A few minutes ago, the New York Times rolled out an anonymous op-ed from an anonymous high-ranking White House official intended to reassure Americans that there are people in the White House working to undermine Trump's worst impulses.
"President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader," Courage-Free Cat wrote. "The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."
This bastion of political courage and pluck then went on to describe Donald Trump as "amoral."
And then the kicker: "But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."
Each and every one of these officials took an oath to defend the United States Constitution. If, in fact, they believe their first duty is to this country, then they also ought to believe they should act in accordance with the remedies that document prescribes.
Instead, and in an effort to continue pursuing their conservative agenda, this writer tells us that the 25th amendment simply will not do.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
Invoking the 25th Amendment is their DUTY under the Constitution, not a crisis-maker. The entire point of this op-ed is to apply a bandage to a gaping wound. It is a message to us all, to say we aren't crazy, yes, they see what we see, the erratic behavior, the ignorance, and more.
That is the point, and it is also why we cannot -- MUST NOT -- allow Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed. In today's hearing he would not opine on whether a sitting President may be subpoeanaed. Feinstein's point in asking him was to investigate whether his answer would conform to his larger opinion on whether sitting Presidents should be investigated, or subject to a Special Counsel.
And honestly, one paragraph in the op-ed should truly send us all into orbit. Here we have an anonymous high-ranking White House official telling everyone that Donald Trump is unfit for office -- unfit to govern -- but instead of beginning the process of a Constitutional remedy, we should all just be more civil to one another.
"The bigger concern," writes Mr. or Ms. Profile In Courage, "Is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us."
"We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility," the writer concludes.
SERIOUSLY? We have a likely fascist, definite racist (the man is pissed that he had to condemn neoNazis and the KKK, for gawdsake!), dotard and man-child in the White House, and this writer is grieving the death of civility? ARE YOU KIDDING ME RIGHT NOW?
Yes, with a nod to John McCain and his call for civility, this writer screwed up his or her courage and wrote about what a "lodestar1" he is for what we should become. No more tribalism, writes the tribalist who is so committed to free markets, free trade, and the Republican agenda that he or she will not do their Constitutional duty.
No. Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed. He cannot give this criminal in the White House a get-out-of-jail free card. This op-ed is interesting, but in the end, a distraction. It confirms what we already know, and should bolster a case for refusing to vote on Kavanaugh or any other nominee until the status of Donald John Trump is resolved.
1 Click the link. The last 4 listed seem to point toward a reasonable guess.