Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

"I Am Part of the Resistance ..."



  • edited September 2018
    @DavidrMoran. "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows." But was he in the weather underground,,,, the SDS faction that meant business?
  • @Hank."interrogation in the white house." Think of the great scene in my favorite novel, The Caine Mutiny, when Capt Queeg( trump) ordered the interrogation of the entire crew, searching for who ate the missing strawberries. Madness at 1600. Orange monster as Capt. Queeg..... I am sure that has been mumbled in the west wing by those old enough to remember the book or the movie.
  • I don't know when he disavowed SDS, but of course he was not in any activist role, or not seriously and politically and publicly activist. I have not deeply delved his bio. I went to a couple SDS meetings at the U of R (we are talking >50y ago) and quickly gauged it was destined for ineffectiveness, no great insight on my part, and in any case I left the school after a couple of years anyway. LK made no impression other than for slickness and facility; we were not in the same frat. He was a tennis stud, or thought he was. Other U of R friends have kept up more w details and his life after graduation, various truly serious addictions and numerous marriages and whatnot. A friend at the school I transferred to had gone to prep school w Kudlow and fully confirmed the slickness and facility impressions. Kudlow is a truly bad thinker, and now in power is a damaging one.

    The op ed may well not be him, as it is principled, or tries to be, Vichy-like excuses made before the fact. Another journalist friend of mine, Chas Pierce, just wrote that his wife is fully persuaded it's KA Conway. Cool.
  • @davidrmoran. The SDS might not have been so effective,,,,, whatever that means, but I am sure they considered themselves as the vanguard of something bigger. The fact remains that our generation did mobilize in very large numbers against the war and did in fact have something to due with LBJ dropping out. I was on a bus returning from Wisconsin (got clean for Gene) the night LBJ quit and we thought the war would soon be over. This generation could use SDS ver. 2 or something like it. Certainly the lack of youth outrage today is disappointing.maybe the vanguard is m.i.a.
  • @LB,
    Absolutely right, the youth of 1968 and after had huge effects, on politics and foreign policy and domestic rights, and more, and ultimately it evidently turned out to be too much, or something, and it is that payback and 'ethic of total retaliation' (HThompson) which we are suffering unto today.

    HRC's recently revived commencement speech was given the week I graduated from Brandeis, whither I had transferred, the famous class of 1969, and she got a photospread that week in LIfe, whose cover photo was of my commencement's protests.

    At least (thanks to grassroots people like you) we helped majorly reroute the war efforts for and against, including elected officials. But other and more-lasting effects, since reaction to feelings of condescension seems the chief thing now, in behalf of women, children, nonmajorities, and so on, I am watching wane. As a Wasp buckeye from SW Ohio long established in the Northeast and graduated from progressive universities with very large numbers of NE Jewish kids, I developed an alertness to US cultural values both competing and simpatico.
  • edited September 2018
    I find the release of this letter interesting now that we are approaching midterm elections. No doubt, it seems, this letter has political roots and motivies that goes beyond what was stated and could be considered an act of treason, by some.
  • edited September 2018
    Just read the two links @davidmoran posted last evening. Here they are again for convenience:

    I'd like to clarify / elaborate on what I said earlier. When I referenced Kudlow as a "good thinker" I intended that to mean he was capable of writing the letter we're talking about here. Since david suggested Kudlow as a likely author - he must agree Kudlow is smart enough to write clear and complete sentences and to write something coherent and of that import. I question whether a dummy would have had the wherewithal to work secretely with the NYT establishment, guard his Idendity, and be taken seriously by the Times. The letter's structure and content and the manner in which it was released do not to me appear to be the work of a dummy. (I also think Kudlow would have no trouble pronouncing "anonymous".):)

    Compared to many with whom Trump has surrounded himself (like Huckabee, Mnuchin, Perry, DeVos) Kudlow at least seems to articulate his (ultra-conservative) views clearly. As I said earlier, I disagree vehemently with most of Kudlow's positions. No one needs quote Paul Krugman to me. I've long admired him and agree with his often critical appraisals of the current administration's economic policies. Yes - Krugman is smarter than Kudlow. And I was aware of Kudlow's personal battle with drug addiction which nearly wrecked his career years ago.

