Fear: Trump in the White House
Tapi NYT, punya maruah dan tak bergeming dengan berpegang teguh dengan prinsip jurnalistik, mencibir ancaman dan menyembuyikan nama penulis misterius.
Dalam sebuah opini di New York Times (NYT) yang diterbitkan pada tanggal 5 September 2018 berjudul "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration", para pakar politik di Washington DC yang duduk manis dengan pasta legit, tiba-tiba mencabik-cabik rambut dan mencakar-cakar muka mereka sendiri untuk mencari tahu "siapa" dibalik cerita misterius yang menulis opini tersebut.
I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
The Times is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
Donald Trump yang biasa tiap hari berbuih mulutnya seperti banteng ketaton, menggelepar dan terhuyung-huyung membentur-benturkan kepala kosongnya ke lantai, ruang tempat biasa dia berdansa dan menari. Tanpa pikir panjang, Trump membuka tablet, mengancam dan menuliskan deretan tweet ke NYT menuntut untuk mengungkap nama penulis misterius yang menurutnya adalah ancaman terhadap keamanan nasional AS.
Tapi NYT, punya maruah dan tak bergeming dengan berpegang teguh dengan prinsip jurnalistik, mencibir ancaman dan menyembuyikan nama penulis misterius.
Opini berjudul "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration",- (Terjemahan bebas bahasa Indonesia,- "Saya Adalah Bagian dari Perlawanan di Dalam Administrasi Trump,")- mengungkap bagaimana penulis misterius dan pejabat senior lain di Trump Nuthouse sibuk menjaga "kejeniusan stabil" dan menyatakan sudah melakukan terlalu banyak kerusakan pada negara. . Donald Trump!
"Banyak pejabat senior di pemerintahannya sendiri yang bekerja tekun dari dalam untuk menggagalkan bagian-bagian agenda dan kecenderungan terburuknya," tulis salah satu penggalan opini dari sang penulis misterius.
Opini New York Times itu muncul setelah buku yang ditulis wartawan investigasi, Bob Woodward, berjudul Fear: Trump in the White House muncul dan akan dirilis pada Selasa 11 September mendatang.
Well..... Bersama dengan Carl Bernstein, reputasi menterang Bob Woodward di dunia jurnalistik tak diragukan dan tak ada orang yang meragukannya. Dia pernah mengekspos Watergate scandal pada tahun 1972-74 yang meruntuhkan reputasi presiden Nixon. Serangkaian skandal politik di Amerika Serikat yang mengakibatkan pengunduran diri Presiden Richard Nixon dan mengakibatkan krisis konstitusi yang menghebohkan pada tahun 1970-an. Peristiwa itu kemudian dinamakan sesuai dengan nama sebuah hotel di Washington, D.C. tempat di mana skandal tersebut terjadi, hotel Watergate. Hotel ini merupakan bagian dari kesatuan properti yang terdiri dari berbagai kantor, hotel, dan apartemen.
Buku terbaru Bob Woodward sangat menarik dan eksplosif, sehingga membuat Donald Trump tiba-tiba panik dan mual-mual ketika mendengar ulasan buku tersebut. Trump yang biasa mendapat banyak pujian dan acungan jempol, mencabut pistol tablet, dan menuliskan kata-kata nista terhadap buku Woodward yang dia sebut sebagai berita palsu dan berdasarkan kebohongan.
Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency
John Dowd was convinced that President Trump would commit perjury if he talked to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. So, on Jan. 27, the president’s then-personal attorney staged a practice session to try to make his point.
In the White House residence, Dowd peppered Trump with questions about the Russia investigation, provoking stumbles, contradictions and lies until the president eventually lost his cool.
“This thing’s a goddamn hoax,” Trump erupted at the start of a 30-minute rant that finished with him saying, “I don’t really want to testify.”
The dramatic and previously untold scene is recounted in “Fear,” a forthcoming book by Bob Woodward that paints a harrowing portrait of the Trump presidency, based on in-depth interviews with administration officials and other principals.
Woodward writes that his book is drawn from hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand participants and witnesses that were conducted on “deep background,” meaning the information could be used but he would not reveal who provided it. His account is also drawn from meeting notes, personal diaries and government documents.
