Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.

[velcro]

Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!

Let me get this straight.  The President is ordering a newspaper to "turn over" to the government the writer of an Op-Ed.  No investigation, no judge, no warrant.  No plausible national security threat.  The lead law-enforcement officer of the country is ordering this. Publicly, on what is considered official channels.

How is this not a house-on-fire constitutional crisis? How is this not a cut-and-dried violation of the Constitutional oath?

Is it because nobody actually believes he means it, including the entire Congress, and the entire Executive branch?  What does that say about how our country views the Presidency now that Trump is President?  How will we know he really means anything?  How can our country function with that kind of ambiguity?  How impotent and dysfunctional does it make our country look, especially considering that he hired the person he wants turned over?

I apologize for sounding shrill, but this is seriously, seriously, effed up.

[TheDeamon]

Such commentary is interesting however any comments coming from RNC loyalists should be held with a grain of salt as even if Trump weren't mentally off the rails I expect they would still be deadset on convincing everyone - as Trump's opposition does - that he is unfit so that a real party man can take over. Whether Trump was competent or incompetent I rather expect their position with regard to him would be the same, but nevertheless such warnings as this should also be considered as potentially accurate. Even merely the anti-Russia lobby alone would be strong enough to present a 'united front' of agreement on Trump being off the rails and unfit, and I give them about as much credit as I give Putin.

Well, at this point they may be trying for a flat out "psychotic break" with regards to Trump so that it can be taken as undisputed that he's gone off the deep end.

Even if it is due to justifiable paranoia that practically everyone seems to be out to get him in one way or another.

[TheDeamon]

Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!

Let me get this straight.  The President is ordering a newspaper to "turn over" to the government the writer of an Op-Ed.  No investigation, no judge, no warrant.  No plausible national security threat.  The lead law-enforcement officer of the country is ordering this. Publicly, on what is considered official channels.

How is this not a house-on-fire constitutional crisis? How is this not a cut-and-dried violation of the Constitutional oath?

Is it because nobody actually believes he means it, including the entire Congress, and the entire Executive branch?  What does that say about how our country views the Presidency now that Trump is President?  How will we know he really means anything?  How can our country function with that kind of ambiguity?  How impotent and dysfunctional does it make our country look, especially considering that he hired the person he wants turned over?

It isn't a crises because "been there, done that" with Nixon, IIRC.

Anybody who is likely to be party to carrying out such an executive order knows it is illegal on its face.

There also are orders, then there are orders. Which is where the other half of the fun and games come into things.

The President can say, or type into Twitter, pretty much anything he wants. So long as he doesn't frame it as an outright order to "the appropriate person" or otherwise issue a written order, through the proper forms/channels, then it isn't actually an order and it has no legal standing. Nobody gets in legal trouble for disobeying it, and nobody gets in legal trouble for issuing it--"because it never actually happened."

[TheDeamon]

The President can say, or type into Twitter, pretty much anything he wants. So long as he doesn't frame it as an outright order to "the appropriate person" or otherwise issue a written order, through the proper forms/channels, then it isn't actually an order and it has no legal standing. Nobody gets in legal trouble for disobeying it, and nobody gets in legal trouble for issuing it--"because it never actually happened."

...Which on further reflection is eerie in its proximity to Nixon's own games, only in his case, it was demonstrated that he expected those "orders" to be carried out, and they often were. Which is where he landed in trouble. So long as nobody actually attempts to carry out Trump's orders, and Trump doesn't "follow through" on people failing to obey his illegal orders, the "fiction" of the order "never happening" gets to remain.

[velcro]

The President can say, or type into Twitter, pretty much anything he wants. So long as he doesn't frame it as an outright order to "the appropriate person" or otherwise issue a written order, through the proper forms/channels, then it isn't actually an order and it has no legal standing. Nobody gets in legal trouble for disobeying it, and nobody gets in legal trouble for issuing it--"because it never actually happened."

That is a valid interpretation.  But a competent President, one who tries to preserve the power and respect of the United States of America, would never do such a thing.  It blurs all the lines of command, encourages everyone to avoid accountability, and eliminates transparency.

