I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

[AlphaOmega]

I guess in your world, you have to be a "leftist" to have a firm grasp on reality. Trump has the lowest average approval rating of any President.

Meanwhile, you still haven't supported your statement. You dodged yet again. I'm beginning to think you have no intention of debating honestly.

please place obamas and trumps approval ratings for the same time frame side by side

 

[poweRob]

I definitely woke up. Since you do not know me, I shall explain. As a Democrat voter, including voting my first time for John Kennedy, then Lyndon Johnson, and D candidates that failed to win, then Jimmy Carter, I do not have to be told I was anything other than i was a strict Democrat. I flipped only after encountering the book, A time for Truth at my doctors office (I first read from the office copy of Readers Digest) and it gave me a brand new perspective. My first vote for any republican was President Ronald Reagan and I am so thankful I flipped earlier to vote for him. The Democrat ideology sounds excellent until it is tested. Once a person understands the test, it shows the multiple flaws. That's pretty much it.

Is calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party a part of that "waking up"?

 

[jnug]

Notice that there are bombastic comments from Trump. Comments of concern and disgust from Ryan over the author of the op-ed. But as for the simple spooling up of Congressional Hearings to expose what Trump sycophant Caputo has referred to as a coup..........NOTHING!!! Crickets.....just as I anticipated.

Trump will bluster. Republicans in Congress will wring their hands as if that is the most aggressive action they could take. But as far as actually functioning as they should.......Crickets. The surest sign that the entirety of the real power base in the GOP is complicit in what has been a grand scale robbery from the start and a charade from the start. Otherwise this charade has been referred to as The Trump Presidency.

It would be easy as pie for the Congress both sides to ramp up Hearings to find out exactly what the heck is going on at the other end of Penn Av. Has nothing to do with whistleblower protections by the way but instead.........Crickets

 

[OscarLevant]

Who gives a **** if the NYTs knows who he is ? Given the media's track record, I'm not entirely convinced he exist.

But let's say he does exist. There's NOTHING stopping him from coming forward and presenting his evidence to start the process of invoking the 25th amendment. What's important is WE know who he is, Congress knows who he is.
So either he's doesn't exist, or he doesn't have the character or the integrity to show his face and go through the legal process of removing Trump.

He actually tried to address this issue in the OpEd saying he and others decided not to go through the legal process because they didn't want to cause a Constitutional crisis.

The overt defiance of Trumps Constitional authority by a unelected appointee IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, and you people are cheering this guy on.
He's not only subverting the Presidents authority, he's subverting the will of the people and by extension the Constitution. He's breaking the be law

No, he is a whistleblower protected by law

 

[exoplanet]

please place obamas and trumps approval ratings for the same time frame side by side

Please participate in a debate honestly, stop dodging requests for evidence, and support your own statements.

 

[apdst]

He cannot use his authority to obstruct justice

He didn't obstruct justice.

 

[ataraxia]

Treason? No. The person revealed no top secret national secrets, etc. try again.

Then maybe insubordination? I’m no lawyer. Whatever it is, it’s pretty serious.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Please participate in a debate honestly, stop dodging requests for evidence, and support your own statements.

I am. Stop lying that Im not. Its your claim that Trumps numbers are a dumpster fire not mine. I asked you for a fair comparison of obama vs Trump during the same time period. It doesnt get fairer than that. So, lets compare them directly to obamas...Apples to apples. Are you stating you wont do that? If so, dont tell me to debate honestly when you are the one refusing to back up your typical facebook level leftist erroneous claim. Dumpster fire.....lol. As usual lefty stops in his tracks when asked for straight up facts.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

No, he is a whistleblower protected by law

That is only applicable to releasing information. It doesn’t apply to actions take to prevent the President from doing his job. For example, intercepting a document before Turmp can sign it is not protected by whistleblower laws.

 

[jnug]

Then maybe insubordination? I’m no lawyer. Whatever it is, it’s pretty serious.

It is at the least would appear to be a Conspiracy against the United States run by a group of Trump appointees. It not some heroic effort. What the heck is the matter with us. This appears to be multiple Administrative aides and cabinet officials "preventing" the President from being the President, up to and including telling him that the Military was going to engage is an action based on his order and simply refusing to do so.

