Conspiracy against Trump from within the White House - Story from an active Resistance insider?

Why is Snowden considered a hero in exile while whomever wrote this is a treasonous bastard?

a reply to: intrepid

Because he admitted to subverting democracy and constitutionally mandated authority.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: intrepid

Because he admitted to subverting democracy and constitutionally mandated authority.

Admittedly I'm still catching up on this so what do you mean by that?

originally posted by: intrepid
Why is Snowden considered a hero in exile while whomever wrote this is a treasonous bastard?

Snowden uncovered a crime and went public.

This unknown person, if they exist, has admitted to actively slowing down or stopping the President running the Executive branch as he was elected to do. Unless he is whistleblowing on a crime, all this amounts to is an individual (or individuals) who didn't like the election result and don't like Trump's style, therefore they think they have the right to try and take the reigns of the Executive decision making for themselves.

This is one case where literally no one should be cheering.

The Deep State that people feared existed in the US govt, making a mockery of democracy, actually does exist and are brazen enough to tell the world. Citizens should be up in arms - from both sides of the political spectrum - to root out these b'stards.

If you lose the peaceful transfer of power, you are really lost for good.
This is what you get when you let a radical like Obama in the Whitehouse for 8 years. After 40+ peaceful transfers of power, with only minor niggles and some pettiness, Obama comes along and his transfer of power is all out war on the next administration.

originally posted by: Zoyd23
Trump's white house has been riddled with people working against him from the start. Personally, I've never seen anything like it, and wonder how all these bad actors remain working in his administration.

Trump told us he hires "the best people!!!"

Did he lie? Or did he accidentally get it right to his own detriment?

My guess is a mix of both.

The WH attracts patriots, with the exception of Trump and people like him of course.

Trump lacks the capacity to engender loyalty because he is loyal to no one but himself.

Trump lacks the capacity to make rational decisions in the best interest of this country, so it is natural that those around him would work to moderate or redirect his irrational and dangerous impulses.

Either way, any outrage at this begins with an admission that Trump is apparently REALLY, REALLY bad at hiring "the best people" by his supporters standards and he is uniquely gullible, easily manipulated, incapable of engendering loyalty and is near perfectly feckless leader.

Apparently the only successes Trump has had by right wing standards like deregulation or the tax bill passed by congress, were clearly driven by "steady state" republican insiders.

"Useful Idiot" seems to be his value proposition to the GOP, while "Dangerous Idiot" seems to be the concern of the Democrats. Either way, it is hard to escape the fact that a whole lot of people, from the inner halls of the WH to average American, agree an idiot occupies the WH.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: intrepid

Because he admitted to subverting democracy and constitutionally mandated authority.

How precisely?

I can't imagine any scenario that matters that doesn't involve Trump being dangerously gullible to suggestion.

We can not classify advice from advisors as Treason, even if coordinated, as is often the case.

If Trump, with all the authority of President of the United States, the highest office in the land, lacks the capacity to implement policy or actions that are important to him, then he is immeasurably incompetent.

If he is incapable of holding an idea in his mind long enough to see it through to a conclusion or policy, then perhaps the idea was not an important one in the first place.

If he is unable to convince those around him, whom he personally chose and appointed, that an idea is good and to carry it out, then perhaps the idea was not good? If he disagrees, then he can direct them to make it happen regardless of their views.

I find it ridiculous that people explain Trump's apparent incompetence, inability to lead, inability to engender loyalty, his apparent ease of being manipulated or talked out of an idea, as treason by his own hand picked officials and advisors doing their job.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Because no one voted for this guy or his agenda. As a matter of fact, they voted for the agenda he admitted to "frustrating". Because we do not know him, because he elected himself and his resistance cabal behind people's backs, he is unaccountable to the American people. Do you see the danger in this?

a reply to: NiNjABackflip


I think the real problem is in the anonymity. You want to be a patriot? Don't go anonymous. Have a grievance? Talk about it like a man.

Whatever is learned, it will just make Donald Trump's presidency stronger, and even more effective. Even the dullest minds can comprehend that truth, based on his history as President.

originally posted by: carewemust
Whatever is learned, it will just make Donald Trump's presidency stronger, and even more effective. Even the dullest minds can comprehend that truth, based on his history as President.

I suppose every strong President "goes Volcanic" in their own house? Good point.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: soberbacchus

Because no one voted for this guy or his agenda.

No one voted for ANY of Trump's appointees. Trump chose them, GOP in congress approved some of them, but that is how it works.

As a matter of fact, they voted for the agenda he admitted to "frustrating".

How is "he" (the author) achieving this "frustrating" of agenda?

Because we do not know him, because he elected himself and his resistance cabal behind people's backs, he is unaccountable to the American people. Do you see the danger in this?

I see the danger in the idea where Officials the President chose and appointed to give him guidance and advice are labeled traitors when that guidance and advice does not agree with the President.

The Presidency is the most powerful office in the land. Any limitations placed on the President's agenda come via the Constitution and Balance of Powers.