For a President to say "This illegal thing should be done", then have him (or his supporters) say "I didn't mean it" may be a valid legal excuse.  But when it happens over and over, it is no longer a moral excuse.  And for people who care more for country than party, it is not a political excuse.

[TheDeamon]

Which brings us back to "They're trying to get him to publicly demonstrate he is unfit for office."

[DonaldD]

Who is this "they"?  Donald Trump?

[Wayward Son]

Perhaps this order to reveal information will be just another instance where Trump's misguided impulse will be thwarted by members of his administration?

[D.W.]

Or another demonstration that nobody, not even Trump, treats his tweets as "official communication" let alone an order.  It's just like, how he feels at the time man.   

[Seriati]

Do you have a citation to the Trump's order to the NYT?  I haven't seen one.

The NYT piece doesn't describe any acts of treason and should be fully protected.

[TheDeamon]

Which brings us back to "They're trying to get him to publicly demonstrate he is unfit for office."

Who is this "they"?  Donald Trump?

The people (allegedly) in the Trump Admin who are behind the op-ed.

[D.W.]

It was another tweet by Trump Seriati

[Seriati]

Tweets are not orders.

[D.W.]

Indeed.  But that conclusion means we have to ignore what the president tweets.  Something he says he does in part because we (as citizens) cannot trust the Fake News. 

So the point of the post, I assume, is how do we / should we handle a situation where the President makes an order, which is NOT an official order, which nobody is under any obligation to enforce? 

I mean, we already give him a pass when the kooks attack the press quoting Trump that the media is the enemy of the people. 

His words have an impact because he is the president.  When is an order not an order?  When it's a tweet apparently.  When is a president not a president?  When nobody around him knows if he is serious or not, and if he IS serious, they don't know if they should follow his orders...

[Fenring]

His words have an impact because he is the president.  When is an order not an order?  When it's a tweet apparently.  When is a president not a president?  When nobody around him knows if he is serious or not, and if he IS serious, they don't know if they should follow his orders...

Not to defend foolish comments made on Twitter, but I still don't understand why everyone is having such a hard time parsing what Trump's use of Twitter is supposed to mean. It isn't supposed to 'mean' anything. It's literally what you'd think tweeting is: he's just chatting about whatever's on his mind with no intermediary so the people can hear his ponderings. Now, that may not be 'good' if his ponderings are dumb, but on the other hand I don't see the need to obsess over comments that seem really intended to be just chatter, almost as if you were in the room with him and he was making various remarks as a running commentary. Whether Twitter can be more than that (or should be) I don't know, but it seems like his tweets just consist of what's rolling through his head. Some may be on point, others erroneous, and others still boneheaded, but either way I don't know why you'd read them in an attempt to parse them as "orders" or anything like that.

[Seriati]

Indeed.  But that conclusion means we have to ignore what the president tweets.  Something he says he does in part because we (as citizens) cannot trust the Fake News.

Can you walk through the logic on this?  Did we have to ignore what Obama said in speeches?   Those were not executive orders either.

So the point of the post, I assume, is how do we / should we handle a situation where the President makes an order, which is NOT an official order, which nobody is under any obligation to enforce?

I would take it as political commentary of the President.  He thinks the author is a traitor.  He's wrong as a matter of treason against the US, he's right as a matter of personal loyalty.  The NYTimes is under no obligation to reveal the source (of course in my view, publishing the piece on an anonymous basis was completely contemptible of them, but hey, anything goes when it's anti-Trump).

I mean, this piece is completely different if Pence wrote it, than it is if a Whitehouse intern is the source.   

I mean, we already give him a pass when the kooks attack the press quoting Trump that the media is the enemy of the people.

The media lying and misrepresenting for political purposes directly harms this country.  Is calling them "enemy of the people" a bridge too far?  Isn't this the same country where Republicans are routinely labelled racists without real cause?  Where Republicans wanted to "kill old people" because they don't believe in socialized medicine?

Why is this particular label, that is more justifiable than many that are routinely tossed around offensive?

