Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 7:28:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Sept 6, 2018 7:40:43 GMT -5
I think all this is evidence for how the both parties over many years have corroded the institutions, to be honest. A civil service serves the sitting administration, no matter which administration, as long as that administration is legitimate and democratic. A civil service is not partisan, at all. It can't be.
This principle exists in all countries, to varying degrees. In my country, politicians aren't even allowed to decide individual cases. You get a Schools Minister, and that Schools Minister is not allowed to interfere with the operation of individual schools because that breaches the constitution.
We have it like this because a minister in the capital is ill equipped to deal with issues in a school hundreds of miles away. They don't know the situation, the background, and the perticulars of the individual school. Hence, they shouldn't be making detail decisions about it. Schools Ministers get to decide the broad framework of the totality of schools, but not about details of individual ones.
That's kind of extreme and isn't how it is in most countries, but hopefully you get the point. Civil services and political spheres are different things with different needs, and they operate differently. To have decisions based on merit and knowledge, you can't have decisions based on political posturing.
What a civil service does, then, is serve the the political world with that merit and with that foundational knowledge required. What it does not do is commit to a party political bubble, because it destroys its capacity to make decisions based on merit and knowledge. It turns the civil service into a political instrument. Hence, why this op-ed is so awful, because it's evidence that the civil service is serving a political cause, and not a polical master. There's a difference.
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on Sept 6, 2018 8:19:11 GMT -5
Anyone else dying to hear from celawson?! Yeah, we don't want to be doing that, calling out people or sniping at them in threads where they haven't even commented yet. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 6, 2018 8:37:37 GMT -5
But "turn him/her over to the Government?" The writer did not break the law, as far as I can see. This wasn't a revelation of top-secret info. (I doubt many of us are even very surprised, frankly--it's confirmation of what I suspected.) And the NY Times has no obligation to reveal the source. It's on Trump again for being who he is and selecting the people he did. In point of fact, you have no idea what the writer has done or hasn't done (fyi, I don't for a minute believe there's anything phony about this story). Again, people in the admin--in the executive branch--have a duty to carry out the orders they receive, a duty to do what the President tells them. Failing to do so may or may not break specific laws, but if the person in question is working in the intelligence community or as State, there are legitimate national security concerns, imo. And again, I think that if this was anyone but Trump, people would have no trouble seeing that. If someone wrote an anonymous op-ed during, say, the Obama admin and confessed to be actively trying to "thwart" any part of the admin's agenda, there'd be a whole different level of outrage. And people would--rightly--be concerned about where, exactly, such a person was situated, if for instance they were protecting the interests of some other power--like Israel--by undermining things the admin was doing or trying to do. So again, Trump has a point. Doesn't mean that the NYT has to name names right now, but one can I think fairly ask them to do so, because again, someone like this writer isn't someone deserving protection imo, either per Max in the op or because it's possible that their actions could even be treasonous. So Vladeck's rebutttal--that you quoted--is wrong-headed. ANY President would be right to be concerned about this kind of thing, would be justified in asking for a name, even if that's all they can do in the moment. Beyond that, yes Trump has somewhat made his own bed here. He's picked some shitty people without a doubt. And it's probably going to get worse, since I doubt most well-qualified people with integrity want anything to do with this admin. But that doesn't mean we should put up with bullshit like this, with what amounts to "court intrigue." That's something that should be rooted out and eliminated imo, regardless of who is President.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 6, 2018 8:52:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Sept 6, 2018 9:10:12 GMT -5
Sorry, didn’t mean to offend. I’m well aware no one is ever obliged to read or respond here.
