There will be WH purge(s) because of this, and it also gives Trump loyalists a good argument:
He hasn’t been given a real chance to succeed because of internal deep state sabotage, so if we are given a few more years to actually work as the boss intends then you will see the results we promised. Trumpism hasn’t failed, we haven’t truly been able to try it yet.
I keep thinking that too. And also, if these things are so horrible, how are they making it all the way to the presidents desk in the first place? That’s the LAST step in what must be a huge bureaucratic process for even the smallest thing that gets a president’s signature. If they are having to intercept stuff at that point there are a LOT more problems in the executive branch than Trump himself and the 25th amendment is not even a remote possibility.
Ha! I’ve heard that about other “-isms” (and indeed many “-archies” and “-cracies” as per www.phrontistery.info/govern.html), why not Trumpism?
You don’t see those stories so much these days, presumably because there’s so much other shit going on, but in the first year you’d often see reports that there was basically no normal interagency process at all in the Trump White House.
I’m not so sure that they want to just ignore why the paper is missing. Is it normal to have paperwork at the very top of the government just go missing? So just print it again? I don’t know about that.
I think when the President of the mother’f’in’ U.S.A. gives an order he shouldn’t have to repeat himself. Sure, shit happens in any managerial structure, but if subordinates are withholding/destroying information in the deliberate hope that their boss won’t bring it up again, I’m pretty sure that crosses some kind of a line. Granted, the more effective a boss is, the harder it would be to get away with such a trick, and Trump’s mind evidently has got more holes than Blackburn, Lancashire.
Well, the thing is, Trump doesn’t really care about being “president”. He is Trump, and whatever the presidency was before doesn’t matter, because it is him now, and it is his brand and is what he is. He drained the swamp and replaced it with sewer water.
This is probably how all of his business ventures have been run, with him spouting nonsense and damaging stuff with a team around him picking up the messes. There is no way he was going to change once he became president. And if it worked for Trump Inc, it should work for the U.S.
I think that’s more about respect than law, however. There are a great many powers associated with the office of the Presidency, but I’m not aware of any which approach “Do what I want or it’s a crime,” no matter how much Trump seems to wish it so.
To be clear, there are indeed circumstances where not complying could be; for instance, military have to follow legal orders or face court martial. Likewise, if someone is mishandling classified materials when removing something from his desk, I know this can also run afoul of laws.
So far as I know the president cannot issue legally binding direct orders to anyone outside the military. The various administration and cabinet agencies and departments may be subject to presidential authority, but the individuals serving in them aren’t slaves. They can reject any directives they like until they are fired, after which time they still have no obligation to obey. I suppose most of the founders (apart from Hamilton) would have been horrified at any suggestion of sovereign autocratic authority reposing in the office.
Yeah but this is the president. If they think what he is doing is illegal or unconstitutional or something along those lines there should be a different step than just not doing it or hiding the documents. That makes it sound like someone else is running the country, like a dozen or so staff members, without the president’s knowledge.
Trump or no Trump, this doesn’t sound right. I don’t know about the legalities. I assume it’s like everything we’ve learned with this presidency, not a real law against it or if there is, no one cares.
But isn’t there an issue with the usurpation of government power by unelected officials?
Suppose there is some case where a president can choose to act or not act. If he does nothing, policy A continues to happen; if he acts, policy B goes into effect, changing the government’s stance.
An underling impedes the enactment of policy B by delaying, or hiding papers, or exploiting gaps in the president’s memory/attention span. So now policy A continues, not by will of an elected official but by the will of some other person ‘managing’ their boss.
Genuine question… is there no legal issue there? Or is that nothing more than a firable offense?
(not a response to Nesrie but rather to the same concepts she is responding to)
Slate thinks it’s John Huntsman, btw
Wouldn’t Huntsman be spending most (if not all) of his time in Moscow?
Well, maybe, I don’t know how these things works. But if there are EOs hanging around without a chain of custody it doesn’t appear that at least for this WH that it’s a big deal. Read @Wallapuctus’ post, he articulates what I was trying to get at far better.
Bonus points for referencing my favorite Beatles song.
Richard Spencer the other day (who did come out against the Bush shitshow) did say he spent years in the bureaucracy where they tried to avoid or delay Presidential directives, then spent years in the Executive branch trying to get the bureaucracy to follow Executive directives, so this may not be as out of bounds as we think.
It’s a conspiracy of the libral medias to all report they suspect a different person. It should be illegal. Maybe we need a Qt3 official poll.
I am Op-Edicus!
This turns out like Murder on the Orient Express, right?
I hear collusion is not a crime.