Maybe if the media took their obligations as seriously as they take their priviledges we wouldn't even be having such a debate. 

His words have an impact because he is the president.  When is an order not an order?

An executive order is pretty formal.  An order by the President to people that work for him is pretty clear. 

An order by the President to random citizens or organizations?  Absent some kind of national emergency why would we believe that is binding?  We teach kindergartners that Congress makes the laws not the President.

When it's a tweet apparently.  When is a president not a president?  When nobody around him knows if he is serious or not, and if he IS serious, they don't know if they should follow his orders...

The President is a politician.  Politicians say things all the time.  Why exactly, despite repeated history, does anyone thing a tweet is a binding policy?

[D.W.]

Can you walk through the logic on this?  Did we have to ignore what Obama said in speeches?   Those were not executive orders either.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong but I can't remember Obama making a statement like the following:

"the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

It's pretty explicit language.  The only reason it's not a huge deal is, as Fenring points out, the platform and Trump's use to date of it, make us interpret it as NOT a big deal.  NOT to be taken as an order.  NOT to be even taken as a serious telegraphing of what he may do.  That expectation is at war with how presidents address the nation in the past. 

As far as the logic walk through, I am not referring to only executive orders.  And let me be clear.  I agree this was NOT an order.  But this applies to pretty much everything he tweets. 

I mean, this piece is completely different if Pence wrote it, than it is if a Whitehouse intern is the source. 

Why?  Is it that one is more credible, or is it the level of obstruction one could exert?  Just curious.

Why is this particular label, that is more justifiable than many that are routinely tossed around offensive?

IMO?  Because our whole system falls apart without the press to keep us informed and hold our politicians accountable to the people.  Is it as corruptible and stained as all other parts of the machine?  Sure.  Doesn't mean we don't need it.  IMO it's probably the most important part of a representative democracy. 

We teach kindergartners that Congress makes the laws not the President.

If true, I think we should remind them a bit more vigorously in high school. 

Why exactly, despite repeated history, does anyone thing a tweet is a binding policy?

Nobody does.  That it's NOT is the point being made.  When the president makes an order or expresses a desire that is against the law or the constitution or is a war crime or what have you, we should all pay attention, and talk about it, and ask how he can be restrained.  That we argue instead if it really counts as an "order" is interesting to me.  The president may be A politician, but he's defiantly something new.  As such we should expect a lot of new situations cropping up reacting to him.

How could the media act in any way other than how it has is my question.  I think they take things VERY seriously.  It's the president and his supporters and his party who is partly reliant upon him who inform us how NOT serious the guy is...

[Fenring]

I mean, this piece is completely different if Pence wrote it, than it is if a Whitehouse intern is the source. 

Why?  Is it that one is more credible, or is it the level of obstruction one could exert?  Just curious.

You don't think it matters if there's a direct conflict of interest with the person who wrote it? Just for instance, you don't think it would be worth noting that the person penning a letter declaring an old man unfit to manage his affairs is also the person who would inherit the old man's estate?

[D.W.]

Thanks, I should have included that possibility as well if I included any examples of why.

So... the credibility issue.  As it would speak to motivation to fabricate info?  But instead of the more powerful leading towards more certainty, it in fact would be the opposite?

As to my opinion, I think the anonymous nature, and the timing tell us all we need to know.  This person is not being honest about their own motivations.  While this editorial plays into my confirmation bias, it smells WAY fishy to me. 

[NobleHunter]

The NYT piece and the book are too tailored to appeal to certain biases for me to trust them. I wonder if anything will be independently verified.

[velcro]

Is calling them "enemy of the people" a bridge too far?  Isn't this the same country where Republicans are routinely labelled racists without real cause?  Where Republicans wanted to "kill old people" because they don't believe in socialized medicine?

I don't condone labeling all Republicans as racists, or claiming they want to kill old people.
You seem to be implying that if some random guy said this once, it gives the President cover to say anything he wants.

The President should be held to the highest standards, not the lowest.

As far as what I mean by "order", the President ordered the NYT to turn someone over.  He did not sign an executive order, which only applies to the executive branch, not private citizens.  So please do not conflate the two. 

