Second! Like Remain & Corbyn. Having a problem with the link......
Meanwhile, on Salisbury, the trolls are all over the photos of the Russians arriving at Gatwick. "Look!" they say "How can they both have the same time stamp? Were they both in the corridor at the same time?"
Well, perhaps there's more than one corridor - in fact there are four:
Hm, Trump was elected. On what authority is this nameless official acting?
Some speculation that its the VP Pence - because the article uses one of his favourite words 'lodestar' - but then if it was me, thats the sort of thing I'd include to throw people off the scent...
Hm, Trump was elected. On what authority is this nameless official acting?
Some speculation that its the VP Pence - because the article uses one of his favourite words 'lodestar' - but then if it was me, thats the sort of thing I'd include to throw people off the scent...
The other conspiracy theory is that it's one of the Trumpists trying to trigger Trump into doing a purge.
Tesla's stock and bond prices dropped on Wednesday after Chief Executive Elon Musk renewed an attack on a British caver whom he had previously insulted on social media, and a day after Mercedes unveiled a challenge to the electric car maker.
The stock dropped 2.8 percent to $280.74, the lowest level since late May, following a 4.2 percent decline on Tuesday after Mercedes introduced its fully electric EQC crossover in Stockholm.
The $1.8 billion high-yield bond Tesla issued a year ago hit a record low price on Wednesday. It also became more expensive to insure Tesla's bonds against default.
Second! Like Remain & Corbyn. Having a problem with the link......
Meanwhile, on Salisbury, the trolls are all over the photos of the Russians arriving at Gatwick. "Look!" they say "How can they both have the same time stamp? Were they both in the corridor at the same time?"
Well, perhaps there's more than one corridor - in fact there are four:
There is also the red corner of something in one of the suspect shots (bottom right corner of the shot) and in the other shot it isn't there, indicating very similar looking but actually different corridors.
When Mr. Trump attacked Mr. Corker on Twitter, the senator responded with a cutting tweet of his own: “It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.”
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Perhaps he should consult his Attorney General, or the Justice Department about that... ?
Naturally, most Times journalists will be working flat out to expose the writer’s identity: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/05/new-york-times-oped-white-house-shafer-219640 The op-ed sent Washington ass-over-applecart because it breaks with the Washington tradition that holds that the accepted way for a government whistleblower to undermine an administration is to leak information to the press (Mark Felt, the original Deep Throat), pilfer documents (Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers), or make themselves visible and resign in protest (Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus in Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre) and join the opposition. For somebody with the paranoiac tendencies of Donald Trump, the op-ed has got to look like something worse than the “deep state” he’s always harping about. It’s like a silent coup.
It goes without saying that the president and his muscle will tear the plasterboard off the West Wing to unmask and punish Anonymous and his confreres. But seeing as Anonymous’ identity is news, the press hounds will be baying, too. Ordinarily, reporters avoid exposing the anonymous sources of other reporters because they don’t want to set a precedent that will result in their sources getting outed.,,,
So I am not sure there is much that is new in the NYT op-ed. Not even to the alt-right who have long been peddling conspiracy theories about the "deep state" working against Trump; this will be seen as confirmation of their worst suspicions.
So "discussing the 25th Amendment" puts Pence in as acting President... and who benefits most from the OpEd? It does look like the ground is being prepared.
But invoking the 25th Amendment's fourth section is going to be a tough one to square with democracy. Is Trump "nutty as a fruitcake"?
"Former Sen. Birch Bayh wrote in his book “One Heartbeat Away: Presidential Disability and Succession” that he knew the most controversial aspect of the amendment he authored would be how to handle the rare instances when a president’s team disputed his ability to serve.
“You know, fellows, we've talked about this problem a hundred times,” Bayh recounted telling his aides when they were in the final stages of negotiation. “The only time it would present itself — the only time the president would say 'I'm well and able' and the vice president and cabinet would disagree — would be if the president was as nutty as a fruit cake.”
Not hard to see her experience as a prosecutor shining through is it? She's actually quite impressive. A Judge behaving and responding like that is almost beyond belief. The references to "Bob Mueller" as someone he is trying to place are particularly bizarre when he discloses that he worked with him.
So "discussing the 25th Amendment" puts Pence in as acting President... and who benefits most from the OpEd? It does look like the ground is being prepared.
But invoking the 25th Amendment's fourth section is going to be a tough one to square with democracy. Is Trump "nutty as a fruitcake"?
"Former Sen. Birch Bayh wrote in his book “One Heartbeat Away: Presidential Disability and Succession” that he knew the most controversial aspect of the amendment he authored would be how to handle the rare instances when a president’s team disputed his ability to serve.
“You know, fellows, we've talked about this problem a hundred times,” Bayh recounted telling his aides when they were in the final stages of negotiation. “The only time it would present itself — the only time the president would say 'I'm well and able' and the vice president and cabinet would disagree — would be if the president was as nutty as a fruit cake.”
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
'Be careful what you wish for' should be the watchword of those who want to see the end of Trump pre-election. Do they really want to see President Mike Pence? Take Mr DJL’s point upthread; the NYT applauds the tax cut. Is that really a good idea. Don’t deficits matter? I suspect that President Pence would do much of what Trump is doing, apart from firing off numerous tweets demonstrating incipient (at best) paranoia.
