Dan Coats is a good pick for the driveling propaganda piece in the NYT

[bigtree]

...that's who Lawrence O'Donnell just reasoned out as the author. Coats is a a self-righteous, conservative prick who can't get his full fundie-capitalist vibe going with the man-baby nutcase in the WH.

The author of this self-aggrandizing screed, and his cohorts in the WH are a step away from treason, however hilarious it is for Trump to be screaming it in all-caps on twitter. It's not doing democracy any favors for an unaccountable group of self-appointed patriots to be deciding what the product of this presidency will be on a daily or long-term basis.

Who's agenda are they actually serving? Is Coats anywhere close to a position in government that he can credibly serve as the arbiter of this president's decisions? It's clear this insider group the author of the propaganda piece cites is working to advantage their conservative wish list. That's not patriotism, it's rank partisanship which seeks to obscure WH malfeasance and criminal behavior. They're propping up Trump like a puppet in a bizarre type of piggyback onto Putin's coup.

As enticing a prospect as this may seem for those of us who wish Trump would just drop dead, this rebel clan's subversion portends to be a serious breach of the trust of the American people, not to mention a breach of the Constitution.

This is no way for the presidency to operate. If the government is being led by a madman, then it is the responsibility of those with evidence of this to publicly report their concerns to Congress. There is no provision or clause in the Constitution for babysitting, or co-opting his decision-making. If he's unfit, they need to disengage from his service and seek to remove him from office. Nothing short of that is acceptable.

[NCTraveler]

1. I think it would be sedition.

Well said.

[olegramps]

17. Is this the kind of stuff that revolutions are made from?

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

Everyone's at risk of thinking this is another episode in the reality tv series The Donald Trump as POTUS show. It's not - it's fucking serious.

This is no way for the presidency to operate. If the government is being led by a madman, then it is the responsibility of those with evidence of this to publicly report their concerns to Congress. There is no provision or clause in the Constitution for babysitting, or co-opting his decision-making. If he's unfit, they need to disengage from his service and seek to remove him from office. Nothing short of that is acceptable.

very nicely stated

[dchill]

3. K&R.

[elleng]

4. Sorry to disagree, dear bt,

but I suspect the OP was written and published to BEGIN the 25 AMD process.

I sure hope it works, helps encourage members of congress seriously to consider the issues we're facing and for repugs to 'come out.'

[bigtree]

5. I thought the reference to his diminished mental health was a self-serving excuse for their actions

...and a brazen assertion of assumed power which is Congress' alone to ultimately interrupt or cut off.

[Cosmocat]

12. That makes no sense

First off, these clowns don't have the balls to do it. 2nd, they aren't competent enough to do it.

If they were, they wouldn't be public about it, they would be quietly going about their business of getting all the ducks in order to do it. The moment you go public with something like this, it makes it even harder than it would be to begin with.

[Honeycombe8]

23. I think the opposite. I think he went public because the private pleas were unsuccessful.

He, on behalf of the group maybe, let the country know the truth that the public suspected. The group did so because they had tried telling those in power in Congress, and nothing was done. And nothing was going to be done.

So they decided to sound the alarm, for someone to do something, if they can.

Is it also self-serving? Maybe. But I think quitting and then sounding the alarm bell would've been the worst thing to do. He would have told all, and it would have been forgotten in a week, as we all moved on to other crises. He already knows Congress won't do anything. Or wouldn't in the past. But maybe with the information out there, maybe Congress could be pushed to move.

And with the mid-terms looming, and a Blue Wave coming, he may not have wanted to wait until the new people get seated. He may have wanted everyone to know up front that something must be done. Or it really WOULD have looked like he was trying to save his own skin...what with Blue Waves coming into Congress, and maybe Mueller's report at the same time. It had to be now.

Maybe the thing with McCain...the flag and the disrespect...had something to do with it. Maybe something in particular happened. Something Trump did that was especially dangerous.

We'll find out eventually, probably.

[Honeycombe8]

21. I agree with you.

The reason he didn't just resign and tell all to Congress and the public is....he's going to tell Congress? Why? They know, already. And the op-ed guy knows they won't do anything. He knows they're part of the crisis. In fact, but for THEM, there would be no constitutional crisis.

Then he'd make the talk show tour, telling his tales. He doesn't want to get into each and every thing that Trump has done. He gave a descriptive general picture that serves the purpose. 'Nuff said. But after he does the talk show circuit...that's it. There would be no action by Congress. Calls from the public will be ignored. Criticism of him would be heavy (like it is now), as if HE were the one responsible. He'd be accused of being a disgruntled official about to be fired.

Then it would be over, and the country would move on to the next big thing. Nothing would be done. And he'd be replaced by a newbie who wouldn't be able to do anything proactive while learning the job, or who wouldn't want to be proactive.

I agree with those who think it was a call to the country to do something. The country thought it, suspected it, some knew it. But now they really know what's going on. Do something.

And for all we know, the op-ed mystery guy DID tell people who could do something about it (or the group he's a part of - remember that he's not the only one), and they refused or failed to act. I think this is likely.