    Some of this drifts us farther from the central issues of who wrote the letter, its authenticity, its intended purpose, and whether it furthers the best interests of our nation.
  • @OS, what's treasonous about it?
  • edited September 2018
    An interesting aspect is the almost simultaneous release of the letter and Bob Woodward's new book. As the letter effectively corroborates the background described in the book, it has gained much more effectiveness and credibility than if it had been a "stand-alone" situation.

    Edit/Add: In thinking about that, it makes me wonder if the NY Times perhaps was aware of the imminent publishing of Woodward's book and timed the release of the letter to piggyback on that.

    And in thinking about that, it's interesting to consider some of the ramifications. If Woodward's book had been released without the Times letter, all of the administration firepower would have been aimed squarely at trying to discredit Woodward. But now their attention has been diverted to the letter and the furious hunt for the admin "mole", leaving Woodward relatively unchallenged. Funny how some of this stuff works.
  • Breaking News, Washington Post:

    Trump says Justice Dept. should investigate author of anonymous op-ed

    "President Trump, citing national security reasons, called on the attorney general to find the author of critical column in the New York Times that depicted a “two-track presidency.” Trump also said he is considering legal action against the Times."

    "Asked if he trusts his White House staffers, Trump said, “I do, but what I do now is I look around the room. I say, ‘Hey, if I don’t know somebody . . . ’ ” He added, 'We have a really well-run, smooth-running White House. It’s a well-oiled machine. It is running beautifully.' "
  • Oh my! We need to become aware of what ever drug that goof is on and then legalize it. Wow!
  • Old_Joe said:

    "Trump also said he is considering legal action against the Times."

    I'm sure the Times would be ecstatic if Trump were to sue the paper. However, the Times will have to get in line:
    "Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," Trump said during remarks in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. "Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."

    That CNN piece went on to note that "Trump often threatens to file lawsuits without actually doing so."
  • edited September 2018
    Maybe 'David Dennison' wrote it. Or 'John Barron'? Either could do it w/the help of a ghostwriter. ;)

    Seriously, though - even though nearly all his folks have denied it, do you think anyone would actually admit it right now anyway?
  • I'd love to admit it, but unfortunately I didn't write it. :)
  • as one senator said, there are many dozens of people who could and would have written it

  • edited September 2018
    @davidrmoran: From my perspective and based upon the meaning of the word treason this letter was a form of treason. It is written by an annomous spineless person who motives are to harm our government. The NY Times, also from my perspective, is aiding this activity through publishing the letter.

    Treason: the action of betraying someone or something.
  • edited September 2018
    On the other news... Obama gave a great speech today. I really like how he takes all credit even almost 20 months later... Unemployment at record lowest ever recorded.. Economy is best ever. And expect to be in full throttle until end of yr. Stocks likely stable for st least another recession in sites despite all the tariffs talk, how trump is trying to crash market, and beat down from trump.
    also a great singer from cranberry and another young rapper died earlier how sad

    I wish they would talk more from CNN and nyt about how Mueller goals of getting trump into prison instead of how unsecured and unstable how trump is (we already know thus since day one 1.1.2016 don't really need nyt to tell us)

    Aldo we should impeach trump and put him in prison RIGHTAWAY base on an unknown source mold that give nyt done mysterious info....

