Anonymous Op-Ed from the NYT

[Starlight]

That's not treason. That's not even close to treason. Treason is very, very narrowly defined in US law--so narrowly, in fact, that in the current world where the United States is not in declared war with anyone, it's hard to actually commit treason even if you want to. It was deliberately defined narrowly to prevent the people in power from using it to take out opposition.

But, but, Trump said:

Source: Trump's tweeter machine

@realdonaldtrump, 5 Sept 2018:
TREASON?

© Copyright Original Source

And everyone knows Trump is never wrong, about anything.

the United States is not in declared war with anyone

It's my understanding that the US is still technically in a state of declared war with NK because after the Korean war the US senate never passed the resolution to end the declaration of war, and this came up recently as one of the bargaining chips on the negotiation table that Trump could offer Kim Jong Un.

Also, the US is somewhat obviously in a declared War on Terror given the 2001 AMUF still remains in effect and the US continues to fairly actively pursue military actions worldwide against those it loosely considers terrorist adjacent.

So, even given the narrower definition of Treason, given the US's declared War on Terror, how would you feel about if the President was negotiating for peace with a terror-supporting regime and a prominent US citizen wrote an open letter to that enemy regime saying essentially "you can't trust our country, we don't keep our deals, so don't make peace with us and don't sign my President's peace deal"? Does that fit your narrower definition of Treason? Cos I can remember an instance of that happening.

[Cow Poke]

But, but, Trump said:

Source: Trump's tweeter machine

@realdonaldtrump, 5 Sept 2018:
TREASON?

© Copyright Original Source

And everyone knows Trump is never wrong, about anything.

How many times do you have to be told - take Trump seriously, not literally.

[Starlight]

Two further possible motivations for the op-ed writer that I heard suggested today:

1. Distract from the Kavanaugh hearings. The writer timed his piece in order to flood mainstream media with discussion of the op-ed, because otherwise the focus would have been 100% on the Kavanaugh nomination which the Republican politicians were already well-aware was going to be problematic. (i.e. the documents showing Kavanaugh perjured himself on 4 occasions, and had been a Nixon-like operative receiving documents stolen from the Democrats by spies etc)

2. Concern about polling data showing the Republicans are hemorrhaging some very specific demographics (white educated people, especially educated white women) that they had traditionally held, and data showing these people tend to get their news from non-Fox News sources like NYT. So the NYT op-ed was thus targeting them to essentially say "you can still be a Republican and not like Donald Trump and what he's doing, and please please do vote Republican in the mid-terms even if you don't like Trump".

[One Bad Pig]

Two further possible motivations for the op-ed writer that I heard suggested today:

1. Distract from the Kavanaugh hearings. The writer timed his piece in order to flood mainstream media with discussion of the op-ed, because otherwise the focus would have been 100% on the Kavanaugh nomination which the Republican politicians were already well-aware was going to be problematic. (i.e. the documents showing Kavanaugh perjured himself on 4 occasions, and had been a Nixon-like operative receiving documents stolen from the Democrats by spies etc)

Wishful thinking. Kavanaugh is pretty much a done deal, and was going to be unless he stumbled badly over something.

2. Concern about polling data showing the Republicans are hemorrhaging some very specific demographics (white educated people, especially educated white women) that they had traditionally held, and data showing these people tend to get their news from non-Fox News sources like NYT. So the NYT op-ed was thus targeting them to essentially say "you can still be a Republican and not like Donald Trump and what he's doing, and please please do vote Republican in the mid-terms even if you don't like Trump".

NYT, publish something aiming to salvage Republican votes?

Y'all need to put down the crack pipes.

[lilpixieofterror]

Those few lines seem to be true to an extent that really concerns me.

My best guess is that this is simply rooted in the religious tradition in which some of us were taught not to trust our biology teacher, our geography teacher and to only trust science in the cases in which the conclusions were compliant with a Christian world view. It seems this approach has been taken to an extreme these days and the "we know better" way of thinking is the reason that so many people who lived in this bubble are so easily fooled by Trump, by their church leaders who lost integrity, by truth-is-not-truth-lawyers, Breitbart and you name it. It all fits into a story they heard before but now it has been taken to an extreme. This really concerns me because the "we know better" seems to end up in a complete contradiction even of the Christian ideas and ideals on which they claimed to know better so it is absolutely absurd and tragic. Let's hope they repent. I fear they wont.

[Tassman]

When you pick yourself back up, kindly provide evidence of Trump's alleged wrongdoing. Thanks.

