For those who haven't heard, there is apparently a high level person in the Trump administration who considers themselves part of the "resistance". They've outed themselves rather stupidly by writing an anonymous article for the New York Times. I've been debating this all day and here's what's been on my mind.
First, I think in all honesty, this person needs to be considered a traitor to the United States. Take Trump out of the equation and I think you can see why. Not only is this person openly bragging about undermining the President of the United States, but they are apparently revealing information that is normally considered confidential and covered by Executive privilege. If this had happened under FDR, I guarantee you that this person would have been shot as an enemy agent. We don't quite have that environment today, but the effect is, in essence, the same. I would recommend that Trump engage the FBI to find this person and prosecute them.
Secondly, I think this will backfire on the left. They are enjoying it right now, and Trump supporters are in shock, but as the shock of this clears, Trump supporters and those on the fence (1) will find this to be a violation of trust that will make them sympathetic to Trump, (2) may become a basis for explaining away many of the problems Trump has faced -- stories of chaos, for example, and will justify Trump's more paranoid moments, and (3) makes the left (anti-Trumps included) seem like they are willing to destroy our government just to spite Trump; that won't play well with the public who don't like their institutions used for personal vendettas.
Third, on this third point, I've noticed for some time now that the left/anti-Trumps seem to be making this strange argument where they cause chaos and then they claim that the chaos is proof that Trump needs to go. It's like they are arguing, Trump makes me do bad things so he needs to go so I can stop doing bad things. I'm seeing this argument in many forms of late and I don't think it's going to sit well with the public. You can't be the problem and then blame someone else for making you want to be the problem so you can hurt them. That's the kind of garbage serial killers argue.
Fourth, these things seem to be helping Trump's popularity. Trump's popularity tends to be drifting up actually with only minor blips when the establishment GOP wing tries to destroy him. The more the Democrats attack, the higher his numbers go. Things like this seem to be driving that. We won't know until the McCain wing wears out this latest attack, but I think Trump will be around 50% come November.
We'll see how this goes, but I'd bet that they find this mole fairly quickly, he turns out to be not nearly as highly placed as assumed, he will have links to the Democrats, and he will go to jail.
First, I think in all honesty, this person needs to be considered a traitor to the United States. Take Trump out of the equation and I think you can see why. Not only is this person openly bragging about undermining the President of the United States, but they are apparently revealing information that is normally considered confidential and covered by Executive privilege. If this had happened under FDR, I guarantee you that this person would have been shot as an enemy agent. We don't quite have that environment today, but the effect is, in essence, the same. I would recommend that Trump engage the FBI to find this person and prosecute them.
Secondly, I think this will backfire on the left. They are enjoying it right now, and Trump supporters are in shock, but as the shock of this clears, Trump supporters and those on the fence (1) will find this to be a violation of trust that will make them sympathetic to Trump, (2) may become a basis for explaining away many of the problems Trump has faced -- stories of chaos, for example, and will justify Trump's more paranoid moments, and (3) makes the left (anti-Trumps included) seem like they are willing to destroy our government just to spite Trump; that won't play well with the public who don't like their institutions used for personal vendettas.
Third, on this third point, I've noticed for some time now that the left/anti-Trumps seem to be making this strange argument where they cause chaos and then they claim that the chaos is proof that Trump needs to go. It's like they are arguing, Trump makes me do bad things so he needs to go so I can stop doing bad things. I'm seeing this argument in many forms of late and I don't think it's going to sit well with the public. You can't be the problem and then blame someone else for making you want to be the problem so you can hurt them. That's the kind of garbage serial killers argue.
Fourth, these things seem to be helping Trump's popularity. Trump's popularity tends to be drifting up actually with only minor blips when the establishment GOP wing tries to destroy him. The more the Democrats attack, the higher his numbers go. Things like this seem to be driving that. We won't know until the McCain wing wears out this latest attack, but I think Trump will be around 50% come November.
We'll see how this goes, but I'd bet that they find this mole fairly quickly, he turns out to be not nearly as highly placed as assumed, he will have links to the Democrats, and he will go to jail.
16 comments:
Meh. I just read the op-ed, and it says nothing new, saying stuff that everyone (Trump's defenders and detractors and sometimes Trump himself) have said from the get-go, that Trump does what he wants when he wants and that he is really, really fond of Putin.
It means nothing and won't change anything. Someone in the Trump administration lacks ethics (they are leaking stuff which shouldn't be leaked) and should be fired and maybe go to jail, but none of those phenomena are new and will continue even after the writer has been fired or jailed or whatever.
Everyone in the Trump administration wants to be an anonymous source to the media when it suits their purposes (nods towards Trump's off the record comments to Bloomberg about Canada).
As for the op-ed helping Trump's popularity, I doubt it. Rasmussen (a poll Trump likes to cite because it frequently puts his approval over Obama's) indicates Trump has been trending downward and is at the same place Obama was at this time.
I agree attacks generally trigger a positive rally round the flag effect but I doubt the fact a man repeatedly chooses to surround himself with bootlickers, fools, incompetents, traitors, weaklings and the corrupt (and that's just to hear Trump tell it :)) helps his approval rating.
Don't get me wrong, I think like Clinton, Obama and Bush II Trump will win a second term. Not sure about the midterms. I tend to think the Dems will do well, but I doubt it will be a historic sweep.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_sep06
The FBI is inherently untrustworthy.