The important thing is that he did it. Unprecedented. He let the country know that the President is unbalanced and unfit, and to do something.

[elleng]

22. Right, get going on 25 Amendment,

as suggested by Senator Warren.

'Tell the cabinet: if Trump is unfit, invoke the 25th.'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016215102

[emulatorloo]

27. I agree with you. Trying to get congress to DO SOMETHING.

[elleng]

41. Yes, their JOB! Imagine THAT!

[populistdriven]

6. You can't spell Chaos without Chao

[Brogrizzly]

8. +1

[bigtree]

7. »

[Garrett78]

9. It's all about protecting the Republican Party brand and an attempt to remain in power.

There are 2 types of Republicans: sane assholes who are cowards and crazy assholes who are cowards. The former worry the latter will get in the way of their agenda.

[JI7]

10. disagree about Dan Coats. if it really is Coats i think he is doing it for the right reason

because in public he has been honest and not spewed the shit from people like kellyanne conway, John kelly and others there.

[Raine]

11. Agree, totally. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

13. THIS and particularly

this -

It's clear this insider group the author of the propaganda piece cites is working to advantage their conservative wish list. That's not patriotism, it's rank partisanship which seeks to obscure WH malfeasance and criminal behavior. They're propping up Trump like a puppet in a bizarre type of piggyback onto Putin's coup

.

You have 2 competing agendas - Putin's, which wants the U.S. to descend into chaos and essentially be removed from the international scene, and (as I will keep reminding folks via this video), Grover Norquist's -

They have a checklist they are going through, come hell or high water, that Norquist very clearly articulated, which included the tax cuts for the rich (and they have a 2nd round on their docket), budgets that essentially up-end the New Deal, rule after rule after rule related to the environment, worker safety, and union activity, are being systematically rolled back, immigrants are being rounded up and thrown out, and the Kavanaugh installation is a key one that wasn't prognosticated by Norquist, and will help to solidify GOP power by implementation of draconian laws that are designed to suppress women, minorities, unions, and non-European immigrants... and on and on.

[bigtree]

14. it is a hell of a checklist

...and it will be interesting to see just who is interested in rolling back their treachery when we push republicans to the back of the line.

There's been a lot of economic opportunism carried out behind the republican's assault on our Treasury and laws that won't flip back with the ease they were dismantled.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Yeah this is going to be hard to remedy

and they know it - at least until we get to 2020 and can hopefully get a Democrat elected to the WH. Democrats always end up being the clean-up crew behind the mess the GOP makes, ultimately handing off a healthy economy and society BACK to the GOP after the GOP brainwashes the masses into thinking that only they can "make things better". They then rape and pillage and squander all of our hard work and good will, which results in a catastrophe, thus bringing us BACK into power once more under duress, forced to be "the meanies" to fix everything again.

[erronis]

18. Norquist has always been the most likely vector for infection and control

The rest of the grandiosities are easily swayed by a bit of money or some careful suggestions.

Rove and Gingrich were way too crass and upfront about their love of power. Delay was just stupid - like Nunes.

It amazes me how easily a large country (or corporation) can be quickly infected by self-serving maggots.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. Norquist has been at it for so long

that he was literally ground into their deepest psyches, going all the way back to Ray-gun. Of course where he loses credibility among the current crop of deplorables, is his choice of spouse.

[True Blue American]

20. Dan says," Nuhuh!"

[marble falls]

24. Regarding treason: Bullshit. Regarding sedition: Bullshit. Self serving: probably. So what?

[emulatorloo]

26. Agreed. Regarding treason: Bullshit. Regarding sedition: Bullshit

It is always annoying when DU’ers who should know better unconsciously buy into Trump’s garbage framing

[bigtree]

28. this is my OWN opinion

...suggesting this is something even influenced by Trump is a lazy way to disagree with what I wrote, and is a despicable personal attack.

So Trump believes his presidency should be suspended and he should be subjected to an examination of whether he's actually fit for office? Bowl me over with a feather. I had no idea.

(Talk about 'garbage framing.' Forget Trump, that's all on you, emulatorloo.)

and oh, sorry Elizabeth Warren, you're apparently also channeling Trump:

"If senior administration officials think the President of the United States is not able to do his job, then they should invoke the 25th Amendment," Warren told CNN. "The Constitution provides for a procedure whenever the Vice President and senior officials think the President can't do his job. It does not provide that senior officials go around the President -- take documents off his desk, write anonymous op-eds ... Everyone of these officials have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It's time for them to do their job."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/elizabeth-warren-25th-amendment/index.html

[emulatorloo]

29. Bottom line, Trump says it's "Treason." So do you.

I am not saying you are consciously or intentionally promoting Trump’s framing.

Nonetheless you are framing the editorial the same way Trump framed it.

You’ve done similar with false “Democrats in Disarray” narratives spread by the msm.

Again I don’t think in either of those cases it is intentional on your part.