The question of Trump's "wrongdoing" is being dealt with by the Mueller enquiry. The enquiry is a separate issue from what is at stake here, namely, Trump's fitness to govern. Multiple sources, most recently the Woodward book and the NY Times op ed, make it very clear that he isn't. He has shown himself to be ignorant, uncontrollable, unhinged undisciplined and a danger to the US and the world.

[Starlight]

Kavanaugh is pretty much a done deal, and was going to be unless he stumbled badly over something.

Given there is momentum building to impeach him from his current judicial position as a result of the perjury that has come to light, I think it would be interesting to see if there could be a push for impeachment from SCOTUS even after his confirmation.

NYT, publish something aiming to salvage Republican votes?

Do you understand that the op-ed writers motivations can be different from the NYT's motivations?

[lilpixieofterror]

The question of Trump's "wrongdoing" is being dealt with by the Mueller enquiry. The enquiry is a separate issue from what is at stake here, namely, Trump's fitness to govern. Multiple sources, most recently the Woodward book and the NY Times op ed, make it very clear that he isn't. He has shown himself to be ignorant, uncontrollable, unhinged undisciplined and a danger to the US and the world.

Because, unknown, unverified, sources that whisper what you want to hear and denials from the people these sources name is the best kind of evidence there is.

[carpedm9587]

Those aren't opposites. The modern "originalist" / "strict constitutionalist" is the most activist viewpoint of all because it advocates it's fine to burn and ignore all precedents and history in favor of whatever the modern judge on the court happens to get it into his head that the constitution really meant. So if a law has been considered constitutional by everyone in the US for the past 2 centuries and upheld by a hundred courts over that time, a "strict constitutionalist" might nonetheless decide tomorrow that no, it's actually totally unconstitutional because of their own reading of what the constitution / founding fathers really meant.

I was using the terms as they are commonly wielded, Star - not suggesting they are opposites. The true opposites, IMO, are the ones who believe the constitution has a literal interpretation intended by the founding fathers and should never deviate from that interpretation - versus the ones who believe that the constitution is a "living document" that has to be assessed against changes within society. The constitution is intentionally difficult to amend. In this age of extreme polarization, it is essentially impossible to amend. As a consequence, the judiciary has to assess new and unforeseen circumstances against the general intent of the document, so as to not leave the country hanging without a decision on an important legal issue. The judges that think this way tend to get labeled "judicial activists" and the ones who think the other way tend to get labeled "strict constitutionalists."

[Starlight]

The judges that think this way tend to get labeled "judicial activists" and the ones who think the other way tend to get labeled "strict constitutionalists."

My point is that those labels are themselves propaganda that conservatives use to hide the fact that they are promoting extreme judicial activism.

[Cow Poke]

My point is that those labels are themselves propaganda that conservatives use to hide the fact that they are promoting extreme judicial activism.

Says who?

[carpedm9587]

Haven't you been reading this thread? at least a couple of people have already supplied that information.

I have and they have not. What I have seen is instances where individuals within the NYT have managed to put something into publication bypassing the normal requirements/processes. In each case, they were reprimanded or fired, a retraction published, and an apology made. That some people continue to try to make hay with it after all that has been done is reprehensible, IMO, especially when we have outlets like Fox and Brietbart that truly promote false/misleading stories, and either never acknowledge them or do so grudgingly after days or weeks.

By disobeying the leader of the country?

Possibly. The leader is a person. The country is a much much larger concept. If we have a tension between the leader and the health of the country, patriotism requires resistance. If the president, tomorrow, were to order a nuclear strike against France, he/she should be resisted, even though they have the absolute authority to do so as the commander in chief. If there is any question about that resistance, it rests with Congress and or the courts to examine it and determine if it was just/legal.

I can see if he is issuing unconstitutional orders or illegal orders, but just because someone doesn't agree with him isn't good enough reason to disobey. It is insubordination at the very least and treason if if involves something to do with the running of the country.

The word "treason" is tossed around too lightly. It has a strict, formal meaning. It does not apply here.

The "winners" write the history books. But that doesn't excuse actively working against a duly elected President who is just doing things you don't like or agree with. The staffer is not the President. He was not elected.

It depends on what they are resisting. As the author noted, they are implementing many of the policies. But when the leader of the executive branch, which is empowered to enforce the laws, begins to call for the incarceration of independent citizens without due process of law...such actions should be resisted. They undermine the very principles on which this country functions.

No, he should be legally removed from office. First you have to prove he is evil or incompetent. They have jumped the gun on this.