I'm going to take a little from column A and a little from column B.
I'm with Anthony that the op-ed is a pointless rehash of the same old complaints we've been hearing about Trump from before day one. "He's amoral, unprincipled, not a real conservative, petty, unpredictable, impulsive, fond of dictators, etc. etc. etc." From an informational standpoint, it reveals absolutely nothing. And without a name attached to it, it confirms none of the popular suspicions it catalogs.
Moreover, the piece is sloppy in the extreme. Josh Barro pointed to a strange thing to include in an anonymous essay. The author writes: "'There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,' a top official complained to me recently," about which Barro wonders if the "top official" remembers who he said this to.
I'm with Andrew that the op-ed is far more useful to Trump than damaging. If it is to be believed, it confirms the presence of a deep state by denying and renaming it. "This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state." The essay credits Trump with success in increasing prosperity, deregulation, tax reform, and military robustness, and alludes to more. It points out that, despite what the author considers a soft touch, Russia has been called out and sanctioned by the administration. What's more, it connects Trump's handling of Kim Jong-un—where most Americans see positive developments—to that of Vladimir Putin, affirming the different approach. Look again at the opening sentence: "President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader." One could be forgiven for thinking this is 3D chess when the op-ed aligns so much with Trump's message.
Whoever the author is, it's probably a disgruntled McCain fanboy. The brief paean to the late Senator near the end suggests that, as does it's the subtle nod to the 2008 McCain slogan "country first." The essay's frequent return to concerns about leadership style and civility was easily the "theme" of McCain's multiple funerals. As if to put too fine a point on it, after hand-wringing about Trump's impulsiveness and 25th Amendment concerns, the writer concludes that it's uncivil discourse that is the "bigger concern."
I could go on, but suffice it to say, the anonymous op-ed is nothing short of a joke. The author should be found out and fired for terrible writing alone.
The former Scold in Chief is at it again.
The former Scold in Chief? McCain's back??
LL, They do need a purge don't they.
Anthony, The danger here is that all the chaos that the MSM has accused Trump of overseeing will not be seen as being caused by a Trump enemy who has hidden himself in the administration.
tryanmax, I saw an interesting article which said that the biggest risk on this belongs to the Times. If this guy gets outed and he's no someone most people would consider senior, the Times will be seen as having made this story up to attack Trump. Essentially, their credibility will be imploded and all the other papers are ready to gang up on it.
Andrew, almost all the air in the room is going toward speculation about who the author might be. That tells me a couple of things: 1) No one even regards the essay as exposing some hot revelation, and 2) Whoever wrote it is going to be found out.
tryanmax, I think that's true.
Wanna bet that it's Woodward's source too?
I wouldn't bet against it.
I actually agree that the Times' credibility is on the line most. The recent books by Woodward (no relation) Omarosa, and the mini-editorial by Anon are a continuation of an unending meltdown by the left to overturn an election that has gone on since election day. Trump reacts to it the exact opposite to, say, a G.W. Bush. While his ego and tweeting is maddening, it may actually be the reason he won in the first place. Personally, I do not put much stock in the N.Y. Times, but they have been, for all of my life, the so called paper of record. In some ways, I actually admire Trump for taking them on. Nobody enjoys a taste of their own medicine, but the left is particularly unhappy with pushback.
On a slightly separate note, Obama bashed Trump for helping an increasingly divisive climate with a whiff of white nationalism setting back the "progress" made under his administration. Democrats typically need a high black voter turnout to win (note to Harris and Booker) as evidenced by Obama's re-election and Hillary's loss. Obama was a master at whipping up anger in the black community by sending a race baiter like Al Sharpton out to stir up the Ron Brown story. His condemnation of Trump in this regard is the height of hypocrisy
tryanmax, If it turns out this is some undersecretary of nothing, and he's the source behind a good chunk of the anti-Trump reports in the media, that will destroy the anti-Trump industry, who are already on thin ground.
They have really lost their way mixing deserved criticism with wild-ass criticism and citing unnamed "sources." This thing could discredit the whole enterprise.
Jed, I saw what Obama did. You know, when he ran in 2008, I was actually hopeful that he meant a return to the left of Kennedy and JFK. At the very least, I hoped he would calm down the black community and get them to focus on finally digging themselves out of the hole they've made for themselves. Instead, he took to race baiting. One day, I think history will damn him for that.
On the Times, the interesting thing seems to be that various fellow traveling leftists are distancing themselves from the Times on this. I think they are worried that the Times has really blown it and will go down in flames... taking down anyone who got to close.
As an aside, on the treason point, let me clarify this. It doesn't matter that this person hasn't cited specific instances yet where they released confidential information. What matters is that this person is basically, in a taunting way, saying that they are part of the "resistance" (i.e. an attempt to sabotage the administration through means other than normal democratic means, including criminal acts). If they are Woodward's source, there seem to be stolen memos. But even putting that aside, there is the threat of releasing confidential Executive material to undermine the Executive Branch. This is not whistleblowing, this is sabotage and, as such, is treason no matter who the Executive is.
Is it possible this is just made up by someone on the NY Times staff? I wouldn't put it past them...When Dan Rather was with CBS in Vietnam he paid soldiers to fire their weapons and make it look like he was in a battle...
Post a Comment