Whether this anonymous source is real or not (the media has a poor track record at having to back off of stories sources by anonymous sources), all it does is underline the view of many Americans that there is a Washington establishment, or deep state, that doesn’t really believe in representative government. They believe that they should run things. Like it or not, Trump was duly elected and has the right and obligation to govern. If Americans don’t like it, our recourse is to vote him out of office or elect a Congress that will check his progress.
An unnamed senior Trump official has said members of the administration are working to frustrate parts of the president’s agenda to protect the country from his “worst inclinations”.
In a New York Times editorial, the author said President Trump’s “amorality” and “impulsiveness” had led to ill-informed and reckless decisions.
Mr Trump labelled the anonymous writer “gutless” and the newspaper as “phony”.
His press secretary said the mystery writer was a “coward” who should quit.
The Times defended the editorial in a statement, saying: “We are incredibly proud to have published this piece, which adds significant value to the public’s understanding of what is going on in the Trump administration.”
The opinion piece comes a day after excerpts of Bob Woodward’s book on the Trump White House suggested that his top officials have been engaged in an “administrative coup d’etat” to protect the nation from the president, including removing key documents from his desk before he has a chance to sign them.
We’ll know within a few days whether or not “Anonymous” really exists. Simple guilt by association with Trump will be more than enough justification for the media to leak a real source’s identity. There’s far more value to the media in burning a source connected to Trump than there is in claiming journalistic integrity protecting that same source.
So “Deep state” means a “senior official” appointed by Trump?
Anonymous and cowardly like the authors of the Federalist Papers?
Your blinders are so tight you haven’t spotted any “amorality” or “impulsiveness” or “not guided by conservative principles” when it comes to Trump? Not ready for the 25th?
>So “Deep state” means a “senior official” appointed by Trump?
>has said members of the administration
>his top officials have been engaged in an “administrative coup d’etat”
Understand “Deep State” in the context I highlighted?
I guess we’ll have to take him at his word for this.
Well, yes, except Trump has NOT “chosen” all the people who claim to be “senior” members of “the Administration.”
Far too many are held over from the Commie’s regime. And their little Marxist cultural imperative cookbook told them to turn up the heat in their little revolution.
They remain anonymous because they might get hurt if they come out of Mommy’s basement and the big boys see them.
If there actually are “senior” members left over from previous administration then the only one to blame for them is the current occupant, as he could have been rid of them in a heartbeat.
Has anyone taken a minute to digest the idiocy tumbling from Elizabeth Warren’s addled brain? The 25th Amendment to remove Trump?
I don’t recall Fauxcahontas voicing any 25th Amendment concerns regarding the glaringly obvious physical and mental infirmities of Hillary Clinton back in ‘16. She backed a candidate who couldn’t walk unassisted and couldn’t speak coherently without a rehearsed script. Sometimes not even with a rehearsed script. Didn’t have enough stamina to campaign more than two days a week and didn’t even set foot in nine states. Warren runs too much of a credibility deficit to be taken seriously.
Maybe this “Deep State” is made of Republicans who think they can save the GOP from sinking with Trump, and that they can continue to finesse the situation in order to preserve other GOP missions.
Jjf, I think most here would agree that the affiliation to party or intentions in this whole thing do not matter. It’s wrong and it needs to be destroyed.
The stupid R beat the stupid D this past election. Any subversion at this point is treasonous. Want to fix it? Get better candidates on the ballots.
Jason, let’s move on, then. Is there any disagreement about the truth of Trump’s behavior as stated by Anonymous or Woodward?
Tell me, Dad29, did you get upset about the tan suit? The Dijon? The boss having an affair with an intern?
>Is there any disagreement about the truth of Trump’s behavior as stated by Anonymous or Woodward?
Sorry, that’s not “moving on” bub… that’s more trolling.
Talking about what you think of what Trump actually does is “trolling”?
So, the liberal trolls have nothing to say positive or negative about Elizabeth Warren? The silence is thundering… yeah I’m looking at you Foust…. surprised you have no comment. This bitch is crazy.
What am I supposed to think about Warren? You brought her up. Make your case.