"The vice president has two staffs, one for the executive and one for the legislative offices. The Senate furnishes the vice president with a staff of around 40 aides, but the most trusted staff works out of the vice president's office in the Executive Building. It's here that the vice president's chief of staff, national security adviser, legal advisers and speechwriters work to carry out a presidency in miniature."
Would a member of this staff count as a "senior official in the Trump administration"? Well I guess if you were wanting to mask your source but indicate it was someone with a White House pass, it might. It's where I'd be looking - someone ambitious who gets a big leg-up from Trump "being twenty-fifthed".
But President Pence? Eek. It looked to be an interesting piece of succession planning by Trump. "Hell, if they think I'm bad - wait til they think about Mike....that should stop them using the Twenty-fifth!"
See
"Religious Freedom Restoration Act In March 20th, 2016 Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was widely criticized by those who claimed the bill permits discrimination against LGBT individuals.
Abortion Rights Also in March 2016, Pence signed House Bill 1337 into law, which banned abortion procedures on reasons related to the fetus' race, gender or fetal abnormality. Additionally, the law required abortion providers to bury or cremate all fetal remains. The law was widely criticized by abortion rights activists and a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the bill from taking effect."
Not hard to see her experience as a prosecutor shining through is it? She's actually quite impressive. A Judge behaving and responding like that is almost beyond belief. The references to "Bob Mueller" as someone he is trying to place are particularly bizarre when he discloses that he worked with him.
As the old prosecution advice goes "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to" - so quite possibly she does know who he spoke to at the President's law firm....
So "discussing the 25th Amendment" puts Pence in as acting President... and who benefits most from the OpEd? It does look like the ground is being prepared.
But invoking the 25th Amendment's fourth section is going to be a tough one to square with democracy. Is Trump "nutty as a fruitcake"?
"Former Sen. Birch Bayh wrote in his book “One Heartbeat Away: Presidential Disability and Succession” that he knew the most controversial aspect of the amendment he authored would be how to handle the rare instances when a president’s team disputed his ability to serve.
“You know, fellows, we've talked about this problem a hundred times,” Bayh recounted telling his aides when they were in the final stages of negotiation. “The only time it would present itself — the only time the president would say 'I'm well and able' and the vice president and cabinet would disagree — would be if the president was as nutty as a fruit cake.”
Not hard to see her experience as a prosecutor shining through is it? She's actually quite impressive. A Judge behaving and responding like that is almost beyond belief. The references to "Bob Mueller" as someone he is trying to place are particularly bizarre when he discloses that he worked with him.
As the old prosecution advice goes "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to" - so quite possibly she does know who he spoke to at the President's law firm....
Oh I think that there is no doubt about that. What I was less clear about is whether this judge was in any way involved in the administration of Mueller's investigation, specifically any Grand Jury.
If he was my understanding is then that conversation would be highly illegal and considerably aggravated by the fact that this is Trump's personal law firm. It would be an attempt to pervert the course of justice and likely to result in a significant prison sentence.
If he is simply passing on Court House gossip it would be extremely ill advised but is less likely to be a criminal offence unless it could be proven that he knew that the source of the information was an illegal leak from the judicial process.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The NYT op-ed piece almost feels like it has been planted as a way to motivate Trump supporters to go out and vote. It confirms their worst fears about the “deep state”
On topic, all of that rings true. And it’s a good thing too.
It’s not (or shouldn’t be) about policy disagreement - which is why i’m ignoring the little dig at Brexit at the end - it’s about effective administration and decision making, which is where Trump regularly falls flat.
The NYT op-ed piece almost feels like it has been planted as a way to motivate Trump supporters to go out and vote. It confirms their worst fears about the “deep state”
It also encourages Republicans who might otherwise be disgusted with their own party and what it has inflicted on America. "We need sensible republicans elected to help hold this guy in check".
But it mainly strikes me as a wail of despair. Someone totally unsuited and unfit to be President has been elected: what now?
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
So I am not sure there is much that is new in the NYT op-ed. Not even to the alt-right who have long been peddling conspiracy theories about the "deep state" working against Trump; this will be seen as confirmation of their worst suspicions.
This isn't the 'deep state', whatever that might mean; it is the Republican party eating itself. A President who routinely violates all norms of government is not well placed to demand that his appointees respect them.
And yes, if it were applicable to the UK, it suggests that voting in democratic elections is indeed pointless. Or referendums. The problem being that the top echelons of the Civil Service might do the same. That's fine when you agree with them. Not so much when you don't.
Were Corbyn to be elected, the Cprbynites would claim that he was being thwarted at every juncture by a secret cabal of unelected officials. Time for them to be de-selected? It's a slippery slope.
"… I just feel like somebody is trying to pull the fire alarm and I’m not sure we know as a country how we are supposed to respond when an alarm is sounded like this.”
I used to feel like that on a daily basis when it became obvious that Maggie was stark staring bonkers........
