Republicans

[Tero]

Same here. I will read the Woodward book, but only when the nightmare is over.

[Joe]

You're the one who said the book was "full of examples." I take it you don't know whether it does or not, correct?

And I also said "So the media says , but you know you can't trust them." I take it English isn't your first language.

You also said "now those things couldn't be related, could they?" - what makes you think they are related? Anything?

Here's another English lesson. Sentences that end in "?" are not statements of opinion.

Now, how about answering my question. Why don't you just read the book?

Well, because I think the media did not, in fact, say that woodward’s book contained examples of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. But you can always cite your source. Maybe it’s one I haven’t seen.

I will read the book eventually.

As for your question about “they couldn’t be related, could they?” I took your “question” as a figure of speech - meaning that you believed that they were related. If you really were literally asking me that, then sure they “could be.” But neither you nor I have read the book. So can some other publications coming out around now. They “could be” related. We don’t know.

This is the one I heard talked about the most, to the point I hunted it down and read it. The writer directly links the two works and cites a passage. Given how the media loves a good narrative , I doubt it's the last time that happens.

Crazytown: A Bob Woodward Book, an Anonymous New York Times Op-Ed, and a Growing Crisis for the Trump Presidency

This is hardly a flattering picture of what the internal pushback to Trump looks like. Many of Woodward’s sources come across as caricatures of Washington power brokers, scheming against one another as they jockey for Trump’s favor, shamelessly flattering the President, fuming about insults and threatening to quit but never actually doing so. I was about halfway through the book on Wednesday afternoon when the news cycle interrupted my reading: an anonymous Op-Ed by a “senior official in the Trump administration” had just been published by the Times, praising the “unsung heroes” inside the White House who have secretly been members of the same clandestine “resistance” chronicled in the Woodward book. “It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era,” Anonymous wrote, “but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.”

It was as if one of Woodward’s sources had chosen to publish a real-time epilogue in the pages of the Times. Reading the Op-Ed, I immediately thought of an amazing passage in the book, which quoted a summary of a national-security meeting written by a White House official (and which never even made it into the news accounts about the book). It said, “The president proceeded to lecture and insult the entire group about how they didn’t know anything when it came to defense or national security. It seems clear that many of the president’s senior advisers, especially those in the national security realm, are extremely concerned with his erratic nature, his relative ignorance, his inability to learn, as well as what they consider his dangerous views.”

Both the Op-Ed and the book convey the laments of conservatives who, in many respects, are fine with the Trump agenda but not with the man. That is, for now, what passes for the Republican wing of the resistance. So far, it is mostly underground, or perhaps still largely nonexistent; we don’t really know. The Republicans who control Capitol Hill have not joined, or even made token moves toward addressing these significant concerns raised by members of their own party. Instead, the silence from the congressional G.O.P., awaiting its fate in the November midterm elections and still wary of crossing the President who remains popular with the Republican base, has been deafening.

That's quite specificr, and it's clear the book will be used to provide more examples of Trump 'as an ill-informed and dishonest president and the West Wing staff as trying to minimize the damage,' buttressing the op-ed.

Since you are defending Trump so vociferously, you should read the book sooner than later if you want to be taken seriously.

Besides, it's a best seller.

[Animavore]

I might actually get Fear. I think, given the journalist's prestige and track record of integrity, it will be on a different level to the personal memoirs of ex-staff.

He actually wrote an insider book about the Obama administration too. All of the Republicans smears won't stick here.

[Forty Two]

Joe - "linking" the two is not the same thing as setting out specific examples of what the OpEd writer said happened - specifically that Trump was about to act on base impulses and inclinations to do something that would threaten or damage democracy or democratic institutions, and the OpEd writer and/or his cohorts "thwarted" the President.

That's different. The timing surely can conceivably be linked. Maybe they're coordinated. I don't know. But, nobody has said that Woodward provides specific examples to back up the general statements in the OpEd about what the "resistance" supposedly did to "thwart" something horrible Trump would have done. The OpEd writer said, flat out, that they thwarted him. The Op Ed writer provided zero examples of what was thwarted.

Look, about if I want to be taken seriously - if you're making allegations (or believing allegations) against Presidet Trump, then you should want proof. If YOU want to be taken seriously, you'll stop believing stuff printed that doesn't come with basic proof of those allegations.