Order: give an authoritative direction or instruction to do something

I think the tweet qualifies.

Thought experiment:
What if Trump tweets "All Mexicans, or people that look Mexican, should be turned over to the government at once!"
or "All Democrats should have their voting registration revoked at once!"

Is that OK, because he doesn't mean it, and won't enforce it?
Might some government worker think it is policy and try to enforce it?  They might be stupid, but would they be wrong in a legal sense, that their boss said it should be done?  If there is even a slim possibility of this, then the tweet is completely irresponsible, and possibly criminal.

[D.W.]

"All Democrats should have their voting registration revoked at once!"
This makes it an opinion. 

"Poll workers must throw out any ballot by a registered Democrat!" would be more in line with the example. 

[Wayward Son]

It isn't supposed to 'mean' anything. It's literally what you'd think tweeting is: he's just chatting about whatever's on his mind with no intermediary so the people can hear his ponderings.

But ponderings can be important, too.

It's one thing to ponder, "Should I have chicken or beef for dinner?" That's a minor pondering that no one would pay any attention to.

It's another thing to ponder, "Should I kill my wife, cut her up into little pieces, and put them into a dumpster?"  That's one the person's wife would probably want to know about, and probably talk to him about (preferably with a baseball bat at hand).

When someone ponders something illegal, immoral, dangerous or simply unethical, you have to wonder, why is the person pondering this at all?  Doesn't he know better?  Doesn't he realize that he can't do it?  Why is he even considering it at all?

For chicken vs beef, the answer is obvious.  For becoming the neighbor in Rear Window, you have to start questioning the person's morals and judgement.

So when the President ponders to do something illegal, immoral and unethical, you have to start questioning his judgement and ethics.  He should know better.  The fact that he doesn't means that we should be worried.  Even if it isn't supposed to "mean anything."

[D.W.]

So when the President ponders to do something illegal, immoral and unethical, you have to start questioning his judgement and ethics.  He should know better.  The fact that he doesn't means that we should be worried.  Even if it isn't supposed to "mean anything."

But what if that ship's already sailed?   

[TheDrake]

It is reminiscent of his suggestion in an interview with fox that when it comes to terrorists we should "take out their families"

Which he then repeated. Not an order, but could it influence somebody's decision to abort a drone strike? Quite possibly.

Watching a previously recorded strike in which the agency held off on firing until the target had wandered away from a house with his family inside, Trump asked, “Why did you wait?” one participant in the meeting recalled.

Any politicians tweets, speeches, off the cuff remarks give insight into what they would like to see happen.

[Seriati]

So when the President ponders to do something illegal, immoral and unethical, you have to start questioning his judgement and ethics.

It's not illegal for the NY Times to reveal its source.

It's not immoral for them to reveal their source.  It's actually come out that this anonymity grant was unusual as it was handled through the editorial board.  That literally means their reporters didn't vet this, didn't verify it, and aren't the ones protecting the source.  The credibility is much less on this than it could have been.

It's unethical for the NY Times to reveal the source.  It's not unethical to ask or even demand they do so.  Courts have ordered sources revealed before (granted under specific circumstances).

So really, how should I look at your claim here?  Is it just hyperbole?  Is it fake?  Is it a gross misunderstanding?

[Fenring]

The funny thing is that in theory the editorial could have been written by anyone ranging from Pence to a hobo on the streets of NYC, and so long as the NYC assures us that it's from a high-up staffer we'll read it as such, suspicions and all. Not to say I'm accusing the editors of lying about the source, but imagine for a moment if they were - how would anyone ever know since their position is to protect anonymity? They could have written it themselves, at that. My point is that I'm sick of these "anonymous sources" that have been plaguing the "news" for years now and are used to justify all manner of things or otherwise "inform" the public of what it's desire they believe. "Someone said a thing" is not news, and the old standby of "we're just reporting what someone said so we didn't make anything up" seems to apply here as well as any other place. Without a name to the story there's no way to verify if what's stated is true, exaggerated, totally made up, or what.