By far the most interesting question is why the author has written the article. My guess is that he or she assumes that it will not increase Donald Trump’s erraticness or who does not fear its consequences: the examples given show that while the president actively dislikes the direction his government takes he does not have the strength of purpose and clarity of vision to change it. The author is unwilling to resign or is unsackable. Equally, the author still requires anonymity. He or she either does not fear accusations of duplicity when their identity is eventually uncovered or has no aspirations of higher office, given the article would make them a hate figure for a large part of the Republican base.
That to me suggests a member of Donald Trump’s family. My prime suspect would be Jared Kushner. After all, he is a New York publisher.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The NYT op-ed piece almost feels like it has been planted as a way to motivate Trump supporters to go out and vote. It confirms their worst fears about the “deep state”
+1. There is only value to secretly working against Trump f.rom within if nobody knows. Whilst I am certain the NYT is not the primary news source for Trumps team, I am sure it will come to their attention
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
And yes, if it were applicable to the UK, it suggests that voting in democratic elections is indeed pointless. Or referendums. The problem being that the top echelons of the Civil Service might do the same. That's fine when you agree with them. Not so much when you don't....
It's not a good comparison. The author of the op ed is comparable to either a cabinet minister, or the Office of the Prime Minister, rather than the civil service.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
And yes, if it were applicable to the UK, it suggests that voting in democratic elections is indeed pointless. Or referendums. The problem being that the top echelons of the Civil Service might do the same. That's fine when you agree with them. Not so much when you don't....
It's not a good comparison. The author of the op ed is comparable to either a cabinet minister, or the Office of the Prime Minister, rather than the civil service.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
One thing I noted yesterday in Mattis' response denying that he would tolerate disrespect to the office of the president
Since it's so controversial I wonder if Nike will use the Donald in their ads ?
Judging by the crowds at Trump rallies, I don't think his base are significant buyers of sports gear...
more republicans follow NFL than democrats
I'm sure Nike ran the numbers too.
too early to say. In sure they have, but thats the forecast not the result. Currently Nikes getting pictures of shoes made in Asian sweat shops and cops asking why kaepernick wants them shot.
Jesus Christ, the Leavers are crazed with unhinged paranoia. Manufacturing conspiracy theories off the back of an entirely unrelated news story is quite something.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
One thing I noted yesterday in Mattis' response denying that he would tolerate disrespect to the office of the president
Since it's so controversial I wonder if Nike will use the Donald in their ads ?
Judging by the crowds at Trump rallies, I don't think his base are significant buyers of sports gear...
Doesn't always follow. The good people of Glasgow, noted for viewing rather than participating in sports, are long time fans of what is euphemistically called sportswear. When I first moved here there were so many wee guys wearing Helly Hansen I wondered if there was a big underground yachting fraternity in the city.
And yes, if it were applicable to the UK, it suggests that voting in democratic elections is indeed pointless. Or referendums. The problem being that the top echelons of the Civil Service might do the same. That's fine when you agree with them. Not so much when you don't....
It's not a good comparison. The author of the op ed is comparable to either a cabinet minister, or the Office of the Prime Minister, rather than the civil service.
Olly Robbins?
Directly appointed by May as her personal Brexit advisor.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
One thing I noted yesterday in Mattis' response denying that he would tolerate disrespect to the office of the president
Since it's so controversial I wonder if Nike will use the Donald in their ads ?
Judging by the crowds at Trump rallies, I don't think his base are significant buyers of sports gear...
more republicans follow NFL than democrats
I'm sure Nike ran the numbers too.
They’re either very brave or very stupid, to wander into a massive political row in such an obvious fashion.
There’s a significant chance of a severe backlash against the company, both from the white working-class men who make up the vast majority of NFL fans, and from the President and his supporters.
The NYT op-ed piece almost feels like it has been planted as a way to motivate Trump supporters to go out and vote. It confirms their worst fears about the “deep state”
+1. There is only value to secretly working against Trump f.rom within if nobody knows. Whilst I am certain the NYT is not the primary news source for Trumps team, I am sure it will come to their attention
Morning all,
It is all very odd.
What is to be gained, as others have noted, from publishing this? The only thing I can think is someone thinks we are at a tipping point with either a) moves to remove him (and these moves need a last bit of a push) or b) a POTUS decision so stupid, that the writer wants to tell history that they were trying to stop it.
Not hard to see her experience as a prosecutor shining through is it? She's actually quite impressive. A Judge behaving and responding like that is almost beyond belief. The references to "Bob Mueller" as someone he is trying to place are particularly bizarre when he discloses that he worked with him.
I disagree - frankly it just looks like a fishing expedition aligned with silly lawyer tricks designed to get somebody to get themselves to perjure themselves unwittingly (or refuse to answer and look shifty - the classic lose lose position). If it was somebody you liked being the witness you would dismiss it.
Essentially either she knows that such a "conversation" has taken place, in which case she should just ask "did you have a conversation with X about..." or she doesn't, but knows that a conversation could theoretically have taken place, especially in an informal social setting. The only way he could answer "no" would be if he has had no such conversation, or he has, and knows the detailed background of everyone he has had such a conversation with. Which is unlikely if he discusses it regularly in informal or social settings, which would seem highly likely given its high profile nature.