Woodward depicts Trump’s anger and paranoia about the Russia inquiry as unrelenting, at times paralyzing the West Wing for entire days. Learning of the appointment of Mueller in May 2017, Trump groused, “Everybody’s trying to get me”— part of a venting period that shellshocked aides compared to Richard Nixon’s final days as president.
The 448-page book was obtained by The Washington Post. Woodward, an associate editor at The Post, sought an interview with Trump through several intermediaries to no avail. The president called Woodward in early August, after the manuscript had been completed, to say he wanted to participate. The president complained that it would be a “bad book,” according to an audio recording of the conversation. Woodward replied that his work would be “tough” but factual and based on his reporting.
The book’s title is derived from a remark that then-candidate Trump made in an interview with Woodward and Post political reporter Robert Costa in 2016. Trump said, “Real power is, I don’t even want to use the word, ‘Fear.’ ”
A central theme of the book is the stealthy machinations used by those in Trump’s inner sanctum to try to control his impulses and prevent disasters, both for the president personally and for the nation he was elected to lead.
Woodward describes “an administrative coup d’etat” and a “nervous breakdown” of the executive branch, with senior aides conspiring to pluck official papers from the president’s desk so he couldn’t see or sign them.
Again and again, Woodward recounts at length how Trump’s national security team was shaken by his lack of curiosity and knowledge about world affairs and his contempt for the mainstream perspectives of military and intelligence leaders.
At a National Security Council meeting on Jan. 19, Trump disregarded the significance of the massive U.S. military presence on the Korean Peninsula, including a special intelligence operation that allows the United States to detect a North Korean missile launch in seven seconds vs. 15 minutes from Alaska, according to Woodward. Trump questioned why the government was spending resources in the region at all.
“We’re doing this in order to prevent World War III,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told him.
After Trump left the meeting, Woodward recounts, “Mattis was particularly exasperated and alarmed, telling close associates that the president acted like — and had the understanding of — ‘a fifth- or sixth-grader.’ ”
In Woodward’s telling, many top advisers were repeatedly unnerved by Trump’s actions and expressed dim views of him. “Secretaries of defense don’t always get to choose the president they work for,” Mattis told friends at one point, prompting laughter as he explained Trump’s tendency to go off on tangents about subjects such as immigration and the news media.
Inside the White House, Woodward portrays an unsteady executive detached from the conventions of governing and prone to snapping at high-ranking staff members, whom he unsettled and belittled on a daily basis.
Chief of Staff John F. Kelly in the Oval Office in February. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly frequently lost his temper and told colleagues that he thought the president was “unhinged,” Woodward writes. In one small group meeting, Kelly said of Trump: “He’s an idiot. It’s pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown. I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had.”
Reince Priebus, Kelly’s predecessor, fretted that he could do little to constrain Trump from sparking chaos. Woodward writes that Priebus dubbed the presidential bedroom, where Trump obsessively watched cable news and tweeted, “the devil’s workshop” and said early mornings and Sunday evenings, when the president often set off tweetstorms, were “the witching hour.”
Trump apparently had little regard for Priebus. He once instructed then-staff secretary Rob Porter to ignore Priebus, even though Porter reported to the chief of staff, saying that Priebus was “‘like a little rat. He just scurries around.’ ”
Few in Trump’s orbit were protected from the president’s insults. He often mocked then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster behind his back, puffing up his chest and exaggerating his breathing as he impersonated the retired Army general, and once said McMaster dresses in cheap suits, “like a beer salesman.”
Trump told Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a wealthy investor eight years his senior: “I don’t trust you. I don’t want you doing any more negotiations. . . . You’re past your prime.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the White House in March. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
A near-constant subject of withering presidential attacks was Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump told Porter that Sessions was a “traitor” for recusing himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, Woodward writes. Mocking Sessions’s accent, Trump added: “This guy is mentally retarded. He’s this dumb Southerner. . . . He couldn’t even be a one-person country lawyer down in Alabama.”
At a dinner with Mattis and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, Trump lashed out at a vocal critic, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He painted the former Navy pilot as cowardly, falsely suggesting he took an early release from a prisoner-of-war camp in Vietnam because of his father’s military rank and left others behind.
Mattis swiftly corrected his boss: “No, Mr. President, I think you’ve got it reversed.” The defense secretary explained that McCain, who died Aug. 25, had in fact turned down early release and was brutally tortured during his five years at the “Hanoi Hilton.”
“Oh, okay,” Trump replied, according to Woodward’s account.