[D.W.]

Agreed.  Granted I believe it comes from an actual "high level staffer" (thanks subjective title!) but there is zero way to tell if it's just one person making things up or not.  I'm not sure it sheds any light while blowing all this smoke. 

[TheDeamon]

Why exactly, despite repeated history, does anyone thing a tweet is a binding policy?

Nobody does.  That it's NOT is the point being made.  When the president makes an order or expresses a desire that is against the law or the constitution or is a war crime or what have you, we should all pay attention, and talk about it, and ask how he can be restrained.  That we argue instead if it really counts as an "order" is interesting to me.  The president may be A politician, but he's defiantly something new.  As such we should expect a lot of new situations cropping up reacting to him.

Wow, talk about zero defect taken to an extreme. Does everybody get held to this standard, or just Trump?

Last I checked, the office of President of the United States of America was held by a human being, not a deity. At no point did I see "has achieved social perfection" on the qualification list. I'm not aware of any other job positions that hold the same requirement either.

Yes, people in positions of power that publicly express certain things are more than a bit concerning.  The doesn't mean the shovels, pitchforks, and torches get brought out every time somebody of such stature utters such things and it becomes known. Particularly when many of those alleged utterances happened behind closed doors.

You're venturing very dangerously into declaring a whole slew of things as punishable thought crime, no need to demonstrate intent to follow through, just having the thought and being unguarded enough to express it where someone might overhear is now enough to convict.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of living in a society that insists on living to that standard. Honestly, I don't think anyone is actually capable of living up to it, if they were honest. I'll take living among the unwashed sinners over the self-professed saints on this one, thank you very much.

[Wayward Son]

So when the President ponders to do something illegal, immoral and unethical, you have to start questioning his judgement and ethics.

It's not illegal for the NY Times to reveal its source.

It's not immoral for them to reveal their source.  It's actually come out that this anonymity grant was unusual as it was handled through the editorial board.  That literally means their reporters didn't vet this, didn't verify it, and aren't the ones protecting the source.  The credibility is much less on this than it could have been.

It's unethical for the NY Times to reveal the source.  It's not unethical to ask or even demand they do so.  Courts have ordered sources revealed before (granted under specific circumstances).

So really, how should I look at your claim here?  Is it just hyperbole?  Is it fake?  Is it a gross misunderstanding?

In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

However, it does reveal that Trump believes that he has the right and authority to demand that the NY Times reveal it's source, when U.S. laws allows news media to keep sources secret (except in specific circumstances).  And I do not believe that Trump had any "specific circumstance" in mind; I think he just believes that, since he is President, he gets to do anything he wants.  And probably will issue an official decree or injunction unless someone talks him out of it, stops him, or ignores his request.

(Gee, just like those in the editorial. )

So it just reveals to me that he is a spoiled little brat who needs adults to keep him line--much like a 10-year-old driving a semi that I suspected he would be like.  Glad to hear that there are those in power who also recognize the danger.

IMHO. 

[Fenring]

In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

That wasn't what I said. I said that his tweets shouldn't be interpreted as more than him venting his thoughts. I didn't say they should be ignored. For anyone who's interested in what's on the President's mind they're probably useful to pay attention to. If you're looking strictly for hard facts and proof of intent and so forth, then yes, maybe it would be better to ignore them under those conditions. Also, if they aggravate you it might be better to ignore them. But the lack of his tweets containing any official policy or hard intent doesn't mean they are bereft of any content. They have about as much content, as I said, as hearing a guy making peanut gallery comments in a room. Learn what you can from them, but I don't think they're solid grounds for any kind of "gotcha!" moment on policy and the law.

[TheDeamon]

In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

However, it does reveal that Trump believes that he has the right and authority to demand that the NY Times reveal it's source, when U.S. laws allows news media to keep sources secret (except in specific circumstances).  And I do not believe that Trump had any "specific circumstance" in mind; I think he just believes that, since he is President, he gets to do anything he wants.  And probably will issue an official decree or injunction unless someone talks him out of it, stops him, or ignores his request.