It's even likely that he might have had debate type conversations where he may have taken a position as a debating position without that actually being an indication of his real or ultimate views.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
One thing I noted yesterday in Mattis' response denying that he would tolerate disrespect to the office of the president
Since it's so controversial I wonder if Nike will use the Donald in their ads ?
Judging by the crowds at Trump rallies, I don't think his base are significant buyers of sports gear...
Doesn't always follow. The good people of Glasgow, noted for viewing rather than participating in sports, are long time fans of what is euphemistically called sportswear. When I first moved here there were so many wee guys wearing Helly Hansen, I wondered if there was a big underground yachting fraternity in the city.
Like I say, Nike will have run the numbers.
I'm fairly sure they don't sell 'Hillary is a c*nt" T-shirts.
"… I just feel like somebody is trying to pull the fire alarm and I’m not sure we know as a country how we are supposed to respond when an alarm is sounded like this.”
I used to feel like that on a daily basis when it became obvious that Maggie was stark staring bonkers........
You need to look at more recent history, Maggie wasn't bonkers. Brown definitely WAS.
By far the most interesting question is why the author has written the article. My guess is that he or she assumes that it will not increase Donald Trump’s erraticness or who does not fear its consequences: the examples given show that while the president actively dislikes the direction his government takes he does not have the strength of purpose and clarity of vision to change it. The author is unwilling to resign or is unsackable. Equally, the author still requires anonymity. He or she either does not fear accusations of duplicity when their identity is eventually uncovered or has no aspirations of higher office, given the article would make them a hate figure for a large part of the Republican base.
That to me suggests a member of Donald Trump’s family. My prime suspect would be Jared Kushner. After all, he is a New York publisher.
An alternative motivation is to commence a paralysing witch hunt and series of purges that inhibit the Trump administration by bogging it down in paranoia. It is quite a useful tactic.
We have heard and witnessed so much chaos and bombastic erraticness from Trumps administration that it certainly rings true. America has trashed its reputation over the last few years.
The claimed behaviour is not entirely unprecedented:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/bob-woodwards-fear-trump-in-the-white-house-raises-the-specter-of-the-25th-amendment.html? “Nixon’s inability to efficiently or appropriately wield executive power had dwindled so far that Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger urged General George S. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to not take military orders directly from the President,” wrote historian Anthony Bergen in a chronicle of those last days, adding that “the military chain-of-command took the extra-constitutional step of removing the President from the loop.”
But back then, the Senate got around to doing its job.
"… I just feel like somebody is trying to pull the fire alarm and I’m not sure we know as a country how we are supposed to respond when an alarm is sounded like this.”
I used to feel like that on a daily basis when it became obvious that Maggie was stark staring bonkers........
You need to look at more recent history, Maggie wasn't bonkers. Brown definitely WAS.
She was rather bonkers after the 1987 election. She completely lost her political antenna.
"… I just feel like somebody is trying to pull the fire alarm and I’m not sure we know as a country how we are supposed to respond when an alarm is sounded like this.”
I used to feel like that on a daily basis when it became obvious that Maggie was stark staring bonkers........
You need to look at more recent history, Maggie wasn't bonkers. Brown definitely WAS.
She was rather bonkers after the 1987 election. She completely lost her political antenna.
I dont think losing your political antenna is the same as bonkers though. The instincts and characteristics that make you successful at the beginning are what can do you in at end.
"t's not a good comparison. The author of the op ed is comparable to either a cabinet minister, or the Office of the Prime Minister, rather than the civil service."
I bow to your likely superior knowledge of politicians. But surely that makes them immediately sackable? A feat at which Trump excels. Which then results in leaks to the press and book deals.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
One thing I noted yesterday in Mattis' response denying that he would tolerate disrespect to the office of the president
Since it's so controversial I wonder if Nike will use the Donald in their ads ?
Judging by the crowds at Trump rallies, I don't think his base are significant buyers of sports gear...
Doesn't always follow. The good people of Glasgow, noted for viewing rather than participating in sports, are long time fans of what is euphemistically called sportswear. When I first moved here there were so many wee guys wearing Helly Hansen, I wondered if there was a big underground yachting fraternity in the city.
Like I say, Nike will have run the numbers.
I'm fairly sure they don't sell 'Hillary is a c*nt" T-shirts.
Yes, they would have run their numbers and worked out their customers will lap up the race baiting. Labour high command did the same with Anti Semitism.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
One thing I noted yesterday in Mattis' response denying that he would tolerate disrespect to the office of the president
Since it's so controversial I wonder if Nike will use the Donald in their ads ?
Judging by the crowds at Trump rallies, I don't think his base are significant buyers of sports gear...
more republicans follow NFL than democrats
I'm sure Nike ran the numbers too.
They’re either very brave or very stupid, to wander into a massive political row in such an obvious fashion.
There’s a significant chance of a severe backlash against the company, both from the white working-class men who make up the vast majority of NFL fans, and from the President and his supporters.