With Trump’s rage and defiance impossible to contain, Cabinet members and other senior officials learned to act discreetly. Woodward describes an alliance among Trump’s traditionalists — including Mattis and Gary Cohn, the president’s former top economic adviser — to stymie what they considered dangerous acts.
“It felt like we were walking along the edge of the cliff perpetually,” Porter is quoted as saying. “Other times, we would fall over the edge, and an action would be taken.”
After Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched a chemical attack on civilians in April 2017, Trump called Mattis and said he wanted to assassinate the dictator. “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” Trump said, according to Woodward.
Mattis told the president that he would get right on it. But after hanging up the phone, he told a senior aide: “We’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to be much more measured.” The national security team developed options for the more conventional airstrike that Trump ultimately ordered.
Then-White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn in September 2017. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Cohn, a Wall Street veteran, tried to tamp down Trump’s strident nationalism regarding trade. According to Woodward, Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk” that the president was intending to sign to formally withdraw the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea. Cohn later told an associate that he removed the letter to protect national security and that Trump did not notice that it was missing.
Cohn made a similar play to prevent Trump from pulling the United States out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, something the president has long threatened to do. In spring 2017, Trump was eager to withdraw from NAFTA and told Porter: “Why aren’t we getting this done? Do your job. It’s tap, tap, tap. You’re just tapping me along. I want to do this.”
Under orders from the president, Porter drafted a notification letter withdrawing from NAFTA. But he and other advisers worried that it could trigger an economic and foreign relations crisis. So Porter consulted Cohn, who told him, according to Woodward: “I can stop this. I’ll just take the paper off his desk.”
Despite repeated threats by Trump, the United States has remained in both pacts. The administration continues to negotiate new terms with South Korea as well as with its NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico.
Cohn came to regard the president as “a professional liar” and threatened to resign in August 2017 over Trump’s handling of a deadly white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. Cohn, who is Jewish, was especially shaken when one of his daughters found a swastika on her college dorm room.
Trump was sharply criticized for initially saying that “both sides” were to blame. At the urging of advisers, he then condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis but almost immediately told aides, “That was the biggest fucking mistake I’ve made” and the “worst speech I’ve ever given,” according to Woodward’s account.
When Cohn met with Trump to deliver his resignation letter after Charlottesville, the president told him, “This is treason,” and persuaded his economic adviser to stay on. Kelly then confided to Cohn that he shared Cohn’s horror at Trump’s handling of the tragedy — and shared Cohn’s fury with Trump.
“I would have taken that resignation letter and shoved it up his ass six different times,” Kelly told Cohn, according to Woodward. Kelly himself has threatened to quit several times but has not done so.
Woodward illustrates how the dread in Trump’s orbit became all-encompassing over the course of Trump’s first year in office, leaving some staff members and Cabinet members confounded by the president’s lack of understanding about how government functions and his inability and unwillingness to learn.
At one point, Porter, who departed in February amid domestic abuse allegations, is quoted as saying, “This was no longer a presidency. This is no longer a White House. This is a man being who he is.”
Such moments of panic are a routine feature but not the thrust of Woodward’s book, which mostly focuses on substantive decisions and internal disagreements, including tensions with North Korea as well as the future of U.S. policy in Afghanistan.
Woodward recounts repeated episodes of anxiety inside the government over Trump’s handling of the North Korean nuclear threat. One month into his presidency, Trump asked Dunford for a plan for a preemptive military strike on North Korea, which rattled the combat veteran.
In the fall of 2017, as Trump intensified a war of words with Kim Jong Un, nicknaming North Korea’s dictator “Little Rocket Man” in a speech at the United Nations, aides worried the president might be provoking Kim. But, Woodward writes, Trump told Porter that he saw the situation as a contest of wills: “This is all about leader versus leader. Man versus man. Me versus Kim.”
The book also details Trump’s impatience with the war in Afghanistan, which had become the United States’ longest conflict. At a July 2017 National Security Council meeting, Trump dressed down his generals and other advisers for 25 minutes, complaining that the United States was losing, according to Woodward.
“The soldiers on the ground could run things much better than you,” Trump told them. “They could do a much better job. I don’t know what the hell we’re doing.” He went on to ask: “How many more deaths? How many more lost limbs? How much longer are we going to be there?”