In this particular instance I have to wonder if thise op-ed being classed as a potential threat to the mental stability of the PotUS would actually in fact make it a "National Security Interest" and actually subject to the information being disclosed to the Government because of that. 

[D.W.]

Wow, talk about zero defect taken to an extreme. Does everybody get held to this standard, or just Trump?

Just Presidents of countries.  Call me out if I fail to hold subsequent Presidents to the same standard. 

No pitchforks or shovels here.  Only a keyboard so far.

He can THINK anything he wants.  As POTUS he has a responsibility to restrain those thoughts and reflect on the reprecussions on what saying or typing them might be.  Can you think of any position possible that being "ungarded" is more detrimental?

I get that people say they want an ungarded unfiltered line into what the president thinks.  Some even are honest about that desire.  Getting what they ask for however is a trainwreck from where I'm standing.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of living in a society that insists on living to that standard.

I'm not comfortable living in a society that doesn't.

[Fenring]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of living in a society that insists on living to that standard.

I'm not comfortable living in a society that doesn't.

Trust me, you don't want a society where people fear to express their real views. That is when Trumps get elected. What you want is a society where people truly don't espouse those views that scare you. But so long as they do it's always better to elicit the truth rather than make people fear to speak. You need to know what they are thinking and to reward truthful expression rather than to foster secret hidden thoughts. I actually think many of the dangerous or dumb things people think come about as a result of a culture of having to hide truthful thoughts. This hidden society, never spoken up, grows on its own and gets cultivated under ground, and will only get worse unless brought up to the light of day.

[TheDeamon]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of living in a society that insists on living to that standard.

I'm not comfortable living in a society that doesn't.

And that's why things aren't likely to end well, for anyone. 

[TheDeamon]

Trust me, you don't want a society where people fear to express their real views. That is when Trumps get elected. What you want is a society where people truly don't espouse those views that scare you. But so long as they do it's always better to elicit the truth rather than make people fear to speak. You need to know what they are thinking and to reward truthful expression rather than to foster secret hidden thoughts. I actually think many of the dangerous or dumb things people think come about as a result of a culture of having to hide truthful thoughts. This hidden society, never spoken up, grows on its own and gets cultivated under ground, and will only get worse unless brought up to the light of day.

Agreed, that kind of social mindset is only likely to encourage things like the truthers, the vaxxers, and so on.

It also is one of the most unironic things which the people pushing it seem oblivious to. They speak of "living in a society without fear."

What they really mean is "A society rife with fear, but full of people who are more than happy to smile to your face and even treat you as a best friend.... All while wishing someone would smash your face in with a baseball bat."

Because they're afraid someone is going to find out how they really feel, and that fear of discovery is leading them down all kinds of dark and twisted paths. But as part of that fear of discovery, they're pretending to be someone they're not, which is how you have you have a "good friend" who wants nothing more than to see your head smashed in.

I'd rather know about why they're going to resent me up front, before the weapons come out.

[Seriati]

So really, how should I look at your claim here?  Is it just hyperbole?  Is it fake?  Is it a gross misunderstanding?

In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

However, it does reveal that Trump believes that he has the right and authority to demand that the NY Times reveal it's source, when U.S. laws allows news media to keep sources secret (except in specific circumstances).

Every single American has the right to make such a demand.  The NY Times has the right to ignore them.  Are you confused on how free speech works, or just not a believer that the President has the same rights as others?

It's also not clear how the TWEET demonstrates he thinks he has the "authority" to force them to reveal a source.  Did it come with federal agents seizing a lawyer's data base in a pre-dawn raid... oops... wrong right that was violated. 

Did you forget that the Obama administration actually went so far as to seize phone records of journalists and subpeona them?

If he sends government agents to get the name, you'd have a point.  Until then you really don't.

And I do not believe that Trump had any "specific circumstance" in mind; I think he just believes that, since he is President, he gets to do anything he wants.

If by "anything he wants" you mean tweet about something, then yes he can do anything he wants.
 
If you actually mean the words, then please demonstrate where he has violated the law.  Or exceeded his authority.