On the other hand there are a lot of African American men buying sportswear, as well as growing markets overseas. Youth culture and fashion is very often led by trends in Black culture.
Not my cup of tea, but I am a white middle aged doctor, more of a Ted Baker than Nike devotee.
'Be careful what you wish for' should be the watchword of those who want to see the end of Trump pre-election. Do they really want to see President Mike Pence? Take Mr DJL’s point upthread; the NYT applauds the tax cut. Is that really a good idea. Don’t deficits matter? I suspect that President Pence would do much of what Trump is doing, apart from firing off numerous tweets demonstrating incipient (at best) paranoia.
Pence may have extreme views, but he is still a conventional politician who would likely operate and be bound by conventional rules and norms. Also it would be far easier for opponents to resist him in conventional ways because he doesn't have an enormous personal support that supports him for himself, not by what he actually does. So if he tries to do something electorally unpopular, it could be resisted simply on the grounds that it was electorally unpopular. Opposing Trump and his policies is far more complex.
Interesting report on the boundary review and missing voters:
"For the Government’s continuing insistence that the ‘electorate’ is formed only by those registered in December 2015 excludes 1.75 million voters, who were newly registered in 2016, and 2.3 million who registered in the run-up to the 2017 election, of whom two-thirds were aged under 35."
"… I just feel like somebody is trying to pull the fire alarm and I’m not sure we know as a country how we are supposed to respond when an alarm is sounded like this.”
I used to feel like that on a daily basis when it became obvious that Maggie was stark staring bonkers........
You need to look at more recent history, Maggie wasn't bonkers. Brown definitely WAS.
She was rather bonkers after the 1987 election. She completely lost her political antenna.
I dont think losing your political antenna is the same as bonkers though. The instincts and characteristics that make you successful at the beginning are what can do you in at end.
She got drunk on her own mythology. Seeing her defenestrated by her own party was sweet pleasure. Followed by a sulk rivaling her predecessor.
The problem is both Trump and to a lesser extent Brexit were revolts of the voters against the establishment and the life in both the Tories and the GOP and the civil service and senior administration officials have little idea how to tie many of the aims of those revolts with the realities of government
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
By far the most interesting question is why the author has written the article. My guess is that he or she assumes that it will not increase Donald Trump’s erraticness or who does not fear its consequences: the examples given show that while the president actively dislikes the direction his government takes he does not have the strength of purpose and clarity of vision to change it. The author is unwilling to resign or is unsackable. Equally, the author still requires anonymity. He or she either does not fear accusations of duplicity when their identity is eventually uncovered or has no aspirations of higher office, given the article would make them a hate figure for a large part of the Republican base.
That to me suggests a member of Donald Trump’s family. My prime suspect would be Jared Kushner. After all, he is a New York publisher.
An alternative motivation is to commence a paralysing witch hunt and series of purges that inhibit the Trump administration by bogging it down in paranoia. It is quite a useful tactic.
We have heard and witnessed so much chaos and bombastic erraticness from Trumps administration that it certainly rings true. America has trashed its reputation over the last few years.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
One thing I noted yesterday in Mattis' response denying that he would tolerate disrespect to the office of the president
Since it's so controversial I wonder if Nike will use the Donald in their ads ?
Judging by the crowds at Trump rallies, I don't think his base are significant buyers of sports gear...
more republicans follow NFL than democrats
I'm sure Nike ran the numbers too.
They’re either very brave or very stupid, to wander into a massive political row in such an obvious fashion.
There’s a significant chance of a severe backlash against the company, both from the white working-class men who make up the vast majority of NFL fans, and from the President and his supporters.
On the other hand there are a lot of African American men buying sportswear, as well as growing markets overseas. Youth culture and fashion is very often led by trends in Black culture.
Not my cup of tea, but I am a white middle aged doctor, more of a Ted Baker than Nike devotee.
The safe thing about Ted Baker being that Ted Baker does not personally exist.
No, of course. I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Is the oath of office to the country or the person of the president?
The constitution:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
One thing I noted yesterday in Mattis' response denying that he would tolerate disrespect to the office of the president
Since it's so controversial I wonder if Nike will use the Donald in their ads ?
Judging by the crowds at Trump rallies, I don't think his base are significant buyers of sports gear...
more republicans follow NFL than democrats
I'm sure Nike ran the numbers too.
They’re either very brave or very stupid, to wander into a massive political row in such an obvious fashion.
There’s a significant chance of a severe backlash against the company, both from the white working-class men who make up the vast majority of NFL fans, and from the President and his supporters.
On the other hand there are a lot of African American men buying sportswear, as well as growing markets overseas. Youth culture and fashion is very often led by trends in Black culture.
Not my cup of tea, but I am a white middle aged doctor, more of a Ted Baker than Nike devotee.
Ha. It’s the sort of decision that’s going to get their marketing director either a massive bonus or a P45 - but it will probably take a few weeks to work out which. If the controversy is blown over by next week then it will be a positive, if Trump spends every day between now and the mid-terms pointing out their Asian shoemaking sweatshops then maybe not.
"… I just feel like somebody is trying to pull the fire alarm and I’m not sure we know as a country how we are supposed to respond when an alarm is sounded like this.”
