Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

C_U_L8R

(49,396 posts)

21. The op-ed writer claims to be part of a group

Reply to still_one (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 5, 2018, 10:00 PM

Sep 2018

Self-labeled themselves to be 'adults in the room' saving the country from a dangerously unfit President. In essence they are running an unelected shadow government.

If they weren't so selfish and thinking about their own jobs, they would uphold their oath and immediately invoke the 25th and deliver all their evidence to Congress and the media.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is the anonymous NY Times editorial a way to distract from kavanaugh, and this was part of their [View all] still_one Sep 2018 OP

Of course. NT enough Sep 2018 #1

Oh, hell, no! The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #2

Of course it is awful, but this anonymous source is problemetic inself because it is coming close still_one Sep 2018 #15

The 25th Amendment is actually very difficult to activate. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #19

Agreed, but something doesn't feel right about this. NY Times better have this story correct, and still_one Sep 2018 #22

The NYT would never have published that piece if they didn't know who wrote it. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #23

That isn't what I am referring to. I am referring to the reliability of the person who wrote it. I still_one Sep 2018 #24

Here's the NYT's preface to the op-ed: The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #29

Thanks still_one Sep 2018 #30

The one corroborating thing is the release of Woodward's book, which helps validate it still_one Sep 2018 #26

Highlighting that the nominee is the chosen of a mad man is more of a focusing. Fred Sanders Sep 2018 #3

Yes! The confirmation should be off. He's nuts. nt babylonsister Sep 2018 #6

An obvious internal coup is happening....but we should carry on with the nomination because Fred Sanders Sep 2018 #7

no, it gives more reason to get more info on kavanaugh and not confirm him JI7 Sep 2018 #4

More reasons why this nomination needs to be yanked. C_U_L8R Sep 2018 #5

and who do you think will do that? Doubtful any republican will do that still_one Sep 2018 #8

We've got lots of good reasons... C_U_L8R Sep 2018 #13

First of all the implication in the editorial, and keep in my I haven't read it only going from what still_one Sep 2018 #18

The op-ed writer claims to be part of a group C_U_L8R Sep 2018 #21

That is effectively what the editorial is saying as I understand it. still_one Sep 2018 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author still_one Sep 2018 #9

+1000 bdamomma Sep 2018 #11

interesting bdamomma Sep 2018 #10

No it is a giant crack in the wall. Voltaire2 Sep 2018 #12

That occurred to me. It's not beyond the realm of possibility given what we know about DT. pnwmom Sep 2018 #14

The way to do this is exercise the 25th ammendement. Running a "resistence movement" against the still_one Sep 2018 #16

Deep Throat broke the law. That's why he didn't come forward for so long. n/t pnwmom Sep 2018 #17

Except deep throat reported illegal activities that were being committed. This source as I still_one Sep 2018 #20

The NYTimes doesn't need multiple sources -- they just need absolute proof pnwmom Sep 2018 #27

Which is easy enough as the person would be standing in front of them at some point. Fred Sanders Sep 2018 #31

I have been thinking the same way. Dawson Leery Sep 2018 #28