The president’s family members, while sometimes touted as his key advisers by other Trump chroniclers, are minor players in Woodward’s account, popping up occasionally in the West Wing and vexing adversaries.
Woodward recounts an expletive-laden altercation between Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter and senior adviser, and Stephen K. Bannon, then the chief White House strategist.
“You’re a goddamn staffer!” Bannon screamed at her, telling her that she had to work through Priebus like other aides. “You walk around this place and act like you’re in charge, and you’re not. You’re on staff!”
Ivanka Trump, who had special access to the president and worked around Priebus, replied: “I’m not a staffer! I’ll never be a staffer. I’m the first daughter.”
Such tensions boiled among many of Trump’s core advisers. Priebus is quoted as describing Trump officials not as rivals but as “natural predators.”
“When you put a snake and a rat and a falcon and a rabbit and a shark and a seal in a zoo without walls, things start getting nasty and bloody,” Priebus says.
Hovering over the White House was Mueller’s inquiry, which deeply embarrassed the president. Woodward describes Trump calling his Egyptian counterpart to secure the release of an imprisoned charity worker and President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi saying: “Donald, I’m worried about this investigation. Are you going to be around?”
Trump relayed the conversation to Dowd and said it was “like a kick in the nuts,” according to Woodward.
The book vividly recounts the ongoing debate between Trump and his attorneys about whether the president would sit for an interview with Mueller. On March 5, Dowd and Trump attorney Jay Sekulow met in Mueller’s office with the special counsel and his deputy, James Quarles, where Dowd and Sekulow reenacted Trump’s January practice session.
Woodward’s book recounts the debate between Trump and his lawyers, including John Dowd, regarding whether the president will sit for an interview with special counsel Robert. S. Mueller III. (Richard Drew/AP)
Dowd then explained to Mueller and Quarles why he was trying to keep the president from testifying: “I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’ ”
“John, I understand,” Mueller replied, according to Woodward.
Later that month, Dowd told Trump: “Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit.”
But Trump, concerned about the optics of a president refusing to testify and convinced that he could handle Mueller’s questions, had by then decided otherwise.
“I’ll be a real good witness,” Trump told Dowd, according to Woodward.
“You are not a good witness,” Dowd replied. “Mr. President, I’m afraid I just can’t help you.”
The next morning, Dowd resigned.
Tapi apakah ada cerita detektif Conan dibalik ini? Tentu, kita akan sampai disitu, dan bersabarlah untuk waktu yang tak lama. . . . .
Ini mungkin sebuah kondisi nyaman, dan tentram di era yang kacau ini, tetapi apakah orang-orang Amerika tahu bahwa ada seorang dewasa berambut pirang dengan mulut comberan ada di sebuah ruangan dalam kondisi kesakitan?
Frustrasi dan terkapar, mungkin itu ringkasan keadaan yang dialami Trump saat ini yang biasa memanggang para stafnya. Wakil Presiden Mike Pence, Menteri Pertahanan James Mattis, dan Kepala Staf John Kelly tak segan-segan menyebut Trump sebagai "idiot" dan bocah sekolah dasar, begitu bunyi tulisas dari penggalan buku Woodward. Tetapi, semua staf Trump, kini jantungnya berdebar-debar sedang menunggu api pembakaran.
Panulis opini di NYT masih misterius, bahkan jika penulisnya kelak diketahu adalah salah satu pejabat Trump, apakah dia akan mengaku kepada orang yang paling bodoh yang menempati Gedung Putih itu?
"Kami di Crazytown," kata John Kelly yang frustrasi, menurut NYT. "Saya bahkan tidak tahu mengapa ada di antara kita di sini. Ini adalah pekerjaan terburuk yang pernah saya alami," katanya.
Tidak sampai disitu, senator Elizabeth Warren bahkan mengusulkan untuk menggunakan amandemen Konstitusi untuk melengserkan comberan, Donald Trump. Warren mengusulkan itu setelah merasa tertusuk pinggangnya dengan tulisan opini di The New York Times yang mengungkapkan keprihatinan besar akan perilaku dan moral Trump.
Editorial: Elizabeth Warren’s op-ed rant far oversteps bounds
Credit: AP
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., gestures while speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, Tuesday, Aug. 21, 2018. AP photo
Elizabeth Warren continues to showcase her activist skill set, but she was elected to be a senator — not a protester.