I used to feel like that on a daily basis when it became obvious that Maggie was stark staring bonkers........
You need to look at more recent history, Maggie wasn't bonkers. Brown definitely WAS.
She was rather bonkers after the 1987 election. She completely lost her political antenna.
I dont think losing your political antenna is the same as bonkers though. The instincts and characteristics that make you successful at the beginning are what can do you in at end.
She got drunk on her own mythology. Seeing her defenestrated by her own party was sweet pleasure. Followed by a sulk rivaling her predecessor.
It was eleven years in power.Her mistake was not stepping down of her own free will. Yes she had become a caricature of herself. Obstinate, pig headed, utterly sure of herself and unwilling to bed to advice from senior colleagues.
That was how she had presented herself in the past, but the reality was different to the caricature. Much of her time in office wasnt ideology but pragmatism first. Like pretty much all Prime Ministers.
Interesting report on the boundary review and missing voters:
"For the Government’s continuing insistence that the ‘electorate’ is formed only by those registered in December 2015 excludes 1.75 million voters, who were newly registered in 2016, and 2.3 million who registered in the run-up to the 2017 election, of whom two-thirds were aged under 35."
The irony of the Cameron/Osborne-era gerrymandering plan is it almost certainly led directly to losing the Brexit referendum and so ending both men's careers at the top of government. Too late they realised the implications of what they'd done and launched a last-minute voter registration drive, and even extending it, in an attempt to capture the lost voters who polls showed were more likely to vote Remain.
"… I just feel like somebody is trying to pull the fire alarm and I’m not sure we know as a country how we are supposed to respond when an alarm is sounded like this.”
I used to feel like that on a daily basis when it became obvious that Maggie was stark staring bonkers........
You need to look at more recent history, Maggie wasn't bonkers. Brown definitely WAS.
She was rather bonkers after the 1987 election. She completely lost her political antenna.
I dont think losing your political antenna is the same as bonkers though. The instincts and characteristics that make you successful at the beginning are what can do you in at end.
She got drunk on her own mythology. Seeing her defenestrated by her own party was sweet pleasure. Followed by a sulk rivaling her predecessor.
It was eleven years in power.Her mistake was not stepping down of her own free will. Yes she had become a caricature of herself. Obstinate, pig headed, utterly sure of herself and unwilling to bed to advice from senior colleagues.
"… I just feel like somebody is trying to pull the fire alarm and I’m not sure we know as a country how we are supposed to respond when an alarm is sounded like this.”
I used to feel like that on a daily basis when it became obvious that Maggie was stark staring bonkers........
You need to look at more recent history, Maggie wasn't bonkers. Brown definitely WAS.
She was rather bonkers after the 1987 election. She completely lost her political antenna.
I dont think losing your political antenna is the same as bonkers though. The instincts and characteristics that make you successful at the beginning are what can do you in at end.
She got drunk on her own mythology. Seeing her defenestrated by her own party was sweet pleasure. Followed by a sulk rivaling her predecessor.
Neil Kinnock was said to have believed Mrs Thatcher had lost her marbles (or started her tragic decline) while in Number Ten.
With the combination of Leave.EU entryism and all the left wingers who’ve been told to eff off and join the Tories, we could end up with a one-party state.
Interesting report on the boundary review and missing voters:
"For the Government’s continuing insistence that the ‘electorate’ is formed only by those registered in December 2015 excludes 1.75 million voters, who were newly registered in 2016, and 2.3 million who registered in the run-up to the 2017 election, of whom two-thirds were aged under 35."
The irony of the Cameron/Osborne-era gerrymandering plan is it almost certainly led directly to losing the Brexit referendum and so ending both men's careers at the top of government. Too late they realised the implications of what they'd done and launched a last-minute voter registration drive, and even extending it, in an attempt to capture the lost voters who polls showed were more likely to vote Remain.
More likely not to exercise any right to vote whatsoever. Our district electorate increased by about 10% over the last 15 months because of people getting registered. But it was pretty uniform across areas that would be considered strong conservative and strong labour.
Interesting report on the boundary review and missing voters:
"For the Government’s continuing insistence that the ‘electorate’ is formed only by those registered in December 2015 excludes 1.75 million voters, who were newly registered in 2016, and 2.3 million who registered in the run-up to the 2017 election, of whom two-thirds were aged under 35."
Interesting report on the boundary review and missing voters:
"For the Government’s continuing insistence that the ‘electorate’ is formed only by those registered in December 2015 excludes 1.75 million voters, who were newly registered in 2016, and 2.3 million who registered in the run-up to the 2017 election, of whom two-thirds were aged under 35."
There’s still no chance that the MPs will vote for Boris though, but it’s fair to say that his name (and that of JRM, who definitely won’t run) in the survey is a good proxy that the members are unhappy with the direction taken by the government on Brexit.
I’m still laying Boris and JRM, backing Javid and Hunt, and neutral on Gove.
Comments
Meanwhile, on Salisbury, the trolls are all over the photos of the Russians arriving at Gatwick. "Look!" they say "How can they both have the same time stamp? Were they both in the corridor at the same time?"
