed what those papers were. And it sounded like it was more than just one person doing it, but many in his cabinet or many of his staffers.

You see what just happened there? You are acting like it is fact when the source is anonymous. The story will fade into nothing it is all about the upcoming election. VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS!


Actually, I am acting as if it is fact, because the situation you are speaking of came out of the book FEAR and the individual that made the comment was identified and the author has tapes of his interviews.


In one example, Woodward wrote that then-economic adviser Gary Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk” that the president planned to sign pulling the United States from a trade agreement with key ally South Korea.

Cohn later told a colleague that he removed the letter to protect national security and that Trump didn’t even notice that it went missing.

Cohn repeated his chicanery to stop Trump from withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he had vilified on the campaign trail.



You are confusing the excerpts from the book: Fear with the Op-Ed piece in the NY Times.

[Edited 9/6/18 5:49am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 09/06/18 5:50am

benni

More about removing papers from Trump's desk, or ignoring orders:


In spring 2017, Trump harangued then-White House secretary Rob Porter over the issue.

“Why aren’t we getting this done? Do your job. I want to do this,” the commander in chief said.

Porter dutifully drafted a letter withdrawing from NAFTA, but he and other advisers feared it could trigger an economic and foreign-relations disaster, so Porter consulted Cohn.

“I can stop this,” Cohn replied. “I’ll just take the paper off his desk.”

In another move to short-circuit Trump, Defense Secretary James Mattis allegedly ignored an order to kill Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad after Assad launched a chemical-weapons attack on civilians in April 2017.

“Let’s f–king kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the ­f–king lot of them,” Trump said, according to Woodward.

Mattis told Trump he’d get right on it, but then told a senior aide, “We’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to be much more measured.”

The president’s national security team, with Trump’s approval, instead launched an airstrike on the Syrian base that launched the attack.

Trump also flunked a practice grilli...rt Mueller, stumbling while answering questions, telling falsehoods and contradicting himself before exploding in anger, according to the book.

Trump’s lawyer at the time, John Dowd, was convinced that the president would commit perjury if he talked to Mueller, so he arranged for a practice session on Jan. 27.

“This thing’s a goddamn hoax,” Trump raged, beginning a 30-minute rant that concluded with him saying, “I don’t really want to testify,” the paper reported.

Weeks later, on March 5, Dowd and Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow met with Mueller and his deputy, telling the prosecutors about the president’s disastrous practice session and why they thought Trump should skip the sit-down.

“I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot,” Dowd said, according to the book. “And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the [leaders] overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’ ”

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 09/06/18 5:51am

EmmaMcG

You guys would be better off with Mr. Bean in the White House so nothing about this story is surprising. Even the Republicans know Trump is a joke.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 09/06/18 6:19am

benni

EmmaMcG said:

You guys would be better off with Mr. Bean in the White House so nothing about this story is surprising. Even the Republicans know Trump is a joke.


I'm afraid that you may be right. Mr. Bean might make a better president! lol

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 09/06/18 7:48am

EmmaMcG

benni said:



EmmaMcG said:


You guys would be better off with Mr. Bean in the White House so nothing about this story is surprising. Even the Republicans know Trump is a joke.


I'm afraid that you may be right. Mr. Bean might make a better president! lol



He'd give more coherent speeches, that's for sure.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 09/06/18 8:36am

jjhunsecker

avatar

benni said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

You see what just happened there? You are acting like it is fact when the source is anonymous. The story will fade into nothing it is all about the upcoming election. VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS!


Actually, I am acting as if it is fact, because the situation you are speaking of came out of the book FEAR and the individual that made the comment was identified and the author has tapes of his interviews.


In one example, Woodward wrote that then-economic adviser Gary Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk” that the president planned to sign pulling the United States from a trade agreement with key ally South Korea.

Cohn later told a colleague that he removed the letter to protect national security and that Trump didn’t even notice that it went missing.

Cohn repeated his chicanery to stop Trump from withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he had vilified on the campaign trail.


You are confusing the excerpts from the book: Fear with the Op-Ed piece in the NY Times.

[Edited 9/6/18 5:49am]

He's probably confusing a lot more than that !

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 09/06/18 9:38am

benni

Here is the letter that Cohn swiped off of Trump's desk. Woodward just released it:



 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 09/06/18 10:31am

Graycap23

avatar

As usual, mofos focused on the WRONG thing.

What was said is more IMPORTANT than who said it.

Yes....I'm in a Cult. We brainwash people into THINKING ............4 Themselves. FAMILIAR BONDAGE OVER FOREIGN FREEDOM
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 09/06/18 10:32am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Graycap23 said:

As usual, mofos focused on the WRONG thing.

What was said is more IMPORTANT than who said it.

They try to use that as a diversion

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 09/06/18 10:37am

2elijah

avatar

PennyPurple said:

CNN is suggesting that it may very well be John Kelly who is the source.


I think it is him. Remember the look on his face when he was sitting at a meeting with trump? He seemed bothered by what trump said. He seems the type that would go to the NYT.
[Edited 9/6/18 10:42am]
FEARLESS
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 09/06/18 10:39am

Graycap23

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

Graycap23 said:

As usual, mofos focused on the WRONG thing.

What was said is more IMPORTANT than who said it.

They try to use that as a diversion

The Amerikkkan way.

Yes....I'm in a Cult. We brainwash people into THINKING ............4 Themselves. FAMILIAR BONDAGE OVER FOREIGN FREEDOM
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 09/06/18 11:13am

benni

Graycap23 said:

As usual, mofos focused on the WRONG thing.

What was said is more IMPORTANT than who said it.


I agree that what was said is more important than who said it, however, when Super stated that it was anonymous, I wanted to correct him and let him know that it was anonymous, that Woodward has tapes, that he is a reputable investigative reporter who will NOT report something if he cannot back it up. That will be important going forward, because they are going to try to discredit Woodward.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 09/06/18 11:28am

Graycap23

avatar

benni said:

Graycap23 said:

As usual, mofos focused on the WRONG thing.

What was said is more IMPORTANT than who said it.


I agree that what was said is more important than who said it, however, when Super stated that it was anonymous, I wanted to correct him and let him know that it was anonymous, that Woodward has tapes, that he is a reputable investigative reporter who will NOT report something if he cannot back it up. That will be important going forward, because they are going to try to discredit Woodward.

I get it........but folks need 2 understand, NOTHING is being done in D.C. on behalf os the U.S. tax payer. NOTHING.

Congress is useless & The Westwing is stealing the country blind.

Yes....I'm in a Cult. We brainwash people into THINKING ............4 Themselves. FAMILIAR BONDAGE OVER FOREIGN FREEDOM
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump's cabinet considered 25th Amendment