I’m pretty much in agreement with Rob, except on one point: no newspaper should be expected to give up an anonymous source or,in this case, writer. I’m surprised to see that even suggested, that’s not a door I’d ever want to see opened.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 6, 2018 9:18:45 GMT -5
Well, I think there's a bit of a difference between "anonymous source" and "anonymous writer." I'm not sure how the NYT went about vetting the writer's claims, especially since there's a lack of specifics with regard to what the writer has done as a part of this inner "resistance." I don't think the NYT can be forced to reveal who the writer is, to be sure, but I don't object to the question being asked at all, especially given the Russian cloud that is still hanging around. And who knows, Mueller may know exactly who this writer is, if they're working in intelligence or foreign affairs.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 6, 2018 9:32:45 GMT -5
Well, you can ask a paper to give up its source, but I can't imagine them doing so without a court order. And without evidence that this person has done anything illegal (being insubordinate is not illegal, unless you're in the military), I don't think any court would do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 11:33:40 GMT -5
Well, you can ask a paper to give up its source, but I can't imagine them doing so without a court order. And without evidence that this person has done anything illegal (being insubordinate is not illegal, unless you're in the military), I don't think any court would do so. I am pretty confident no court would do so either -- unless we do indeed become an authoritarian regime. The NY Times knows who the guy is. What he is saying is consistent with what is apparently in Woodward's book (and Wolfe's, and Omarossa's...). And seriously, Rob -- do you doubt this is happening? It's what I've suspected all along. Indeed, I believe it's what certain of Trump's supporters have been hoping is what's going on (not the alt-right base, but the "But Gorsuch!" crowd). The problem is, that's simply not the way it is supposed to work. We are not supposed to have a crazypants POTUS with an unelected shadow government trying to restrain him and steer policy. But blindly following orders by the POTUS that you know are wrong and extremely detrimental to the country -- especially when the other advisers agree -- that's also not the way it is supposed to work. And forcing the free press to "turn over" sources to the government is most certainly not the way it is supposed to work. What is supposed to happen -- what I hope WILL happen -- is that those advisers speak out openly, resign, take legitimate constitutional steps to restrain this POTUS.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 6, 2018 13:32:43 GMT -5
And seriously, Rob -- do you doubt this is happening? It's what I've suspected all along. Indeed, I believe it's what certain of Trump's supporters have been hoping is what's going on (not the alt-right base, but the "But Gorsuch!" crowd). Where did I say I doubted it was happening?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 6, 2018 18:02:12 GMT -5
Beyond that, yes Trump has somewhat made his own bed here. He's picked some shitty people without a doubt. He's made his own bed for another reason, IMO. Note Trump's reaction to Bob Woodward. His book is full of lies and phony sources, according to Trump. And that's been Trump's take on most things in the media, including the NYT specifically. And yet now, in the case of this op-ed piece, Trump wants the NYT to reveal the identity of the writer. How does he know the writer is really a member of the administration? How does he know the NYT didn't just write the whole thing themselves and use a false attribution? Maybe you or I don't think that's what happened, but why should Trump get to act like the NYT has suddenly morphed into the world's most reliable paper just because it suits him to rage about this op-ed piece? Trump looks a lot like the boy who cried wolf here, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Sept 6, 2018 18:20:56 GMT -5
In point of fact, you have no idea what the writer has done or hasn't done (fyi, I don't for a minute believe there's anything phony about this story). Again, people in the admin--in the executive branch--have a duty to carry out the orders they receive, a duty to do what the President tells them. Failing to do so may or may not break specific laws, but if the person in question is working in the intelligence community or as State, there are legitimate national security concerns, imo. And again, I think that if this was anyone but Trump, people would have no trouble seeing that. Maybe because Trump himself is a much greater national security issue (which I think this Op-Ed and excerpts from Woodward's book confirm)? I think this isn't "thwarting an agenda" so much as trying to mitigate damage from an impulsive, narcissistic, amoral asshole. Unless they're lying. You seem to do this a lot -- string up hypotheticals like "what if they did it to Obama" in response to legitimate concerns about Trump's mental fitness for office. As if it's totally reasonable that people might question Obama's mental fitness for office. As if Obama or HRC or any other number of Democrats might have publicly, consistently exhibited the sort of behavior that Trump does. You chalk it up to partisanship. You don't seem to see Trump as the catastrophic shitshow that he is. Thought exercise. Replace Hitler with Trump. (Yes, I'm godwinning.) Outside of that, if what the anonymous source is saying is the truth, I don't see why it's bullshit. It's almost like you're saying failures in our government shouldn't be reported anonymously, ever. I also find it odd to blame Trump for picking shitty people. Isn't it just as likely that the people he picked have become increasingly horrified by his behavior?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 6, 2018 20:48:39 GMT -5