Well, perhaps there's more than one corridor - in fact there are four:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1568635,-0.1626032,2a,75y,0.67h,65.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6_SV7XmGtYwcIKMZ-f1ETg!2e0!3e2!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lodestar-mike-pence-anonymous-new-york-times_us_5b905dd5e4b0511db3dec1e1?section=politics&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016&__twitter_impression=true
The stock dropped 2.8 percent to $280.74, the lowest level since late May, following a 4.2 percent decline on Tuesday after Mercedes introduced its fully electric EQC crossover in Stockholm.
The $1.8 billion high-yield bond Tesla issued a year ago hit a record low price on Wednesday. It also became more expensive to insure Tesla's bonds against default.
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/09/05/tesla-stock-and-bond-prices-drop-after-elon-musk-renews-attack-o/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037485664433070080
Edit: Also not sure if the lack of title is intentional or just something gone wrong?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-anonymous-editorial.html
I’m not sure the oped writer has actually committed any crime at all, but certainly not treason, which is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution.
If it’s a cabinet minister, then it’s a clear breach of their oath of office, and grounds for impeachment.
Naturally, most Times journalists will be working flat out to expose the writer’s identity:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/05/new-york-times-oped-white-house-shafer-219640
The op-ed sent Washington ass-over-applecart because it breaks with the Washington tradition that holds that the accepted way for a government whistleblower to undermine an administration is to leak information to the press (Mark Felt, the original Deep Throat), pilfer documents (Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers), or make themselves visible and resign in protest (Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus in Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre) and join the opposition. For somebody with the paranoiac tendencies of Donald Trump, the op-ed has got to look like something worse than the “deep state” he’s always harping about. It’s like a silent coup.
It goes without saying that the president and his muscle will tear the plasterboard off the West Wing to unmask and punish Anonymous and his confreres. But seeing as Anonymous’ identity is news, the press hounds will be baying, too. Ordinarily, reporters avoid exposing the anonymous sources of other reporters because they don’t want to set a precedent that will result in their sources getting outed.,,,
Didn’t Boris Johnson already do something along the same lines ?
Though, to be fair, in a slightly more straightforward manner.
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1037518507423002629
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/20/everything-trump-touches-dies-review-rick-wilson-republicans
So I am not sure there is much that is new in the NYT op-ed. Not even to the alt-right who have long been peddling conspiracy theories about the "deep state" working against Trump; this will be seen as confirmation of their worst suspicions.
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1037569835255980034
But invoking the 25th Amendment's fourth section is going to be a tough one to square with democracy. Is Trump "nutty as a fruitcake"?
"Former Sen. Birch Bayh wrote in his book “One Heartbeat Away: Presidential Disability and Succession” that he knew the most controversial aspect of the amendment he authored would be how to handle the rare instances when a president’s team disputed his ability to serve.
“You know, fellows, we've talked about this problem a hundred times,” Bayh recounted telling his aides when they were in the final stages of negotiation. “The only time it would present itself — the only time the president would say 'I'm well and able' and the vice president and cabinet would disagree — would be if the president was as nutty as a fruit cake.”
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/05/could-25th-amendment-used-remove-trump-office/1012979001/
Certainly an interesting article.
If the hedge argument is correct, surely that indicates the probability of a challenge to Trump for the Republican backing in 2020?
What’a the reason?
If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!
https://people.howstuffworks.com/vice-president5.htm
Would a member of this staff count as a "senior official in the Trump administration"? Well I guess if you were wanting to mask your source but indicate it was someone with a White House pass, it might. It's where I'd be looking - someone ambitious who gets a big leg-up from Trump "being twenty-fifthed".
But President Pence? Eek. It looked to be an interesting piece of succession planning by Trump. "Hell, if they think I'm bad - wait til they think about Mike....that should stop them using the Twenty-fifth!"
See
"Religious Freedom Restoration Act
In March 20th, 2016 Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was widely criticized by those who claimed the bill permits discrimination against LGBT individuals.
Abortion Rights
Also in March 2016, Pence signed House Bill 1337 into law, which banned abortion procedures on reasons related to the fetus' race, gender or fetal abnormality. Additionally, the law required abortion providers to bury or cremate all fetal remains. The law was widely criticized by abortion rights activists and a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the bill from taking effect."
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/mike-pence
If he was my understanding is then that conversation would be highly illegal and considerably aggravated by the fact that this is Trump's personal law firm. It would be an attempt to pervert the course of justice and likely to result in a significant prison sentence.
If he is simply passing on Court House gossip it would be extremely ill advised but is less likely to be a criminal offence unless it could be proven that he knew that the source of the information was an illegal leak from the judicial process.
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
One thing I noted yesterday in Mattis' response denying that he would tolerate disrespect to the office of the president
It’s not (or shouldn’t be) about policy disagreement - which is why i’m ignoring the little dig at Brexit at the end - it’s about effective administration and decision making, which is where Trump regularly falls flat.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/98012/minsters-announce-post-brexit-immigration-scheme-farm
But it mainly strikes me as a wail of despair. Someone totally unsuited and unfit to be President has been elected: what now?
https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1037513580135022592
https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1037515706609422336
A President who routinely violates all norms of government is not well placed to demand that his appointees respect them.