    I think bunch of looser moderate democrats whom are scare to Los e their seat in midterm should not honor that new judge.. They should not vote for him but we desperate need someone else. He surely does not qualify. But it sounds like many democrats will vote him in also

    Lgo I guess...
    Bought bunch of stuff today brk.b boa qqq and another bond from verizon
  • @ old_skeet. By your definition of Treason,,,,,,trump is quilty of Treason by betraying his wife, his country by his relationship to Putin and humanity,by stealing children. If by publishing the piece a few clueless repuglicans opened their eyes for once,,,the times has earned a prize. The whole of the repuglican party is quilty of treason by allowing this destruction of our cherished democratic institutions.Any argument?
  • @OS, assumed you were not using it in any other than the legal / technical / governmental senses. In the marital and business and other casual senses, yeah, you could throw treason around a lot --- Shaq committed treason against the Magic, etc.

    The motives of the op ed are to undo and prevent harm. You read the piece in detail, right?
  • That was the writer's perspective ... Not mine as a reader.
  • edited September 2018

    I'm a little unclear if was "treason" because it was anonymous, or because it was truthful, or because it was untruthful.

    Seems to me that if it is untruthful, it could be considered treasonous whether it was anonymous or fully signed by the author. To paraphrase msf, that would seem to qualify as "giving enemies of the United States aid and comfort" as it would have been unjustifiably damaging both to the President and to the United States generally.

    If it is truthful, please explain why it was treason. Is it being suggested that one's first loyalty should be to one's leader, even though it has been amply proven that he is an unstable and amoral serial liar? If that's the case, what are we to consider regarding the best interests of the United States?

    (Edited to reflect thoughts from @msf, below.)
  • msf
    edited September 2018
    Intent is an element of most crimes. Motive is not, despite what you may have seen on Perry Mason. (Means, motive, opportunity are forms of evidence to prove that a person committed an act.)

    Intent, as an element of a crime, means intent to commit an act, not intent as to the effect of that act. Suppose I intend to give Russia highly classified information (say, when I'm talking with them in the Oval Office). What matters is the intent to commit the act, i.e. provide that information. What doesn't matter is whether I intend that communication to be harmful.

    the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security ...
  • right, the intent of the op ed is to document how 'like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations'
  • I think it is NOT Mattis. He doesn't hang out at the White House much.
  • Who would stand to gain from writing this piece? First, someone who wants to stay on the job in a post-impeachment or post-resignation administration. Second, someone who wants to sow discord and chaos. If the Times had not said they know who the person is, I’d feel more secure in positing the possibility that it’s a very clever enemy of our country, one that has already demonstrated the ability to destabilize an election. Treason takes on a new face under that theory.
  • "someone who wants to sow discord and chaos"

    Are you seriously suggesting that "discord and chaos" is not already the "new normal" White House environment?

    Again I ask: If the statements made in the article are truthful, please explain why it was treason. Is it being suggested that one's first loyalty should be to one's leader, even though it has been amply proven that he is an unstable and amoral serial liar? If that's the case, what are we to consider regarding the best interests of the United States?

    Haven't gotten an answer to that question as of yet.
  • According to an old sea chantey I learned in fourth grade on a day we had a substitute teacher:

    King Loo-Wee was the king of France before the Revo-loo- shy-un
    Way haul away we'll haul away Joe
    But Loo-Wee got his head cut off which spoiled his consti-too-shy-un
    Way haul away we'll haul away Joe

    A few years later we learned that Loo-We Cat Oars (Louis XIV) said Lay Tot Say Mwaa (L'état, c'est moi/ I am the state. the state, it's me), although apparently what he really said was more nuanced. But today we have the man who would be King Donald The First who continually identifies anything that personally enriches himself as being good for the Nation. He perceives disloyalty to himself as treason to the United States. This is how tyrants think. This is the state of mind of an absolute ruler. Good people of MFO, if you are thinking that there is treason in a letter to the American people that seeks to reassure the public that there is at least some check and balance to Trump's aspiration to absolute power, does that mean that you also equate loyalty to a president with loyalty to our country? If that's the case you were disloyal and treasonous if and when you supported the Republican opposition to —for instance — Obama's Supreme Court picks, or opposition to any of his policies. But I don't think you really believe that opposition equals treason.
  • What Ben said.
  • What I asked.
Sign In or Register to comment.