Now I have believed for the longest time that Trump is the universally corrupt man, totally absorbed in this role of President by using that office to enhance his personal wealth who has always been a cracked doom with the crack ever widening. However none of that rationalizes an entire administration of his own appointments simply wresting the job from him. Nor does it rationalize the degree to which for all of his bluster Trump actually allows it.

Again I will remind the audience that in both of the tapes we have heard, the Omarosa tape and the Woodward tape Trump has said both times, "I did not know that". According to Trump, nobody told him that Omarosa was being fired and nobody told him that Woodward had been trying to get an interview with him for his book. Woodward on the tape outright asks him if Sen Graham had told him that Woodward was asking for an interview and Trump admits he did and then goes back to his "nobody told me" mantra. Trump IS a cracked dome.

But there is no justification, nothing in the Constitution that allows for a shadow government. That said, Sara Sanders calling for the NYT's to do something, Trump calling on the NYT's to do something is ludicrous. The Congress has to act and nobody from the WH asks for assistance from the Congress in the form of hearings to flesh this out and nobody from the GOP on the Hill makes any sort of comment regarding the need for hearings. From Congress on the issue of actually doing something.....CRICKETS. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Then maybe insubordination? I’m no lawyer. Whatever it is, it’s pretty serious.

Insubordination is only criminal if you are military. I feel like intercepting documents before the POTUS can sign them should be a crime, but I’m not sure what. Theft of government property? Hindering government operations? I don’t know.

 

[iguanaman]

He didn't obstruct justice.

LOL Don't you mean that nothing he does as President can ever be called obstructing justice? Otherwise your statement is ludicrous. My question is why do you think the President is above the law?

 

[poweRob]

LOL Don't you mean that nothing he does as President can ever be called obstructing justice? Otherwise your statement is ludicrous. My question is why do you think the President is above the law?

He means that when a republican is in the oval office, then this applies:

 

[iguanaman]

Insubordination is only criminal if you are military. I feel like intercepting documents before the POTUS can sign them should be a crime, but I’m not sure what. Theft of government property? Hindering government operations? I don’t know.

The trial of such a case would be quite interesting. I'm sure the defendant would claim that preventing WWIII would justify just about anything and he would be right.

 

[iguanaman]

It is at the least would appear to be a Conspiracy against the United States run by a group of Trump appointees. It not some heroic effort. What the heck is the matter with us. This appears to be multiple Administrative aides and cabinet officials "preventing" the President from being the President, up to and including telling him that the Military was going to engage is an action based on his order and simply refusing to do so.

Now I have believed for the longest time that Trump is the universally corrupt man, totally absorbed in this role of President by using that office to enhance his personal wealth who has always been a cracked doom with the crack ever widening. However none of that rationalizes an entire administration of his own appointments simply wresting the job from him. Nor does it rationalize the degree to which for all of his bluster Trump actually allows it.

Again I will remind the audience that in both of the tapes we have heard, the Omarosa tape and the Woodward tape Trump has said both times, "I did not know that". According to Trump, nobody told him that Omarosa was being fired and nobody told him that Woodward had been trying to get an interview with him for his book. Woodward on the tape outright asks him if Sen Graham had told him that Woodward was asking for an interview and Trump admits he did and then goes back to his "nobody told me" mantra. Trump IS a cracked dome.

But there is no justification, nothing in the Constitution that allows for a shadow government. That said, Sara Sanders calling for the NYT's to do something, Trump calling on the NYT's to do something is ludicrous. The Congress has to act and nobody from the WH asks for assistance from the Congress in the form of hearings to flesh this out and nobody from the GOP on the Hill makes any sort of comment regarding the need for hearings. From Congress on the issue of actually doing something.....CRICKETS. Why am I not surprised.

The "justification" would be to prevent endangering national security and that preventing WWII is more important than anything. Would you agree?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

The trial of such a case would be quite interesting. I'm sure the defendant would claim that preventing WWIII would justify just about anything and he would be right.

I agree that stopping WWIII would justify breaking the law. But the person would have to show that the intercepted document posed that kind of risk. If it turns out it was just to stop a policy the interceptor didn’t like then that is not excusable.

 

[exoplanet]

I am. Stop lying that Im not.

You are not supporting your statement with any facts.
Remember this post of yours?

TNo one gives a crap what butthurt former employees have to say about trump. His results are what Americans like.