You don't seem to see Trump as the catastrophic shitshow that he is. I do see Trump for the shit show that he is. I just don't think it's a good idea to rip apart the government as a means of dealing with him. 1) I don't follow on the thought exercise. 2) This is someone reporting failures, it's someone in the admin saying they'e actively working against the President. That's unacceptable imo. If the President was breaking laws, that would be one thing (and then the person should be coming forward with the specifics). But that's not what's being alleged by this anonymous writer. 3) You find it odd to blame Trump for picking bad people? I find that difficult to fathom.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 6, 2018 21:16:45 GMT -5
But "turn him/her over to the Government?" The writer did not break the law, as far as I can see. This wasn't a revelation of top-secret info. (I doubt many of us are even very surprised, frankly--it's confirmation of what I suspected.) And the NY Times has no obligation to reveal the source. It's on Trump again for being who he is and selecting the people he did. In point of fact, you have no idea what the writer has done or hasn't done (fyi, I don't for a minute believe there's anything phony about this story). Again, people in the admin--in the executive branch--have a duty to carry out the orders they receive, a duty to do what the President tells them. Failing to do so may or may not break specific laws, but if the person in question is working in the intelligence community or as State, there are legitimate national security concerns, imo. And again, I think that if this was anyone but Trump, people would have no trouble seeing that. If someone wrote an anonymous op-ed during, say, the Obama admin and confessed to be actively trying to "thwart" any part of the admin's agenda, there'd be a whole different level of outrage. And people would--rightly--be concerned about where, exactly, such a person was situated, if for instance they were protecting the interests of some other power--like Israel--by undermining things the admin was doing or trying to do. This is such a false comparison. The Obama Administration may have gotten a little too happy with the executive orders, but then they faced a stonewall in a Republican Senate and House that were such committed obstructionists they refused to allow Obama to exercise his Constitutional right to fill judicial vacancies in order to hold those seats open for a Republican to nominate judges more to their liking. Something I'm sure you were outraged about as much as I was. There has been plenty of outage about the anonymous "senior official" stabbing his boss in the back. You don't have to like Trump to be greatly disturbed by the admission of an unelected bureaucrat gleefully admitting how they are subverting their boss's agenda. Now it's a bad agenda, but as a presidential historian said on NPR such an act of betrayal is essentially a shadow coup.
I am not reassured by the supposed adult in the room telling us, "Everything is under control." Who's watching the watchman?
What has brought the country to this are the words and deeds and actions of a man who demonstrates time and again he has no business being in the Oval Office. Trump has loyalty to no one, so why should he expect to receive any? This act of betrayal is largely a case of the chickens coming home to roost. Trump has put shit into the universe and the shit is coming back on him and piling up.
There is nothing "treasonous" about taking shit about your boss, so cancel that noise. The Times would lose all their credibility if they were to out their source and I have no doubt they would take it all the way to the Supreme Court before they did.
The guy or gal who ratted out Trump is only half the problem. The other half is Trump is so lousy at his job that he created the environment for this sort of Judas behavior to exist and thrive.
If this is bullshit, it's bullshit a minority of American voters chose in 2016. They get what they give.
Other presidents didn't behave like *45. Other presidents don't inspire this sort of treachery and back-stabbing. By the way, let's go back to you bringing up treason. What's really treasonous is if the Christopher Steele dossier isn't lurid trash and the Russians really have compromised Trump and he colluded with them to become their asset in the Oval Office. This is why his former lawyer, John Dowd advised Trump not to talk to Robert Mueller or he'd end up in a orange jumpsuit.
Trump likes orange. His skin is orange already so why not an outfit to match?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 21:20:18 GMT -5
As I've already said, I think this person and his colleagues need to speak up openly.
But I don't think the president needs to be doing something illegal for it to be incompetent, idiotic, hugely detrimental and even dangerous for the country. Aides shouldn't silently twiddle their thumbs and follow orders in that event, IMO. I'm not sorry if the "resistance" in the White House stopped some disastrous event. The thing is, they should then be raising concerns openly. An incompetent, dangerous president should be removed.
One thing that has occurred to me, though -- to whom exactly, in this absurd shitshow, would a whistleblower blow that whistle? Who is going to do something in our joke of a current government?
Someone in the White House? Well, yeah clearly they know already, and are doing the shadow government thing. Congress? The Senate? Pfft. Ben Sasse's comment on the op-ed was that they'd been hearing stories like this on average three times a week. They know; they just aren't acting. Until Dems get control of at least the House or Senate, there is no one for a whistleblower to go to...
...except, perhaps, the American people. We can scream to our reps. We can make our voices heard in the voting booth. We might be the savior we need.
I've been mulling over this op-ed writer's motives over this last day, and I'm not entirely sure I'm quite as inclined to throw rocks as I was. I dunno--I'm still not sure what this person's motives are. But I do know things are batshit. And IMO, we need to push our reps to act, and vote in people who will do so. Perhaps that was the motive--to wake complacent people up so we'll demand our reps act.
|
|