I will read the book, but it just fucking came out like 3 days ago, and some of its primary allegations have already been refuted by the people it talks about. Kelly, Mattis, etc. They deny saying what the book suggests they said (quoting people other than them) and they even suggested that Woodward didn't try to corroborate the third party allegations with the horse's mouth.

And you talk about me "defending trump so vociferously." On this point, I was making a very specific statement - that the OpEd writer provided zero examples of doing what he said he and the resistance were doing. That's a pregnant absence. When an allegation is of the seriousness the oped writer has made, he better have some back-up for it. He is saying -- flat out -- that he and group of resisters of the President are inside the administration actively undermining what the administration wants to do. They are "thwarting" him. The writer says they are doing it to protect democracy and democratic institutions from the threat posed by Trump, who has been thwarted from doing things on his impulses and inclinations which would horribly damage democracy and democratic institutions. That's what the writer himself says. It is not in the least unreasonable to ask him: "what have you thwarted, specifically?" Answering that with "we've thwarted trump from acting on his impulses and inclinations...." is not an answer. What, specifically, was Trump going to do that was thwarted? Was he going to seize power from Congress? Was he going to do something on Presidential fiat that requires a vote of the people or the Congress? What? What was "thwarted?"

He tells us that we can be heartened by the fact that he and his cohorts or cabal within the white house are there, making sure that Trump is stopped or thwarted from doing things that would send the country off the rails. Oh, well, by all means, thank you thank you, oh, patriotic resister who is risking all by "resisting" the would-be dictator in the oval office. But, maybe you could tell me what you did to stop the President, and what you stopped him from doing, so that you could give me, the citizen voter, the information we need to know that you're not simply hindering the person we elected from doing what we electe him to do....? Is that too much to ask?

[Brian Peacock]

Joe -- until you can provide absolute examples which meet all of 42's conditions you forfeit your right to an opinion, or even to be taken seriously, and in the meantime the contrary view will be repeated, often, as if it remains unchallenged - untill/unless examples are provided that satisfy the aforementioned conditionality tests. Rinse and repeat...

[Forty Two]

And, Joe, the passage you quoted was NOT very specific - look at this:

It was as if one of Woodward’s sources had chosen to publish a real-time epilogue in the pages of the Times. Reading the Op-Ed, I immediately thought of an amazing passage in the book, which quoted a summary of a national-security meeting written by a White House official (and which never even made it into the news accounts about the book). It said, “The president proceeded to lecture and insult the entire group about how they didn’t know anything when it came to defense or national security. It seems clear that many of the president’s senior advisers, especially those in the national security realm, are extremely concerned with his erratic nature, his relative ignorance, his inability to learn, as well as what they consider his dangerous views.”

This is gossip, not specifics. We can tell from this that someone in the white house characterizes a meeting where the President lectured and insulted an entire group about how they didn't know anything regarding defense and national security. It's not a quote, it's a paraphrase. But, that's not a threat to democracy or democratic institutions. The President is the elected executive and commander in chief. The people he's "lecturing" work for him, not the other way around. We elected Trump, not whoever he was talking to. It's a characterized as a "national security meeting," but conspicuously absent from that passage is WHO WAS IN THE MEETING? Surely the writer/Woodward knows. Why not identify the specific people. Kelly? Mattis? Who? And do those people agree with the characterization of that meeting?

President's senior advisers are very concerned about his erratic behavior. Oh, really? Who? Which "senior advisers?" What will those senior advisers confirm? Did Woodward get that info FROM the senior advisers in question, or from someone in the administration who claims to be a "resister" of Trump?

Dangerous views? Which "views?" Are we talking a policy difference, or a "danger?" What danger? Does he think that nuclear weapons can be used on a whim for fun and profit? Does he think that he can disband Congress? Is he going to appoint a horse to his cabinet? Or, is this that he is "too friendly" with Russia? Or, does someone think his North Korea policy is dangerous because it doesn't come down on them enough for their human rights abuses and prison camps?

What you quoted was not an example of specifics that people are resisting - what you posted are generalized allegations. He's dumb. He doesn't even want to learn. He told other people they didn't know anything about defense. Etc. Do you honestly think he's the first President in history to manage in that fashion? Verbal abuse? Insult? Yelling? If that's what anyone thinks, I have some serious news for you - there is a type of manager who operates like that. Trump is not the first.