According to the surveys, the American public doesn't like Trump's results. You've provided no evidence to contradict this. Anyone who's been following politics for the last two years is aware of his poor poll numbers.

Its your claim that Trumps numbers are a dumpster fire not mine.

And I provided facts to support my claim on three separate occasions. If you think that the worst average presidential approval ratings in history aren't a dumpster fire, that's your problem not mine. Because the evidence is there right in front of you.

I asked you for a fair comparison of obama vs Trump during the same time period. It doesnt get fairer than that. So, lets compare them directly to obamas...Apples to apples. Are you stating you wont do that?

Yes, exactly. YOU asked ME to provide support for YOUR comparison of Trump to Obama. Why would I think that Obama's approval rating are relevant to Trump? I never mentioned Obama. Not once. This is your idea, your comparison. What's stopping you from backing up your own statement? Oh wait, I know - it's because you expect other people to do it for you :lol:

If so, dont tell me to debate honestly when you are the one refusing to back up your typical facebook level leftist erroneous claim.

I did support my claim. Three times. You didn't refute any of it, but instead wanted to make a different comparison which you so far have refused to do on your own.

 

[iguanaman]

I agree that stopping WWIII would justify breaking the law. But the person would have to show that the intercepted document posed that kind of risk. If it turns out it was just to stop a policy the interceptor didn’t like then that is not excusable.

If it could be shown that the policy would endanger national security that would be enough for me.

 

[exoplanet]

Oh I can think of presidents that had lousy approval ratings. Such as Abe Lincoln who was shot and killed. I have seen where he was shot and where he lay in bed and died in DC. Garfield got shot. Seems people wanted him dead. Kennedy was shot. Seems he was wanted dead. Trump has not been shot. Over Nixon, A woman shot at President Ford so he had points of low approval.

OMG, that's hilarious. Yes, I suppose if they'd been doing approval rating polls in 19th century Abe Lincoln would be doing pretty poorly in the South.
Especially during that whole civil war period...:lamo

That's an interesting idea you have there. Approval rating by bullets fired?

 

[AlphaOmega]

You are not supporting your statement with any facts.
Remember this post of yours?
According to the surveys, the American public doesn't like Trump's results. You've provided no evidence to contradict this. Anyone who's been following politics for the last two years is aware of his poor poll numbers.

And I provided facts to support my claim on three separate occasions. If you think that the worst average presidential approval ratings in history aren't a dumpster fire, that's your problem not mine. Because the evidence is there right in front of you.

Yes, exactly. YOU asked ME to provide support for YOUR comparison of Trump to Obama. Why would I think that Obama's approval rating are relevant to Trump? I never mentioned Obama. Not once. This is your idea, your comparison. What's stopping you from backing up your own statement? Oh wait, I know - it's because you expect other people to do it for you :lol:

I did support my claim. Three times. You didn't refute any of it, but instead wanted to make a different comparison which you so far have refused to do on your own.

all false. Also I put multi quote abusers on ignore.

 

[itsforthekids]

Obvious trolling is obvious.

It's a fact. Name an illegal policy that came from Trump's presidency...in fact, name a policy that didn't put American citizens first. You may have opinions on it, but name an illegal policy...

 

[poweRob]

It's a fact. Name an illegal policy that came from Trump's presidency...in fact, name a policy that didn't put American citizens first. You may have opinions on it, but name an illegal policy...

U.S. is denying passports to Americans along the border, throwing their citizenship into question​

Next question?

 

[itsforthekids]

U.S. is denying passports to Americans along the border, throwing their citizenship into question​

Next question?

I don't click on links, but I doubt that it's relevant. EVERY policy by any potus has hiccups...it was not an intentionally anti-American policy...in fact, it was a very good policy, proAmerican.

 

[jnug]

Freedom caucus members claiming they want "hearings" on the issues raised in the op-ed. GOP leadership...actual LEADERSHIP ......nothing....CRICKETS...one Hill reported characterized it as "shrugged shoulders". Not in the least surprised.

 

[Fenton]

No, he is a whistleblower protected by law

Lol ! Huh ? You realize there's specific steps and guidelines for Federal employees that have to be followed. I guarantee there's nothing in the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act about writing anonymous OpEds to the NYTs

Besides if he's a whistle blower protected by law then why did he post a anonymous OpEd instead of going public and presenting evidence ?