Civil Commotion

If Anonymous quits, he will only empower the president’s worst anti-democratic instincts, and make way for someone else who will likely enable authoritarianism. If he stays, he is undermining the very democracy he is trying to protect, by conducting what is effectively a soft coup on behalf of the “steady state” and that part of the GOP that decisively lost to Trump in the primaries. It’s lose-lose, and some of the condemnations of the op-ed’s author seem blind to what is a real dilemma. If you know the president is amoral and dictatorial, there is a real and defensible case for staying.

] … ]

Unfortunately, there is no case for publicizing any of this anonymously in the New York Times. Far from helping his cause, Anonymous has undermined it. Worse, he has triggered this president — which was completely predictable — into exactly the kind of unhinged behavior Anonymous is so worried about. Maybe the op-ed was designed to buttress Woodward’s portrayal of a dangerous two-track administration. Maybe it was a way of salving his own conscience in the wake of McCain’s death. Maybe it was a misbegotten attempt to calm those of us horrified by what Trump is doing to the office and liberal democracy. But as a political act, it was indeed gutless as well as pointless.

Andrew Sullivan

I agree with the first part of this, and disagree with the last. Anonymous is clearly speaking to Congress, but at the same time going over Congress’ head; a supine Republican Party might be annoyed, but it’s a safe bet that much of the rest of the country has taken note.

What if the author is identified and fired? Who replaces Anonymous? A reliably sycophantic cultist who can be trusted to do whatever the deranged Buffoon-in-Chief says to do — that’s who.

One more thing: I ordinarily want nothing to do with anonymities — but this is an exceptional case. Would Congress act if Anonymous had done as Republicans suggest, resigned and then held a press conference? No. Could anonymous and his or her family be confidant they wouldn’t be targeted and harmed by some lunatic Trump cultist? No.

As Sullivan correctly notes, Anonymous’ position is lose-lose — and it’s time to stop being distracted by the messenger’s method and start thinking about the message: Trump is an unstable loony.

Golly — who to believe? Woodward, who has a solid, hard-earned, 40-year reputation for accuracy, or Twump, who is a relentless, well-known liar?

Bah.

Perhaps I have an overly-sensitive gag-reflex, but Republicans’ pious indignation at that anonymous New York Times editorial — That coward should have come and told us about the problems! — is triggering it like a semi-automatic.

• Did Republicans care about Trump’s cynical misuse and torment of the DACA kids?

• Did Republicans care about the separation of families at the border?

• Do Republicans care about Trump’s sustained and relentless attacks against the Justice Department?

• Do Republicans care about the relentless attacks against the FBI?

• Do Republicans care about the relentless attacks against our intelligence agencies?

• Do Republicans care that Trump condemned the prosecution of Congressmen because it may affect party balance in the House of Representatives?

• Do Republicans care that Trump cozies-up to tyrants and attacks this country’s oldest friends?

• Do Republicans care about Kevin Nunes’ blatant crippling of the House Intelligence Committee?

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, and … no.

So I’m thinking that Anonymous probably has no confidence that Congress will honor its plain obligations, and is looking toward the American people to force Congress to do its duty.

Sometime toward the end of the Nixon Administration, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger ordered the Chiefs of Staff to ignore any presidential order not countersigned by him.

It sounds more Hollywood than history. A paranoid president, unhinged, drinking heavily, ranting against his enemies, terrifies subordinates. The defense secretary commits what may be the most patriotic act of treason in American history: ordering the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ignore any White House military initiatives lacking his signature.

Most historians believe that as Richard Nixon staggered toward resignation in 1974, Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger undermined the president’s constitutional authority. The late Watergate expert Stanley Kutler was skeptical, asking where was the paper trail? But who would write down such orders? It is more believable that this prickly, patriotic, public servant risked his career to save America rather than risking his reputation by inventing such a crazy story.

Those of us who lived through the turmoil of Watergate, and made a point of understanding what had happened, have been more saddened than surprised by the disintegration of Trump’s presidency; America has been here before.

I doubt very much, however, that Trump will make a gentlemanly departure. He will probably summon his cultists and try to remain in office by recourse to force.

Sarah Sanders, shameless liar, is siccing the Trump cultists on the New York Times.

Again: That NYT editorial is not the work of a coward; it’s the work of somebody frantically trying to alert the country that it is in danger and pleading with Congress to step-up and do its duty. Seriously: How does the country benefit if that person is replaced by a mindless sycophant similar to … oh, I don’t know … Sarah Sanders?