Her latest ploy is to demand the ouster of President Trump in the wake of an op-ed published in The New York Times earlier this week purportedly from a high-level White House insider. The author suggested that there was a “resistance” in the administration working to prevent Trump from following through on dangerous decisions.
In an email blast, Warren wrote, “If senior officials believe the president is unfit, they should stop hiding behind anonymous op-eds and leaking information to Bob Woodward boasting that they’re trying to save our country, and instead do what the Constitution demands they do: invoke the 25th Amendment and remove this president from office.”
She doubled down during an appearance on CNN, asking, “What kind of a crisis do we have if senior officials believe that the president can’t do his job and then refuse to follow the rules that have been laid down in the Constitution?”
Warren continued, “They can’t have it both ways. Either they think that the president is not capable of doing his job, in which case they follow the rules in the Constitution, or they feel that the president is capable of doing his job, in which case they follow what the president tells them to do.”
The 25th Amendment facilitates the vice president to take over if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
This is an irresponsible and alarmist action on behalf of a sitting senator and shows little regard for the truth or accuracy — all in the name of politics.
The anonymous op-ed was supposedly written by a “senior administration official,” which, by the Times’ own standards, could include any of more than a thousand people.
Even loyal Democrat Jennifer Palmieri, who served in the White House, threw cold water on the op-ed, tweeting, “Fwiw, based on my experience with NYT sourcing rules for Administration officials, this person could easily be someone most of us have never heard of & more junior than you’d expect. Like a deputy at legislative affairs or NEC.”
David Nakamura, a reporter for the Washington Post (hardly a friend to Trump) added, “Most DC journalists, incl. me, have quoted a ‘senior administration official’” in stories. But I feel as though an op-ed like this should have an editor’s note explaining what an SAO is. There are 1,212 Senate-confirmed positions, incl. 640 ‘key’ jobs.”
But Warren ignored those facts and went right into political-activist mode because she is no longer pretending to represent everyday Americans. She is trying to appeal to the unhinged fringe — the people who let out a primal scream on election night in 2016.
Left unrepresented are her actual constituents, who depend on their elected officials in Washington, D.C., to look out for their best interests.
Sen. Warren may be the most prestigious protester/politician in Washington, but she is not the only one. Apart from all the gun protests, Democrats displayed their displeasure with Trump at the State of the Union speech. Last year, Warren led Democrats during the “Hold the Floor” protest of Betsy Devos, and there was even a challenge of the presidential election certification.
Democrats routinely use Capitol Hill for civil disobedience just as they use hearing rooms to launch presidential campaigns, as witnessed this week in the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh.
The voters of the commonwealth deserve a senator who is devoted to their collective plight rather than her own future fortunes. Outlandish protests on the taxpayers’ time are bad enough, but when her politically aimed activism involves entertaining the notion of unseating the commander in chief through a process other than an election, that is sheer recklessness.
http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2018/09/editorial_elizabeth_warren_s_op_ed_rant_far_oversteps_bounds
Jadi para pembaca yang budiman. Identitas penulis yang kata Trump "oplosan" dan tidak punya otak itu adalah "Bagian dari Perlawanan". Apakah masih belum dimengerti arti Perlawanan dan siapa yang selama ini mengunakan kalimat "Resistance"?
Oke, mari kita mencoba menjadi Conan, kita mampu mengungkap sumber dari dalam kita sendiri secara sempurna, bahwa gerakan Perlawanan Hizbullah yang selama ini menggunakan kata "Resistance" telah menembus Gedung Putih yang diduduki Trump, dan mencoba menjatuhkan pemerintah AS dari dalam.
Semuanya ada di depan mata kita! Trump tidak harus memecat Pence, atau Mattis atau Kelly atau salah satu dari jiwa panjang yang menderita di Trump Nut House itu. Trump bahkan tidak harus mengejar Melania untuk berdansa, meskipun Trump telah menempuh jalannya sendiri, karena sudah cukup banyak orang menjadi gila yang dia nikahi.
Jadi, Donald Trump, jangan pernah memecat para staf Nut House Anda. Mereka semua tidak melakukannya. Dalang sebenarnya ada di tempat lain, dan tidak ada hal yang bisa Anda lakukan saat ini. Jadi remas dan makan hatimu, wahai mulut comberan berambut pirang!
(Islam-Times/Berbagai-Sumber-Lain/ABNS)
Posting Komentar