Question about NYT Op-Ed

a reply to: norhoc

WOW! The right are the ones not operating within the confines of the constitution? The last I saw the right are the ones who won an election and are appointing nominees and doing things the way the constitution calls for and the left were the ones not accepting the outcomes and losing their collective Sh1t.

Sounds like Obama's administration summed up.

And if Trump seeks to treat this leak like Obama treated his, I'll dislike the two about the same... I still dislike Obama more.

a reply to: generik

and if such a person is taking things off of the President's desk

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

When has a resistance ever done this to what is on the President's desk?

It's almost like you didn't read the op-ed. You're conflating the op-ed with something that was alleged about Gary Cohn in Bob Woodward's book.

I think we can all agree that nobody should be removing things from any President's desk but nothing of the sort is mentioned anywhere. The only example given is about how Trump didn't really want to impose sanctions against Russia for the Skripal attack.

However, the fact remains that Trump *did* sign that order and he did so because it was politically necessary not because somebody forged his signature or handed him a document that said, "Sign here for unlimited Big Macs" in disappearing ink.

Now if you think what Gary Cohn is alleged to have done is "treason" then by all means, you should advocate an investigation but advocating that the admin should go after newspapers (again) to catch leakers, much less dissenting officials, is a terrible terrible idea.

a reply to: theantediluvian

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Sookiechacha


You need to look up the definition of treason, no enemy needs to be involved, see below. I would say stealing documents from the Oval Office desk is a betrayal of trust.

Definition of treason
1
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2
: the betrayal of a trust : treachery

www.merriam-webster.com...

So, Trump is also guilty of treason! And, it looks like Trump was guilty first!

a reply to: CriticalStinker



You keep dismissing what is happening and are being intentionally deceptive, this is not a simple leak situation, this is an attempted coup of an elected POTUS. but keep obfuscating things. I truly don't believe this is true evidenced by the fact that Trump's agenda is still happening. I truly believe this is fantasy/fiction written by the NYT

a reply to: Sookiechacha



How do figure? By winning an election and doing exactly what he said he was going to do in the campaign?

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: CriticalStinker



You keep dismissing what is happening and are being intentionally deceptive, this is not a simple leak situation, this is an attempted coup of an elected POTUS. but keep obfuscating things. I truly don't believe this is true evidenced by the fact that Trump's agenda is still happening. I truly believe this is fantasy/fiction written by the NYT

The op-ed said they supported his agenda but didn't like aspects. They said they tried to block those aspects but didn't detail how. They might have convinced him.

If you believe it was fantasy/fiction, then no one can be accused of treason (not that they could anyways).

a reply to: CriticalStinker


I do believe it was fiction, and, if real, Yes it is Treason no matter how many times you say it wasn't

a reply to: norhoc


No. By siding with Putin, against his own National Security team, at the Helsinki Press Conference, specifically. Speculatively, and worst case scenario, he and his team knowingly colluded with the Kremlin to steal DNC computer files and publish them through WikiLeaks, etc.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: CriticalStinker


I do believe it was fiction, and, if real, Yes it is Treason no matter how many times you say it wasn't

Well, if we're being honest, me and you don't decide what is and isn't treason. The courts do, so we'll see.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think you're battling hyperbole with hyperbole.

People have been throwing the term treason out loosely lately.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


God, the Russia thing with you guys. Their is ZERO evidence of that and a ton of evidence Hillary and her bunch were the ones doing the colluding through Ohr, Fusion, Steele Et al. And Trump did not side with Putin, if anything he has been a thorn in Putin's side when it comes to things like Syria. And it looks like Seth Rich was the DNC leaker to Wikileaks, and even Assange has said many many times Russia was not the source of the leaks. And it was your beloved Obama, that laughed at romney in 2012 when Romney said Russia was the number one threat to U.S. And Obama that said "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time." So which is it?

And to quote your beloved Obama “if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else, then you don’t have what it takes to be in this job, because there are times when things don’t go our way — or my way.”

“I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes,”

So you libs need to follow Obama's advice, stop whining and go win elections if you don't like it

a reply to: CriticalStinker


I don't use it lightly at all, I use it and the term coup very seriously

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: CriticalStinker


I don't use it lightly at all, I use it and the term coup very seriously

I know you're serious, doesn't mean it's not hyperbole.

I wouldn't be surprised if the government goes after NYT to get the source.

I wouldn't be surprised if the source gets fired.

No one will be convicted and charged of treason though, not for someone writing an op-ed, and rightfully so.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


You keep intentionally ignoring this is not just about someone writing an op-ed piece. If that is all this was, then you and I would be in 100% agreement.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think you're battling hyperbole with hyperbole.

People have been throwing the term treason out loosely lately.

I agree, but hyperbole is the proper weapon, I believe, in this case. If this is treason, then so was Trump's presser. In the case of Trump's pressure, aiding and providing comfort to the enemy is there, as well as the breach of trust. Heck, if it's just about breach of trust of the American people, everytine Trump lies it's treason!

Hyperbole? Indeed!

a reply to: Sookiechacha


OK, I am done, You liberals are just so set in your emotional ways and too dense to get through to, their is no point even debating with a liberal honestly. Peace Out.

originally posted by: japhrimu
I have a question...

IF the author of the Op-Ed is in fact a “senior official,” isn’t the Op-Ed an official document that needs to be catalogued by the government for records? And if this is the case, the identity of the author would then need to be confirmed, whether the president says so, or not?

Seems to me, BECAUSE the anonymous author claimed to be a “senior official,” and the NYT chose to publish it (not just using an unidentified source), I would think the NYT LEGALLY has to cooperate...

I could be way off base, which is why I’m asking.

The discussion has drifted way off the question that formed the basis of the original post. I worked for the Federal Government for 35 years or so and we would get annual refresher briefings on rights and responsibilities, what is protected and what is not, etc.

The answer is that government officials have to obey all the regulations regarding preservation of official records when they are on the job and creating communications for official purposes as part of their job. When they are off duty, and not conducting any official business, they have the same first amendment rights as everyone else. Anonymous speech is specifically protected by various court interpretations of the first amendment.

So no, the NYT editorial is not an official document just because it was written by someone who claims that his day job is as a senior administration official.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Haha, fair enough. I admire honesty, so props.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Thank you.