And yes, if it were applicable to the UK, it suggests that voting in democratic elections is indeed pointless. Or referendums. The problem being that the top echelons of the Civil Service might do the same. That's fine when you agree with them. Not so much when you don't.
Were Corbyn to be elected, the Cprbynites would claim that he was being thwarted at every juncture by a secret cabal of unelected officials. Time for them to be de-selected? It's a slippery slope.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/alistair-heather-will-outlaw-king-finally-slay-braveheart-s-myths-1-4794606
Varadkar having spat with FF and threatening election
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/leo-varadkar-interview-government-could-end-in-eight-weeks-timebefore-a-brexit-deal-37288160.html
I used to feel like that on a daily basis when it became obvious that Maggie was stark staring bonkers........
That to me suggests a member of Donald Trump’s family. My prime suspect would be Jared Kushner. After all, he is a New York publisher.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1037588230609285121
Perhaps other common law countries (Singapore, Malaysia) might see the light....
The author of the op ed is comparable to either a cabinet minister, or the Office of the Prime Minister, rather than the civil service.
SPD wants foreign policy independent of US CSU oppose breaking ties with an ally
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article181434274/Heiko-Maas-USA-Strategie-Niels-Annen-attackiert-CSU.html
It will take a while for the dust to settle.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_Brexit_policing_criminal_justice_web.pdf
There’s a significant chance of a severe backlash against the company, both from the white working-class men who make up the vast majority of NFL fans, and from the President and his supporters.
It is all very odd.
What is to be gained, as others have noted, from publishing this? The only thing I can think is someone thinks we are at a tipping point with either a) moves to remove him (and these moves need a last bit of a push) or b) a POTUS decision so stupid, that the writer wants to tell history that they were trying to stop it.
Essentially either she knows that such a "conversation" has taken place, in which case she should just ask "did you have a conversation with X about..." or she doesn't, but knows that a conversation could theoretically have taken place, especially in an informal social setting. The only way he could answer "no" would be if he has had no such conversation, or he has, and knows the detailed background of everyone he has had such a conversation with. Which is unlikely if he discusses it regularly in informal or social settings, which would seem highly likely given its high profile nature.
It's even likely that he might have had debate type conversations where he may have taken a position as a debating position without that actually being an indication of his real or ultimate views.
I'm fairly sure they don't sell 'Hillary is a c*nt" T-shirts.
An alternative motivation is to commence a paralysing witch hunt and series of purges that inhibit the Trump administration by bogging it down in paranoia. It is quite a useful tactic.
We have heard and witnessed so much chaos and bombastic erraticness from Trumps administration that it certainly rings true. America has trashed its reputation over the last few years.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/bob-woodwards-fear-trump-in-the-white-house-raises-the-specter-of-the-25th-amendment.html?
“Nixon’s inability to efficiently or appropriately wield executive power had dwindled so far that Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger urged General George S. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to not take military orders directly from the President,” wrote historian Anthony Bergen in a chronicle of those last days, adding that “the military chain-of-command took the extra-constitutional step of removing the President from the loop.”
But back then, the Senate got around to doing its job.
"t's not a good comparison.
The author of the op ed is comparable to either a cabinet minister, or the Office of the Prime Minister, rather than the civil service."
I bow to your likely superior knowledge of politicians. But surely that makes them immediately sackable? A feat at which Trump excels. Which then results in leaks to the press and book deals.
How different are we?
Not my cup of tea, but I am a white middle aged doctor, more of a Ted Baker than Nike devotee.
"For the Government’s continuing insistence that the ‘electorate’ is formed only by those registered in December 2015 excludes 1.75 million voters, who were newly registered in 2016, and 2.3 million who registered in the run-up to the 2017 election, of whom two-thirds were aged under 35."
https://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/library/by-az/challenging-the-democratic-deficit.html
If we no longer have access to the EAW
Extraditions to UK / Extraditions from UK (2016)
Poland ; 17 / 646
Lituania: 4 / 137
Romania: 11 / 136
Czech: 1 /71
Hungary: 1 / 62
Latvia: 3 /61
Germany: 10 / 69
Only Netherlands (16 / 8) sent us more people than we sent them.....
*Shuffles Deck, Pulls Card*
Fat that they dont participate in or watch sports
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations
That was how she had presented herself in the past, but the reality was different to the caricature. Much of her time in office wasnt ideology but pragmatism first. Like pretty much all Prime Ministers.
On the basis of cui bono, it has to be Mike Pence.
Boris leads on 35%, Javid is second on 15% and Mogg third on 10%. Gove and Hunt are tied on 5% each just ahead of Raab on 4%.
With Boris now the clear likely alternative looks like May could use that threat to ensure Tory MPs keep her as leader up to Brexit and beyond
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/09/our-survey-next-tory-leader-johnson-stretches-his-lead-at-the-top-of-our-table.html
That's not a reason to not do it.
I’m still laying Boris and JRM, backing Javid and Hunt, and neutral on Gove.