I will say taking and hiding documents from the desk of the President is ugly and shameful. Resign and publicly disavow it. Don't undermine the office of the Presidency, skulking around and sabotaging an elected government. I don't know if it is treason, but it is certainly dishonorable and not worthy of praise or romanticism. They're gutless.
Treason as a viable charge has about as much weight as the terms Nazi and racist do now. They're all so overused they have very little actual meaning. With that said, I would say that this story.. assuming it is true... would completely bolster the folks that iterate there is a non-elected body that supersedes and attempts to, at will, change the policies of the elected government that was put in place to oversee this nation.
Except this would be a conservative and trump staff member, which does not support the deep state narrative.
Which actually would suggest Trump playing a little 3D chess because it would be his guy he chose doing this, a plant to lend credence to the deep state.
It would support it in the vein of "bureaucrats have enough power to usurp an elected official, as clearly evidenced by the NYT piece. If Trump's own people do it, how bad do you think it is for Obama appointees?"
I'd like to think elected officials have a mind of their own and are not as susceptible to trick like "taking thing off their desk" to make them forget about, say, withdrawing from a trade deal.
Most higher level management and especially executives that I've dealt with have had the attention span of a cat. They have a hell of a lot going on and keeping their attention is more difficult than keeping the attention of my 4 and 2 year olds. If you don't clearly and quickly get to your point and conclusion, you will lose their attention. JMO YMMV
Executive office has like... one guy elected. The rest are appointed. The elected aide is the legislative side, to which the article does not speak to.
Ehhhh, while the VP is picked by the Pres runner, the VP is indirectly elected. People commonly vote for just the POTUS, but it's a whole ticket and a weak VP weakens the ticket overall... aka 2008. People had concerns about McCains health in 2008 and he lost a good bit of support due to a weak VP that people refused to elect by proxy. Semantics. Do you think the POTUS gets full reign to appoint their cabinet or do you think there is significant campaign donation money pressure on both the POTUS but also the POTUS' party to direct who gets appointed and where? NOTE: This isn't my specific opinion, I'm just iterating the general pulse of the "The op-ed is a Trump campaign move" theory
You said “elected government” while ignoring 535/536 elected Federal officials. Which makes me point out your generalization is literally based on a n=1 study.
Sweet, nice semantics. Let me change the specific wording then: It obstructs the executive branch which was elected by the body politic.
Now that we’ve established the body of government you are discussing, we can examine the claim: “changed the policies of the elected” And discern just what policies the elected executive branch governs? Trade? Everyone already agrees business drives that. Law enforcement? Police unions. Treaties? Ratified by Congress. Like which policies by the executive branch aren’t inherently designed to be influenced by outside parties?
And, just like clockwork: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...deep-state-person’/ar-BBMZhh6?ocid=spartanntp
I think you missed a pretty critical part of my initial statement. I even quoted it again just above this for your investigative convenience.