The Miami New Times offers discussed #4, the Facebook group previously):
1. He spoke at a Muslim-bashing event alongside Milo Yiannopoulos and Steve Bannon.
…
3. He defended a supporter who said “bring back the hanging tree.”
…
5. He proudly associated himself with Sebastian Gorka, who has ties to a Hungarian far-right group that collaborated with the Nazis. …
If he’s not a bigot himself, he sure does pal around with them a lot.
I’d be interested to hear (or read as the case may be) your thoughts on the anonymous OpEd in the NYT. I read it last night and was left wondering, and assuming that the facts set out in the OpEd are true:
Is this treason? Or otherwise some form of illegal dereliction of duty on the part of the members of the administration that are involved? Not that I agree with the actions of the president, nor do I necessarily disagree with the actions of the supposed resistance. But in a vacuum, it sounds like members of the government are secretly, and in a coordinated way, subverting the government. If they think that the president is not fit to lead, it would seem that the law requires that they invoke Amend. 25 or do as they’re told. The sentence about a “two-track presidency” feels especially powerful.
Put another way, and assuming it wasn’t Pence, people who weren’t elected are subverting the will of their elected boss – seems dangerous. This is, effectively, what a military coup is. Think about it. Generals are top level members of a government. They are not elected. They supplant their own will for the will of the elected chief executive. And what if [Gen.] John Kelly is the author or a member of the “resistance?”
And if the author was Pence, who is commander-in-chief? Is it Pence? Is it a committee? What happens if Trump makes a legal order and the “resistance” disagrees? Especially if, again, we have Gen. Kelly or any other generals on board?
Do we now have a puppet president?
Will we see a marriage of odd bed fellow between Trump and some Dems seeking to compel NYT to disclose the identity of the author?
Is the identity of the the author an issue of national security, or otherwise of such great importance that any free speech protections considerations should be set aside?
Does this add fuel to the conspiracy theory followers of America? The OpEd even mentions “deep state.” And curiously, and despite the denials in the OpEd, that’s what this appears to be – a deep state conspiracy to stop the will of the legally elected representative of the people. I am decidedly not a conspiracy theorist. But boy does this feel like fuel for that fire.
I don’t know about you, but this feels like the biggest news I’ve heard since 2001/2. But then again, It may play out to nothing and just be more #FakeNews. Who knows.
There is no reason at all to believe that the Op Ed is anything but made up nonsense, until we know who the source is, or get some real evidence that it is both genuine in source and telling the truth of something. The papers in the last year and a half, along with the TV media has been full of made up stories with anonymous sources that later appear to either be other reporters or nobody. Even the FBI has been caught leaking a story to the press, just so that it can cite the press as a source of information for those same facts. It’s just how it, unfortunately, works these days. I doubt there is any reason to see this as different, with the next-to-nothing we know now.
But, IF true, I would say that it would be hard NOT to see it as a National Security issue when a duly elected President is being undermined in unspecified ways by an unknown faction of the U.S. Government. Certainly if Russia putting out a few facebook ads is a problem, this is a BIG problem. While it’s comfortable to think that these are “true conservatives” that are just smoothing things over so that Trump’s oafishness doesn’t get us into too much trouble, just the opposite could as easily be true. What if they lead us into yet another war? Or something else as distasteful. How do you even know if all the things you may dislike about what Trump is doing is being done by THEM?
I don’t believe any of it is true without more evidence, but if it is, it should be something that everyone is concerned about, whatever they might think of Trump. How would you have felt if it was during Obama?
This DiSantis stuff is just grasping at straws. It is a distraction from the fact that Gillum is close to and possibly involved in a huge corruption scandal in Tallahassee’s city government that is currently being investigated by the FBI. It is being ginned up to keep the media from having to report that. When you start hearing about the tallahassee investigation in equal measure, then maybe you can have some concern that there is any truth here. (I think the obviously ridiculous “monkey” thing ruined the chance to get anyone serious to care about whatever else they are crying now.)
Vic:
Curiously, I hear about Gillum and FBI investigation more than I hear about DiSanti – a whole lot more.
I agree that you cannot “believe” that the OpEd is true. To do so would go against all healthy skepticism. But I think its reasonable to assign a sufficient likelihood of its truth to take it serious – seriously enough that you should assume the truth and investigate as if it is true. Because to assume that it is true, and then be proved wrong is virtually harmless. To assume that it is false, and to be wrong, could be catastrophic to our democracy.
In response to “How would you have felt if it was during Obama?” I’d feel largely the way that I feel right now. Except, that in addition to believing that the “resistance” could be an existential threat to American democracy, I also believe that Mr. Trump’s ideas on government may pose an existential threat to American democracy. So, its an odd moment in time, to be sure. See for example, Trump’s curious statements that he respects Eric Holder for, what he believes to be, the corrupt cover up of Obama era wrong doing; together with his apparent criticism of Jeff Sessions for not being equally corrupt.
So, in your view, an investigation, wherever it may lead in regards to truth of the claims being investigated, is itself, harmless. If it finds guilt, then the only harm is righteous harm against the wrongdoer, and if guilt is not found, then there is no harm done, since the investigation justifies itself and is a good of itself.
If you believe that, and I think I have characterized this correctly, you appear to have missed the entire history of law and politics. You CERTAINLY have been unaware of the previous couple of years.
i just don’t even know what to say to that idea. If I have misunderstood you, I invite a clarification.
I personally have seen nothing in the mainstream media, barring some local newspaper articles even admitting that Gilliam might be under a serious cloud, but the entire country of mainstream tv and print media droned on endlessly about the “monkey” thing. In this blog, admittedly one sided anyway, there have been, I think a few posts about DiSantis being a racist for using an innocuous phrase that has been deemed racist by the outrage mob, while I think the only person mentioning Gillum’s problems has been me. I don’t claim to know the truth in this, but that was my experience. YMMV
Eh? How did you miss the front page story in the NYT (can’t get more mainstream or prominent) “Andrew Gillum Shocked Florida With a Primary Win. But an F.B.I. Inquiry Clouds His Campaign.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/us/gillum-florida-governor-tallahassee.html