It's fair to seriously consider reports that a President is abusive, ignorant, and unwilling to learn, and it's fair to seriously consider reports that he is trying to do dangerous and damaging things. But, that's the beginning of the analysis, not the end. Who is making the allegation is important. Why? On what basis? What examples of policies the President sought to enact that are dangerous and damaging? Remember, this is politics, so just because someone comes out anonymously saying the President is an abusive, ignorant and dangerous person doesn't (a) make it so, or (b) provide us with any actionable information.

People in the Lyndon Johnson administration thought he was a psycho too - he'd hold meetings while he was taking a shit on the toilet. He cursed like a truck driver, and yelled at his staff all the time. He would talk openly about the size of his penis, calling it Jumbo, in front of staff, including women. He would be naked in front of his staff and talk to them with his cock and balls hanging out. Some people thought he was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Some people thought he rigged the election when he was running with Kennedy so they could take Texas. And, he's the one whose "dangerous" policies and his "impulses and inclinations" escalated the Vietnam War resulting in 10s of thousands of American military deaths and upwards of million dead Vietnamese.

"Dangerous" policies? Really? GHWBush's policy in Iraq. Obama's policy in Libya and Syria. Clinton's policies in Serbia/Kosovo, and Sudan (where he bombed a factory and such). Reagan and Bush policies in Nicaragua and Panama?

Every President has "dangerous" policies. There were "inside sources" in the Reagan administration that said he took his policy advice from an astrologer and his wife, and that he had dementia or alzeimers in meetings and fell asleep. Reagan.

I'm not going to take anonymous inside sources at face value, and certainly not on generalized allegations without factual back-up.

President Obama was said to have told his staff "I can do every one of your jobs better than you can." He centralized decision-making in an unprecedented manner. People around him were not pushing back on him, because President Obama thought he was "the smartest guy in the room."



So? What do we do with that information? He's the President. He was elected. Not Gates, not the President's advisers. Maybe Obama was pushing his staff to prove him wrong. That's one management style - the manager asks for X, and he expects his staff to fight for what they believe in - if they think something is wrong, then they have to stand up and stand behind their contradiction or opposition - and they better be right. That's what the manager wants -- people who better be right, and can be held accountable when they're wrong. They don't want an adviser who later says "well, i was just an adviser, it was your decision, Mr. President" - he wants an adviser who says "no, Mr. president, here's the right thing to do, and here's why, and I stand behind it."

[Brian Peacock]

Thing is 42, Trump is responsible for the decisions and actions of his administration. What the old adage? "The buck stops here?" not, "I tried my best but I was given bad advice, soz!"

BTW: Who appoints presidential advisers?

[Forty Two]

Joe -- until you can provide absolute examples which meet all of 42's conditions you forfeit your right to an opinion, or even to be taken seriously, and in the meantime the contrary view will be repeated, often, as if it remains unchallenged - untill/unless examples are provided that satisfy the aforementioned conditionality tests. Rinse and repeat...

Stop it, Brian. That's not accurate at all. Joe told ME that if I wanted to be taken seriously, I had to meet his conditions first. I responded to that by suggesting that if he wanted to be taken seriously, he should need proof and specifics sufficient to support such serious allegations. Surely, if he is going to suggest that I'm not to be taken seriously, if I push back on that and apply the standard to him, it's not unfair, is it?

And, I did not say that "until you can provide absolute examples which meet all 42's conditions you forfeit your right an opinion." I never said that at all, and you know it. All I'm saying is that an anonymous source who claims to be resisting the the elected official in doing what the elected official was elected to do, under the rubric that the President was impulsed/inclined to do dangerous things which threaten and/or damage democracy and democratic institutions, it's not unfair to ask (a) what democratic instutions were threatened, (b) by what policy/act that Trump was going to do, and (c) what did you or your cohorts do to (as he said) "thwart" the President?

That's not unfair - that's basic. That's not telling him he has to produce "absolute" examples. It's pointing out that the oped provides ZERO examples, absolute or not. What even is an "absolute" example? How about - "an example." Very simple. Tell us what Trump wanted to do that you or your cohorts thwarted. Anything? What? Is that really - Brian - come on - is that really so much to ask?

And, until we get even that basic bit of information, is it really unfair to "not believe" the word of an anonymous person who claims to be part of a "resistance" within the white house/administration which is patriotically saving democracy from the base impulses/inclinations of an unhinged President?