All I know is that if I caught myself unconsciously echoing Trump talking points, I might step back and rethink things. Of course YMMV.

[bigtree]

30. did you have trouble reading?

...my bottom line is that Trump's presidency is suspended.

Reasonable people can disagree with whether staffers covering up a president's mental infirmity (and much more) in order to further their conservative agenda is a "step away from treason," as I wrote.

Really special to have someone apparently defending the actions of someone who admittedly "think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous," accuse me of channeling Trump.

By all means, let's cheer them on as they facilitate "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more" with their cover-up.

Hooray!

[emulatorloo]

31. Who is cheering the Republican agenda here? Nobody.

[bigtree]

32. but you've stepped all over me, a progressive Democrat

...to suggest these self-described conservative staffers, who admitted they "think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous," are some kind of heroes for propping up a mentally impaired president to further their conservative agenda.

That's why I asked if you had trouble reading. You took this conservative, excusing his rebel cabal for covering up Trump's unfitness in office, as some sort of savior, yet you accuse ME of buying into 'garbage framing.'

I don't know whether to laugh or just ignore you. I think I'll do both.

[emulatorloo]

33. I believe the writer is a savior? You're just making shit up now.

My point is similar to Marble Falls. As MF put it, you claiming this is treason or sedition is bullshit.

Link to tweet

Treason is aiding and abetting an enemy in time of war. We aren’t at war.

I took it further by noting it was bullshit when Trump said it, and it is sad when DU’ers unconsciously echo Trump talking points.

No one questions your progressive bonafides.

Ignore is probably best as you don’t argue in good faith. You could argue about how it really really really is Treason (even though it isn’t by definition), but you don’t do that.

Instead you fabricate nonsense implying I think the writer is “a savior" for promoting the Republican agenda.

As I noted before, if I caught myself unconsciously echoing Trump talking points, I might step back and rethink things.

Of course YMMV.

[bigtree]

34. well, then disagree, don't try to smear me

...my points have NOTHING to do with what Trump wants or has said.

It's clearly not his argument, and I haven't even used the word 'sedition.'

It looks like you're projecting some argument you have with someone else onto my op.

What's the point in all of that? Do you really think you're opposing Trump or this conservative traitor in the WH looking for redemption for his subversion when you take my words out of context and associate them with the president? Just unbelievable.

What the fuck? Are there any more words Trump has used that you think are out of bounds for use in an essay opposing him?

Back to ignoring you.

[emulatorloo]

35. Pretty sure your OP is about Dan Coats being "a step away from treason"

[bigtree]

36. you're defending Coats?

...Dan Coats? Friend of Dan Quayle? Endorsed Pence? Fundie Coats?

You object to a negative characterization of Dan Coats?

What the hell is that?

(you really do have trouble reading. sad.)

"This is no way for the presidency to operate. If the government is being led by a madman, then it is the responsibility of those with evidence of this to publicly report their concerns to Congress. There is no provision or clause in the Constitution for babysitting, or co-opting his decision-making. If he's unfit, they need to disengage from his service and seek to remove him from office. Nothing short of that is acceptable."

[emulatorloo]

38. I am defending Coats? Making up stuff again I see. Here's the context:

You wrote:

“What the fuck? Are there any more words Trump has used that you think are out of bounds for use in an essay opposing him? ”

Your op is not as “essay opposing” Trump. Your essay is about Dan Coats, during which you echo Trump’s words that the op-ed etc are Treason.

Please stop fabricating nonsense like my alleged support for Dan Quayle.

[emulatorloo]

37. I am not trying to smear you. I said your echoing of trump is inadvertent, unconscious

[bigtree]

39. trump said treason, I said treason

....nothing else.

This is dirt dumb. Believe what you want.

[emulatorloo]

40. If I caught myself unconsciously echoing Trump talking points, I might step back and rethink things

That’s the bottom line for me. YMMV.

“trump said treason, I said treason” And in both instances it is bs.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Anonymous Op-Eds in the NYT by Trump staffers don’t fit the legal definition of treason.

[bigtree]

44. the actions described by the author of the op-ed are a step away from treason

...nowhere do I say that writing an op-ed is treason.

That's your own projection.

trea·son [ˈtrēzən]

the crime of betraying one's country...

I don't put it past anyone willing to serve under this man. He's surrounded by sycophants, criminals, and con men. The republic is not only in danger from Trump, it's also in danger of our democracy undermined by people close to the president manipulating him and taking advantage of his mental infirmity to further their own partisan agenda - in this case it's a right wing agenda being hawked by this author as if that's something worth propping up a mentally unstable president.

You have seriously misread my few paragraphs and projected something not even discussed by me into your objections. Nowhere do I call writing an op-ed treason.

[BlueWI]

25. +1000

Take off the partisan hats, put on the grown up pants, and step up for the sake of democracy.

There is no other choice. The fence sitting on everyone's part has got to go. The national crisis continues until brave people start the hearings, increase the number of personal off the record meetings, and any other legal strategy.

[Scurrilous]

42. K&R