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.

So it just reveals to me that he is a spoiled little brat who needs adults to keep him line--much like a 10-year-old driving a semi that I suspected he would be like.  Glad to hear that there are those in power who also recognize the danger.

Lol.  So you're willing to believe an anonymous opinion based on an appeal to authority because it suits your confirmation bias. 

IMHO. 

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.

[D.W.]

Trust me, you don't want a society where people fear to express their real views.

That's fair, and I kinda knew that was coming when I wrote my response. 

To be clear:  I do not want a society where POTUS expresses his real views without considering the repercussions of doing so.  Or even a society where POTUS expresses his views after making such consideration as a means to provoke a response that is damaging to said society.

You and I are not held to the same standards as a large company's CEO or brand spokesperson.  Our politicians are held to an even higher standard than that (in some regards).  POTUS is held to the highest standard.  Or should be.

[TheDrake]

Exactly. Every single word you speak as a powerful person can have a powerful impact. Even behind closed doors, you should be maintaining poise and diplomacy.

The only person I can think of who is close to Trump in this regard is Elon Musk and he's a trainwreck too. Now he's getting sued by a cave diver and investigated by the SEC.

[Wayward Son]

So really, how should I look at your claim here?  Is it just hyperbole?  Is it fake?  Is it a gross misunderstanding?

In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

However, it does reveal that Trump believes that he has the right and authority to demand that the NY Times reveal it's source, when U.S. laws allows news media to keep sources secret (except in specific circumstances).

Every single American has the right to make such a demand.  The NY Times has the right to ignore them.  Are you confused on how free speech works, or just not a believer that the President has the same rights as others?

I believe that he is not making the demand as an American citizen, but as the President of the United States.

He made the demand on the official POTUS twitter account.  The one where he makes official announcements so as to bypass the mainstream media.

Seriously.  You don't think there is a difference when a peasant makes a demand, and when the king does? 

And I do not believe that Trump had any "specific circumstance" in mind; I think he just believes that, since he is President, he gets to do anything he wants.

If by "anything he wants" you mean tweet about something, then yes he can do anything he wants.
 
If you actually mean the words, then please demonstrate where he has violated the law.  Or exceeded his authority.

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.

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.

So it just reveals to me that he is a spoiled little brat who needs adults to keep him line--much like a 10-year-old driving a semi that I suspected he would be like.  Glad to hear that there are those in power who also recognize the danger.

Lol.  So you're willing to believe an anonymous opinion based on an appeal to authority because it suits your confirmation bias.

Is that any worse than you disbelieving it because it doesn't suit your confirmation bias?

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.  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.  I find it exceedingly unlikely those who OK'd this editorial would risk their careers without checking it out thoroughly, especially since they almost never publish anonymous opinion pieces.  Of course, you mileage may vary. 

IMHO. 

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. 

And right back at you.

[Seriati]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

It is a really strange op-ed, the more I look at it. Usually op-eds are synthesized from facts in wide public circulation. Here, we have someone saying things from their own personal experience, things that may or may not be corroborated. It could be performance art, for all we know.

I personally think I can trust that this person was vetted for plausibility by the Times. The person would be able to do the things they describe. Remember, they don't say they heard about someone else doing things. To get a second person to weigh in would be to effectively remove the anonymity.

Let's say for a minute that the story is true. If you are the editorial board at the Times, are you going to squash a pivotal and unprecedented confession? Something of critical interest to the American public? If the person were not anonymous, would the Trumpers believe the person suddenly? It would just be an identifiable liar instead of an anonymous one, would it not?

[Wayward Son]

Sounds more to me, honestly, like the issue isn't whether the "king" is making a demand, just that a Republican is doing so.

Sorry, but that's because you don't have a very good ear. 

I'm saying it because Trump makes demands like a king.

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?

I don't contradict myself.  A person can actually exceed his authority and not believe he has exceeded his authority at the same time.  All it takes is ignorance, arrogance, and the unwillingness of listen to council--traits that Trump has in spades.