Should we not also credit the possibility that this "resister" has his own political motives? There was a "never Trump" movement in the GOP, and there still is. This writer of the OpEd seems to say he's part of it - part of that group that said that Trump is not a conservative. Trump has strayed from the "long held conservative principles," said the oped writer. Oh, yeah, writer? So fucking what? Trump was elected in part by people who were sick of those principles. He made no secret of his views on trade and tariffs, and the rank-and-file voter supported him for it. So, if this "resister" is trying to "thwart" trade policies and practices or tariffs, is that really saving "democracy?" Is he really opposing an unhinged, incompetent President who is a danger to the world, or is he acting to thwart the President simply because of different policy viewpoints?

Without specific examples of what was "thwarted" we -- quite simply - do not know if the resister is resisting based on different policy viewpoints, or based on some real, illegal danger to our constitutional system and democratic institutions.

And, I've suggested no conditionality test, other than the standard, normal "bullshit detector" principles that Michael Shermer has set out in his writings, and the principles set out by Carl Sagan in his Baloney Detection Kit.

For example, some of what Carl Sagan said included: Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” Do we have that? It's certainly "possible" to get it - which is why I asked for examples. Let's get some confirmation of the "facts" alleged by the OpEd writer. Is that too much of a "test" to apply here?

He said, "Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view." That's what we're looking for. Let's hear the facts from different sources.

He said - Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. That's all we have here, Brian - a "senior administration official" making untestable claims without even the possibility of assessing the "senior administration officials'" level of seniority, actual access to information, sources of information and bias. He are asked to take him at his word because he speaks from anonymous authority.

Here is another one: "Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy." Aren't there more than one hypotheses here? One, we have a truth telling anonymous senior official who has said that he and others have acted to thwart the President from doing something(s) dangerous and threatening to democracy and democratic institutions, while not letting us know even one example of what they thwarted him from doing. Alternative hypothesis: he has a political motive to oppose the president and what he's really resisting is a difference in policy viewpoint wherein he sees the President as discarding "long held conservative values" and that's what the writer is "resisting." Hypothesis three: this is a never trumper who is biased and acting against the president for political reasons. We have no evidence for or against any of it. Shouldn't we? Aren't the allegations serious enough to require some evidence before believing them?

Sagan wrote - "What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations." -- exactly my point. It's easy to say that Trump has impulses and inclinations that threaten democracy and democratic institutions. But, that's so vague and broad that we don't know what he's talking about. It's like saying he's an asshole. The followup question needs to be "what has he done or said that makes him an asshole?" Otherwise, all we have is the vague, qualitative assessment of one anonymous person.

Sagan wrote - "If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them." Do we have that here? I don't see it. In fact, we don't even have a "chain." We have one link. An oped writer making untestable, unassessable claims.

Sagan wrote "Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified." Can the allegations here be falsified? How? How do we prove the allegation wrong that this senior official thwarted something dangerous the President was going to do? Explain to me how we test that.

Sagan wrote - "Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.... if we can never acquire information [to test the allegation] is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result."

This does not just apply to science. This applies to any allegation of fact. If someone said that President Trump is being thwarted by an anonymous resistence within which thwarts his evil impulses and inclinations, which if left unchecked would have let him do things which threaten our democratic and democratic institutions..... shouldn't we "acquire information to test the information such that it is capable of disproof? Shouldn't we "be able to check the assertions out?" How can we at this time? Shouldn't we ask the New York Times to check the assertions out and report on how they were checked out?

I haven't asked for anything over-the-top or some strange "condition" on belief. I've asked for the normal tools of the skeptic to be applied to allegations of fact. We have an allegation that reality = X. Do you believe that reality is X without being able to test and confirm it?

If someone said Obama was born in Kenya, wouldn't you ask for corroboration? Or, would an anonymous report from a senior white house official be enough? What if some anonymous figure said that in a national security meeting Obama told his staff he could do all their jobs better than them? Wouldn't you want to know who the official was, what the context was, and whether anyone confirms that the statement was made? I would.

[Brian Peacock]

Not knowing the answers to those question has no impact on the truth status of their propositions, nor does it foreclose on an extrapolated judgement based on what one already knows.

[Forty Two]

Thing is 42, Trump is responsible for the decisions and actions of his administration. What the old adage? "The buck stops here?" not, "I tried my best but I was given bad advice, soz!"