In the best circumstances, yes. I agree. But that would require the GOP to grow a spine and hold Trump accountable for his actions and words. He has lied from the small to the large, and it is ignored. He has embraced despots and alienated allies, and it is ignored. He has inappropriately inserted himself in the functions of the DOJ, and it is ignored. He is potentially enriching himself via his office, and every effort to determine that this is or is not happening is resisted. Every impropriety is defended or dismissed or excused. There is no way constitutional way to remove this immoral, unscrupulous, unpredictable man from the office he holds so long as the republicans in congress fear him because of the sway he holds over the Republican electorate. So, until that changes, resist is the only option. But I DO think that more should be public in their comments to begin trying to turn that tide.

The GOP doesn't run the executive branch, Trump does. A party is not in charge.

Agreed. The GOP has largely abandoned it's principles and turned over it's soul to a soulless man. Its rather sad to watch.

This is all opinion.

Of course it is.

I am pretty certain that his is a "false flag" type of deal, where someone (could be the DNC, some liberal reporter, or maybe even a "russian agent" ) who wants to cause strife and paranoia in the administration by claiming to be some mole in the administration. If Trump goes on the warpath and starts investigations and firing people left and right, the article will have accomplished its goal.

I have no idea what it's "goal" is. Reassure the public? Warn Trump? Rally more resistors? Sow further confusion into the administration? I have no clue - and neither do you. I only know that I think the article is ill advised and will likely do more harm than good. That was not my original assessment. I was originally glad it was published - but the author of the The Atlantic Op-Ed convinced me otherwise.

[Terraceth]

It's my understanding that the US is still technically in a state of declared war with NK because after the Korean war the US senate never passed the resolution to end the declaration of war, and this came up recently as one of the bargaining chips on the negotiation table that Trump could offer Kim Jong Un.

Also, the US is somewhat obviously in a declared War on Terror given the 2001 AMUF still remains in effect and the US continues to fairly actively pursue military actions worldwide against those it loosely considers terrorist adjacent.

North Korea and the AUMF were on my mind with that post, but as it's not clear if they count due to the circumstances, I didn't mention them--North Korea is only a technicality due to the lack of actual war, and the AUMF is its own can of worms, with all kinds of questions about what actually qualifies under it; I know it's been asserted by a number of legal scholars that it's been far exceeded in terms of who it's being used to attack. I know someone actually was indicted for treason, but they weren't in custody and were thus never tried, leaving it unclear how valid the charge was.

At any rate, outside of possibly those two groups, neither of which were being given aid and comfort here, one really can't commit treason by aiding the enemy.

So, even given the narrower definition of Treason, given the US's declared War on Terror, how would you feel about if the President was negotiating for peace with a terror-supporting regime and a prominent US citizen wrote an open letter to that enemy regime saying essentially "you can't trust our country, we don't keep our deals, so don't make peace with us and don't sign my President's peace deal"? Does that fit your narrower definition of Treason? Cos I can remember an instance of that happening.

Okay, I'll be honest, I'm not sure what's being alluded to here, so any answer I give will be in the abstract. Based on your description, probably not, even if the country was one that the United States was actively fighting against, because I'm unsure if it would count as "aid and comfort" (it doesn't seem to actually help the enemy country and might actually hurt them). Granted, I'll admit, I'm no expert on the subject. But going only by your vague description, I don't think so.

It might violate the Logan act, but there's questions as to whether that law is even constitutional. If someone actually tried to prosecute someone with it (there's only been two indictments in history based on it, neither of which even went to trial), that question would have to be settled.

[Starlight]

Okay, I'll be honest, I'm not sure what's being alluded to here, so any answer I give will be in the abstract. Based on your description, probably not, even if the country was one that the United States was actively fighting against, because I'm unsure if it would count as "aid and comfort" (it doesn't seem to actually help the enemy country and might actually hurt them). Granted, I'll admit, I'm no expert on the subject. But going only by your vague description, I don't think so.

It might violate the Logan act, but there's questions as to whether that law is even constitutional. If someone actually tried to prosecute someone with it (there's only been two indictments in history based on it, neither of which even went to trial), that question would have to be settled.

I'm thinking of Senator Tom Cotton's letter to the Iranian leadership telling them the US couldn't be trusted when Obama was trying to negotiate a denuclearization & peace treaty with them. The Logan act was indeed what most commentators at the time seemed to think was the most relevant.

[shunyadragon]

Because, unknown, unverified, sources that whisper what you want to hear and denials from the people these sources name is the best kind of evidence there is.

Like Woodward's book naming names and specifics, and guess what no one is suing Woodward.