NYT Responds to Trump

Airyaman · 2018-09-08T18:28:04.319Z

WuWei:

Airyaman:

So if you slow-walk or ignore an order, is that “usurping” in your world-view?

Ignoring absolutely is.

Definition of USURP

to seize and hold (office, place, functions, powers, etc.) in possession by force or without right; to take or make use of without right; to take the place of by or as if by force : supplant… See the full definition

zantax · 2018-09-09T10:46:29.950Z

dantes:

I don’t think anyone is ignore executive orders.

But Trump says random dumb stuff that they ignore all the time. Nothing official. Could hardly be said to be sedition since they’re not preventing the execution of any laws.

We don’t know what form their resistance has taken, all we know is we have someone who admits to their being a conspiracy to resist executive authority within our government. It is worth investigating to find out.

zantax · 2018-09-09T10:47:17.622Z

armycowboy:

calirepub:

This is all talk by Trump. No way dies he want this all aired in court.

Court? Donald Trump is the President. He can just start jailing people if he wants to.

I’m sure he wishes he could.

Why can’t he? Obama had American citizens killed on his say so.

zantax · 2018-09-09T10:57:29.888Z

tnt:

You are delusional.

the Op ed author described efforts to convince their boss to do things this way instead of that way.

That is not sedition. That is not blocking the authority of the president. It’s actually doing the job of an advisor.

Err not quite.

from Opinion | I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration - The New York Times

The result is a two-track presidency.

Did we elect more than one President?

and

Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Both of those sound like something more than giving advice to me.

MichaelScarn · 2018-09-09T11:21:17.844Z

It’s sedition to discuss constitutional rights.

tnt · 2018-09-09T11:58:12.393Z

You are being hyperbolic to rationalize your lord and master’s rage.

Insulating your department from what you view as bad decisions is what department heads do every day all over the world.

tnt · 2018-09-09T11:59:37.435Z

Advisors disagreeing with the POTUS is not a conspiracy.

dantes · 2018-09-09T12:11:37.243Z

I doubt anyone wants that.

adroit · 2018-09-09T12:41:11.122Z

zantax:

by force

Force is a pre-req. Otherwise, one could argue that impeachment is sedition. It’s ridiculous.

Gravityspeak · 2018-09-09T13:05:08.933Z

Man! If only you people were this supportive of an investigation into attacks on or sovereignty by another nation, we’d be good to go!

zantax · 2018-09-09T13:05:28.509Z

tnt:

Advisors disagreeing with the POTUS is not a conspiracy.

Didn’t say it was.

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-09-09T14:08:15.582Z

Gravityspeak:

Man! If only you people were this supportive of an investigation into attacks on or sovereignty by another nation, we’d be good to go!

It’s not “technically, technically”.

swriddle · 2018-09-09T14:23:16.954Z

Like check her DNA? The only blond haired blue eye Native American I’ve ever seen.

Konssurvative1 · 2018-09-09T14:26:55.942Z

BY FORCE being the key to SEDITION.

zantax · 2018-09-09T14:36:51.266Z

Konssurvative1:

BY FORCE being the key to SEDITION.

Violence is not the only form of force, compulsion is also force. Exerting your authority to hinder or defy the law is a form of force.

zantax · 2018-09-09T14:41:34.667Z

Or we could go with this instead

LII / Legal Information Institute

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

US Code

Notes

prev | next

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

armycowboy · 2018-09-09T14:45:22.184Z

Your concern for a documented terrorist is noted. ■■■■ al-Awlaki.

CanadianJudo · 2018-09-09T14:48:54.061Z

nothing in the op-ed was illegal.

CanadianJudo · 2018-09-09T14:50:23.536Z

Its not illegal to try and direct the President into following a pathway of policy.

Konssurvative1 · 2018-09-09T15:07:00.946Z

Tell your self what you need to…thats not what the statute says. Maybe I could give you this if there were written threats in the OP ED. But there were none. There is no force being used.