BTW: Who appoints presidential advisers?

Sure, but he's not responsible if someone says they are a resister who is secretly thwarting the administration's policies. He's not responsible if someone says that Trump insults his staff by saying they don't know defense and national security. Was Obama responsible when some people in his administration said that he thought he was the smartest guy in any room, and told his staff he could do all their jobs better than they could? Do we even believe Obama said that?

I never said that "I tried my best but I was given bad advice" is a good excuse for a President. I said a President pushes and tests his advisers and cabinet to stand behind their decisions, and to know that the President is going to hold them accountable for their decisions and advice. The President is accountable to the people, of course, but the staff of the President is accountable to the President. Of course we hold Trump accountable if he sets out a policy in some country to invade, but the President wants his national security advisers to know what they're doing and stand behind their views - put their reputations and careers on the line. If a person heads the NSA, they're supposed to know more in that arena than the President, not less. That's why they are his adviser, not the other way around. If the NSA says "no, Mr. President, here's what you should do..." the President, like many managers, will want to push back on it and see how confident the person is - how much will they stand behind the idea - is it "six of one, half dozen of the other," or is it "no, Mr. President, you'll go off the rails if you choose option A, but if you do what I'm advising the crisis will be resolved."

[Brian Peacock]

In addition: what you have erected is a thesis which maintains that if these charges do not satisfy your conditionals then, on the basis that they cannot be said to be true, then they must be treated as false. Moreover, those dealing in such freshly declared falsities are probably wilfully egregious and partisan - which offers another route to bankrupt discourse, on the grounds that: "You would say that anyway", TDS, or whatever.

[Brian Peacock]

Thing is 42, Trump is responsible for the decisions and actions of his administration. What the old adage? "The buck stops here?" not, "I tried my best but I was given bad advice, soz!"

BTW: Who appoints presidential advisers?

Sure, but he's not responsible if someone says they are a resister who is secretly thwarting the administration's policies. He's not responsible if someone says that Trump insults his staff by saying they don't know defense and national security. Was Obama responsible when some people in his administration said that he thought he was the smartest guy in any room, and told his staff he could do all their jobs better than they could? Do we even believe Obama said that?

I never said that "I tried my best but I was given bad advice" is a good excuse for a President. I said a President pushes and tests his advisers and cabinet to stand behind their decisions, and to know that the President is going to hold them accountable for their decisions and advice. The President is accountable to the people, of course, but the staff of the President is accountable to the President. Of course we hold Trump accountable if he sets out a policy in some country to invade, but the President wants his national security advisers to know what they're doing and stand behind their views - put their reputations and careers on the line. If a person heads the NSA, they're supposed to know more in that arena than the President, not less. That's why they are his adviser, not the other way around. If the NSA says "no, Mr. President, here's what you should do..." the President, like many managers, will want to push back on it and see how confident the person is - how much will they stand behind the idea - is it "six of one, half dozen of the other," or is it "no, Mr. President, you'll go off the rails if you choose option A, but if you do what I'm advising the crisis will be resolved."

I'll repeat it in the hope that you might address the point at face value. He is responsible for the decisions and actions of his administration. If he is not in control of his administration then he's also responsible for that too.

[Forty Two]

Not knowing the answers to those question has no impact on the truth status of their propositions, nor does it foreclose on an extrapolated judgement based on what one already knows.

Brian, of course not knowing doesn't have an impact on the "truth status," because "truth" is not dependent on your or my knowledge of the truth.

What it does have an impact on is whether we ACCEPT THE ALLEGATION.

Take Sagan's "Dragon in my Garage" story in "Demon Haunted World." A person says "there is a dragon in my garage." Do we accept it? No. We don't. Does our knowledge of the truth or falsity have any bearing on whether there is a dragon there? No, of course not. It has a bearing on whether we believe the assertion.

So we ask "where is the dragon? Can I see it?" - our friend opens the door and says "see?" if we don't see a dragon, we might say "I don't believe there is a dragon in here, because I don't see it." The person says "he's invisible." Does our ability or inability to confirm that allegation have any bearing on the truth in actual fact? no, of course not. But, it has plenty to do with whether we accept the allegation.

We don't accept it without more information. In his example, we start testing for the dragon - we may put flour on the floor to see if it leaves footprints. We may use infrared cameras. Etc. All manner of investigation. Each time, the person keeps saying, he flies, not walks. He is heatless and breathes heatless fire.

