I think it's disgusting. The person (assuming it's not a hoax) can claim later they were 99% complicit and not 100%. Selfish. Meaningless. Attention seeking. Another day, another palace intrigue. #Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, ...

No need for forensics.

It is illegal for the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant. And that is exactly what they will do to figure out who has been in contact with the Times.

That is probably already underway.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
No need for forensics.

It is illegal for the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant. And that is exactly what they will do to figure out who has been in contact with the Times.

That is probably already underway.

Trump is claiming it's a national security risk. That will be his justification. FISA warrants, anyone?

All of pop culture and the MSM would be screaming about security risks (and, of course, treason) under an administration they liked.

Of course you think so. Easy equivalence helps many people sleep at night.

Are you saying you wouldn't be talking about national security and treason if such a letter was written under an administration you liked?

"Administrations I like" is a function of what they do, and the character of the people in charge. I would not "like" an administration that was as dysfunctional as this one. I would not "like" an administration headed by a person with this set of traits (pathological dishonesty, narcissism, racism, unfathomable ignorance). Heck, I never voted for Bill Clinton and he only had two of those traits, and in less virulent form than the current occupant of the White House.

If you're going to throw around words like "treason", you'd better look at the definition first.

quote:

the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

Let's take it piece by piece.

betraying one's country -- nope. The avowed purpose of the author is in service of the country. To reach this conclusion, of course, you have to remember that the President's interest is not equivalent to the country's interest. He may have been betraying the President, but betrayal of the President is not treason.

attempting to kill the sovereign -- nope.

attempting to overthrow the government -- nope. The author was talking about using constitutional mechanisms to remove the President. That is not an overthrow, except under hyperbolic, spittle-spraying interpretations.

So, in summary, perhaps you are using language sloppily, and carelessly. Or maybe you're just reaching for inappropriate hyperbolic language for some other purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by Horace:
All of pop culture and the MSM would be screaming about security risks (and, of course, treason) under an administration they liked.

Possibly. Maybe even probably.

Except that in the present case it's the *president* who's screaming that stuff.

That's a huge difference.

quote:

Originally posted by well-tempered gardener:

quote:

Originally posted by Horace:
All of pop culture and the MSM would be screaming about security risks (and, of course, treason) under an administration they liked.

Possibly. Maybe even probably.

I think definitely. But I appreciate that you're willing to go as far as "probably".

quote:

Except that in the present case it's the *president* who's screaming that stuff.

That's a huge difference.

That's just a restatement of the fact that you don't like the guy who got elected. That's understood. At some point, you'll return to liking the guy or girl who got elected and you'll have these sorts of precedents to deal with.

Please do try to keep in mind that the fact that you like or dislike someone does not necessarily mean that they are objectively bad at being president.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Or maybe you're just reaching for inappropriate hyperbolic language for some other purpose.

yes please do try to disentangle my ulterior motives, it would be fascinating and I promise not to take offense, honestly.

You may agree with the actions he's taken vis a vis tax reform, regulatory oversight, etc. but that doesn't make him "good" any more than my disagreeing with those decisions makes him "bad".

And it also isn't a matter of "liking" or "hating" him with respect to how one perceives his personality, his decision-making processes, his interactions with the people around him, etc. One can objectively look at his behaviors and come to a conclusion that you do/don't believe that his behaviors are appropriate to the office he holds, or if he is temperamentally suited for the job.

"Good" and "bad" as descriptors are kind of meaningless. So are "hate" and "love". The whole discussion becomes rather pointless. You keep telling me that I hate him, and I keep telling you making a bad assumption. Just because I don't think he's fit for the job and I disagree with his policy decisions doesn't mean I hate him. I can't believe that you don't understand that, so I guess it comes down to that you think you know what I'm thinking better than I do.

I didn't use the word "hate" in my post. I claimed you did not like him. Are you denying that?

There's no shame in not liking Donald Trump, even from my own, ulterior motive infested perspective.

I wonder whether the op ed (importantly, run in the NYT) helps or hurts Trump politically. One would expect just such a letter if a swamp-drainer were to go to Washington. It plays that way all by itself, it doesn't need help from Trump.

Too bad it lacks specifics of what he would have done that he was stopped from doing. Now there's something human beings can really understand. As it was, it was a big nothing burger, about which people will think as they are programmed to think.

Horace, every time I've gotten into a discussion with you, either here or next door, it seems we ultimately end up in the same place, with you stating that I hate/dislike our current president and seemingly dismissing everything else I have to say.

You said "dislike" and I used "hate" instead. I have no trouble acknowledging that I used the wrong word in this thread; it was sloppy of me. My error.

On the other hand, I don't see how it changes the substance of what I said. We're talking about the intensity of the emotion. I'm making the point that it's not emotional for me, and I keep getting told that I feel "X".

As for the op-ed, I don't think we should be looking at the politics of who it is good/bad for. There are much more important things to be concerned about.

Despite how strongly I feel that Trump is completely unqualified to execute the duties of his office and can understand that members of his administration agree with that notion and are trying to protect the country from his worst impulses, the thing that bothers me the most is the notion of the palace coup that is apparently underway. This isn't how it's supposed to work.

But that brings us back around to who is in the Oval Office. His actions have dragged us (and based on the op-ed, "us" includes the people he himself selected to work with him and to be in his administration) into dangerous and uncharted waters. I'm not sure what the way out is.