And the evidence I have are Trump's tweets, his previous tweets, and my understanding of people garnered from years of experience with people.  Of course, this is no proof.  But it is enough to form an opinion, which has a lower level of proof, and which I acknowledge may be wrong.

It's literally inconceivable that there is a conspiracy of people working to keep us from finding out that Trump is mentally deranged.

Here's the thing: Trump is probably not mentally deranged.  He is merely arrogant, opinionated, ignorant and unwilling to listen to council.  Much like a 10-year-old. 

10-year-olds are not mentally deranged.  They are not mentally incompetent.  Even an adult with a 10-year-old mentality is not deranged or incompetent.  But that doesn't mean he's qualified to do everything.  You still wouldn't want one flying a jet airliner.  Or to be President.

Of course, how do you prove someone is simply unqualified to be President?  If he isn't deranged or incompetent, that is very hard to do, if not impossible.  So what do you do?  Follow him to the letter and let him f**k things up?  That'll hurt your country and your party.  Resign?  You'll be replaced by someone who will follow him to the letter.
How about try to prevent the worst from happening while you're there?

Forget the word "deranged."  It appears to be a conspiracy of people trying to keep us from finding out that Trump is incompetent as a President.

There's no objective reasoning there.  It's literally, they said what you wanted to hear, ergo, you will treat it as true.

So says the man who thinks Trump saved us millions of dollars on Air Force One, just because a known liar said so, and might know better. 

I treat it as possibly true because it fits in with everything else I've seen about this Administration.  I admit it may not be true, which is why I classify it as an "opinion."  Your faith that it couldn't possibly be true simply show you are merely doing psychological projection.

[velcro]

Two blatant falsehoods here:

Did it come with federal agents seizing a lawyer's data base in a pre-dawn raid... oops... wrong right that was violated.

There were warrants.  Attorney-client privileges were maintained.  What right was violated?  Sources please.

So says the man who thinks Trump saved us millions of dollars on Air Force One, just because a known liar said so, and might know better.

No, that was billions, my friend.

And to be fair, Seriati only said that we didn't know enough to be 100% sure Trump was wrong. There was evidence aplenty to prove to any unbiased reader that Trump was wrong, but Seriati never actually claimed the opposite, as far as I remember.  But I could be wrong.

[scifibum]

The tweet isn't an order because we don't live in a country where private businesses can be ordered to do something by the President via tweet. It's not an order because there is simply no chance that it will be treated as such.

It's still very disturbing that Trump evinces the desire to violate the 1st amendment on a frequent basis. This may be political commentary, but the political position he's advocating for is totalitarianism. His continued fondness for brutal dictators gives the same impression.

Seriati...

The media lying and misrepresenting for political purposes directly harms this country.  Is calling them "enemy of the people" a bridge too far?

I'd like you to do a thought experiment and ask yourself how you'd have reacted if Obama, in office, had repeatedly called right-leaning media "the enemy of the people" and suggested that their 1st amendment rights should be curtailed. 

It's several bridges too far, and I'm disappointed in you.

[TheDeamon]

Obama did publicly call out Fox News as "not news" which was taken by many as his view that the 1st Amendment may not apply to Fox. (As I highly doubt he viewed it as "artistic expression" of "redeeming social value" either)

[D.W.]

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-north-korea-bob-woodward-2018-9
Would this have been OK since it wouldn't have been an actual order?

It's like some warped version of Simon Says played out on the national and global playground.

[rightleft22]

Question to anyone

What do you think was the motive behind writing Op-ed and having it published?

My thought is that they want to push Trump into a paranoia and mental breakdown so they can invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment

[D.W.]

My guess was it was more, "make them look bad leading up to midterms", with the paranoia being icing on the cake.  They're talking about trying to claim unfit for the office without citing mental / physical impairment.  Trying to play the "temperament" or even "ignorance" card is a really tough sell.

[Greg Davidson]

Trump is less autocratic than Obama was, yet the outrage is far greater. 

Seriati, please defend this assertion. Provide a definition of what you mean by autocratic, and then show why President Obama's actions violate that definition to a greater degree than President Trump's.