What are we doing? Not taking his word for it. We want to be able to verify it independently.

That's all I'm saying needs to be done with any factual allegation. I have a President in my White House who is impulsed and inclined to do things which threaten democracy and democratic institutions, and I have thwarted him - I stopped him and so have likeminded folks in my group. So rest assured that we are here. Is that true? Maybe. Maybe not. How do I find out? Take the anonymous word? Or do I look for ways to independently confirm it?

Shouldn't I ask the basic question - "what did trump try to do that you thwarted?"

Why would I ask that? Because it is falsifiable. I can go get independent confirmation that Trump really did try to do X, and that the effort was stopped in some way - he didn't go through with it. Or, I can confirm that he never tried to do X, which would falsify that specific allegation.

How do I otherwise falsify or independently confirm the allegation that Trump sought to follow through on base impulses and inclinations to damage democracy and democratic institutions? Dont' I need to know what he tried to do? Don't I need to know what democratic institution was threatened? Don't I need to know what the "resister" did to thwart the President?

Another way to look at this Brian -- what do you need in order to believe the Anonymous oped? Do you believe it? Why? Do you know what was thwarted? Do you know what danger the country, constitution or democratic institutions was/were in? What would you need in order to believe that the anonymous writer is, in fact, a senior official who has taken action to stop the President from doing something dangerous and damaging to our country, constitution, and democratic institutions?

[Forty Two]

Thing is 42, Trump is responsible for the decisions and actions of his administration. What the old adage? "The buck stops here?" not, "I tried my best but I was given bad advice, soz!"

BTW: Who appoints presidential advisers?

Sure, but he's not responsible if someone says they are a resister who is secretly thwarting the administration's policies. He's not responsible if someone says that Trump insults his staff by saying they don't know defense and national security. Was Obama responsible when some people in his administration said that he thought he was the smartest guy in any room, and told his staff he could do all their jobs better than they could? Do we even believe Obama said that?

I never said that "I tried my best but I was given bad advice" is a good excuse for a President. I said a President pushes and tests his advisers and cabinet to stand behind their decisions, and to know that the President is going to hold them accountable for their decisions and advice. The President is accountable to the people, of course, but the staff of the President is accountable to the President. Of course we hold Trump accountable if he sets out a policy in some country to invade, but the President wants his national security advisers to know what they're doing and stand behind their views - put their reputations and careers on the line. If a person heads the NSA, they're supposed to know more in that arena than the President, not less. That's why they are his adviser, not the other way around. If the NSA says "no, Mr. President, here's what you should do..." the President, like many managers, will want to push back on it and see how confident the person is - how much will they stand behind the idea - is it "six of one, half dozen of the other," or is it "no, Mr. President, you'll go off the rails if you choose option A, but if you do what I'm advising the crisis will be resolved."

I'll repeat it in the hope that you might address the point at face value. He is responsible for the decisions and actions of his administration. If he is not in control of his administration then he's also responsible for that too.

I did address it by agreeing with it. Yes, he is responsible for the decisions and actions of his administration. However, he HOLDS HIS ADVISERS and staff etc responsible for doing their jobs and for the recommendations they make. That's how people get fired. That is addressing your point at face value.

Being in control of an administration doesn't mean that there aren't political factions within the administration that seek to achieve political goals. In this case, we have a President that was elected despite intense opposition from establishment people within the Republican party. So, there can certainly be people in that camp who have positions in the administration.

And, in this case, a lot depends on who this person is. What is a "senior administration official" in the mind of the New York Times. They've a track record for inflating that term, and including non-senior people in that category. There are thousands and thousands of people in the executive branch.

And, none of that has anything to do with whether we can confirm what this op ed writer is saying. We can't, not right now.

So, I'll ask it again - do you believe the op ed writer? if so, what do you believe the writer thwarted Trump from doing, and why do you believe it?

[Jason]

In addition: what you have erected is a thesis which maintains that if these charges do not satisfy your conditionals then, on the basis that they cannot be said to be true, then they must be treated as false. Moreover, those dealing in such freshly declared falsities are probably wilfully egregious and partisan - which offers another route to bankrupt discourse, on the grounds that: "You would say that anyway", TDS, or whatever.

“If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. But, if orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their oficers.”

― Sun Tzu