Seriously. You don't think there is a difference when a peasant makes a demand, and when the king does?
We don't have kings. Trump is less autocratic than Obama was, yet the outrage is far greater. Sounds more to me, honestly, like the issue isn't whether the "king" is making a demand, just that a Republican is doing so. I mean honestly, Obama created DACA with a stroke of his pen, overrode the law on immigration and created a new class of citizenship, and that's okay. His administration continued the NSA's unsupervised and illegal surveilance without warrants, and that was okay. He actually siezed the records of journalists to try and catch leaks (then turned around and changed the classification standards on his way out the door to try and cause leaks) and that was okay.
Trump
tweets and that's the King we should be worried about.
#late_to_the_party
I don't think he had violated the law. I don't think he has exceeded his authority. I think, from what he wrote in the tweet, that he believes he can violate the law and exceed his authority. (But, of course, he believes that doing so won't actually violate the law and exceed his authority, because he believes he can do anything he wants.) The fact that he may not be able to does not mean he does not believe he can, or may try.
Well notwithstanding that you directly contradict yourself, he believes he can exceed his authority, but he doesn't actually believe it because he believes he has no limit on his authority, his actually record puts a literal and direct lie to that. Again, what evidence do you have?
And probably will issue an official decree or injunction unless someone talks him out of it, stops him, or ignores his request.
Lol, let's see if this occurs.
What makes you think you'll ever see it? The whole point of the editorial is that they are doing it without the public, or Trump, realizing it. 
We're waiting to see Trump's official decree, not hidden behind the scenes manipulation. We're talking about your unsupportable claims about how Trump believes he can exceed his authority.
Is that any worse than you disbelieving it because it doesn't suit your confirmation bias? 
I don't believe unsubstantiated rumors. Whether they confirm or deny my bias.
I'm perfectly happy to speculate. It's entirely possible the author actually believes everything they say and that it's not actually true. It's entirely possible it's far worse. All we really know, is that people with an anti-Trump agenda published a rumor that's anti-Trump. Is there any verification of any of claims made? Have you seen them?
Heck a bunch of what's claimed is that Trump isn't Republican enough for this person. That he's abusing his authority by carrying out his campaign promises. Wow.
Actually, I don't take this editorial as "proof." But it is an odd coincidence that such an editorial came out that confirms my bias.
It's not at all odd. Like I said, the timing with the Woodward book is suspicious. Dollars for donuts, the author is one of his sources.
It's also a persistent media meme that Trump is mentally deficient. They keep making the claim, notwithstanding the lack of any evidence. There are plenty of responsible people in the administration that would not keep that a secret, and plenty that would LOVE a legitimate reason to remove Trump from office. It's literally inconceivable that there is a conspiracy of people working to keep us from finding out that
Trump is mentally deranged. Who exactly would that be benefitting? Not the Republican party, not the never Trumpers, not the Deep State. How exactly would they keep that a secret against a backdrop of constant deep state leaking?
No, the damage here is innuendo and people who want to believe, not reality to the claims.
And it is very, very likely that the writer is who the NYT says he is, simply because the NYT has a reputation to consider, and if it turns out they misrepresented who the writer was, heads would roll.
Did I miss where they say who the writer is? The NYT editorial board did not say who s/he is, and given they didn't run it through their news room their vetting of the claims is suspect as well.
I honestly don't think they really care about their reputation. Without an on the record source this story is an attempt to make the news rather than report the news.
That's not really an opinion, that's a blatant abandonment of opinion. It's just literally, saying that you'll believe anything you hear so long as you wanted to believe it in the first place. That's great.
In your humble opinion. 
Not really. Your "opinion" is to accept rumor without verification. To trust in unknown authorities, reported as "he said" statements by people up to no good.
There's no objective reasoning there. It's literally, they said what you wanted to hear, ergo, you will treat it as true.
And right back at you.
And you guys think climate deniers need to provide more proof.