If some official that the President himself chose and appointed is able to convince the President an idea is bad, then that is the President's final choice, not the advisor or officials. If your argument is that the President is easily manipulated, then he has no business being President.

If some official that the President chose and appointed is not carrying out the President's directives, then the President can fire them. If your argument is that the President might lack the capacity to remember his directives day to day or moment to moment, then again, he lacks the capacity to serve as President.

There is no scenario I can imagine where this author is guilty of anything that does not include the admission that the President of The United States lacks the capacity to serve in critical and fundamental ways.

Essentially this appears a competition around who gets to make the "idiot" occupying the WH do as they please.

I am more concerned with the fact that an idiot occupies the WH, which is of course the larger issue.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


I think the real problem is in the anonymity. You want to be a patriot? Don't go anonymous. Have a grievance? Talk about it like a man.

More to the point.

Whoever wrote this knew, better than most, it would only enrage the President and exasperate his paranoia.

The proposition that hearing the President's cabinet entertained the 25th amendment would serve as some kind of "comfort" to the public is just stupid.

I don't doubt the veracity of the Op-Ed.
I do doubt it's motive though.

This has gone full-on game of thrones IMO.

a reply to: soberbacchus

No one voted for ANY of Trump's appointees. Trump chose them, GOP in congress approved some of them, but that is how it works.

None of that gives these appointees the right or duty to replace Trump's agenda with their own.

How is "he" achieving this?

Woodwards book stated how Cohn, a registered democrat, surreptitiously stole papers off Trump's desk. I imagine actions such as these is what he is talking about.

I am more concerned with the fact that an idiot occupies the WH, which is of course the larger issue.

Do the right thing and vote him out. Do not destroy the democratic institutions of the country while at the same time pretending you're defending them.

originally posted by: carewemust
Whatever is learned, it will just make Donald Trump's presidency stronger, and even more effective. Even the dullest minds can comprehend that truth, based on his history as President.

A strong and effective President must be credible to his staff, his officials and the American People.

That is pretty much the definition.

I think you are confusing a President with a Dictator.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


I think the real problem is in the anonymity. You want to be a patriot? Don't go anonymous. Have a grievance? Talk about it like a man.

Was Deep Throat not a patriot?

a reply to: carewemust

Get you black dress out.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: soberbacchus


Woodwards book stated how Cohn, a registered democrat, surreptitiously stole papers off Trump's desk. I imagine actions such as these is what he is talking about.

So you believe Woodward's book?

FWIW: If Gary Cohn did such a thing, he should be fired. He can complain, resign, confront etc. but if you are stealing papers off your bosses desk like a weasel you aren't walking the straight path.

What strikes me there though, if it was such an important document and decision to Trump, why did he not ask what happened to it? Ask for another copy? Follow up on that policy?

It casts an image of a President that can't even remember what he asked for from one day until the next.

To steal a document off of the President's desk that was about to be signed and the policy just disappears?
That might speak to the larger issue of the President's capacity to hold a thought or how much thought goes into his decisions.

Do the right thing and vote him out. Do not destroy the democratic institutions of the country while at the same time pretending you're defending them.

Curious how this author is destroying Democratic Institutions? More so in the context of Trump himself.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


I think the real problem is in the anonymity. You want to be a patriot? Don't go anonymous. Have a grievance? Talk about it like a man.

That's right. People are going to pretend this guy is a like whistleblower, as if he was detailing some injustice, rather than someone admitting to surreptitiously subverting the president's agenda. He should have resigned, made his case, and invoked the institutions of government if he felt like it was necessary.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
None of that gives these appointees the right or duty to replace Trump's agenda with their own.

You're right. There is a constitutional process to remove a bad president. It has not been invoked:
"Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis."

Define a 'constitutional crisis''. If the Cheeto Benito is worthy of subverting, then he is worthy of removal by legal means. If they don't go for it, it is either fear of failure or fear of alienating Trumpkins before a critical election.

My bottom line is that as newsworthy as the op-ed is...it is also describes a cowardly process. Quite likely illegal, as well.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So you believe Woodward's book?

FWIW: If Gary Cohn did such a thing, he should be fired. He can complain, resign, confront etc. but if you are stealing papers off your bosses desk like a weasel you aren't walking the straight path.

What strikes me there though, if it was such an important document and decision to Trump, why did he not ask what happened to it? Ask for another copy? Follow up on that policy?

It casts an image of a President that can't even remember what he asked for from one day until the next.

To steal a document off of the President's desk that was about to be signed and the policy just disappears?
That might speak to the larger issue of the President's capacity to hold a thought or how much thought goes into his decisions.

Would you notice one paper missing from this desk? If so, you're superhuman. But I wager this angle is just another excuse to question Trump's competence, all without evidence.

Curious how this author is destroying Democratic Institutions? More so in the context of Trump himself.

He is unnamed and unaccountable to congress and the people. The people elected Donald Trump, his agenda, not this person and his.