Trump calls New York Times editorial ‘gutless’ – and he’s right. If things are that bad…

By Robert Laurie

Earlier, Dan discussed the anonymous New York Times editorial that has the political world in a tizzy. It paints a picture of a barely-sane President, an administration working to control his radical impulses, and a government in crisis. At one point, it suggests that the President is unstable and there was consideration given to removing him via the 25th Amendment. At another it argues that he is both anti-trade and anti-democracy.

Since its publication, people have been wondering about the identity of the piece’s author. Virtually everyone, from lowly speechwriters to VP Mike Pence has been named as a possible source. That makes for good clickbait, but the truth is probably not going to be that exciting.

The New York Times has a long history of inflating both the stature of its sources and the importance of its supposed bombshells. I suspect that when the details come out, we’ll learn that this anonymous source is neither as senior nor as well-known as many are speculating.
For now, though, let’s set all that aside.

Last night, President Trump responded. He blasted the Times and called the writer “GUTLESS:”

Trump also released the following one-word tweet:


Presumably, that was also in response to the Times article. Wolf Blitzer asked Lindsey Graham about it, and the the Senator responded:

“This is not treason under the Constitution. This is not a treasonous act against the nation. This is a disloyal and cowardly act against the President.”

So, “gutless” and “cowardly” seem to be the watchwords of the day.

Honestly, it’s practically impossible to know how important the article is until we learn who wrote it and what kind of access they have to the President. If it’s some low-level hack the Times is trumpeting, it’s probably not all that meaningful. If it’s someone of real prominence, it’s much more troubling.

Either way, though, Graham and Trump are correct.  The decision to publish an anonymous column is gutless and cowardly. It means the author has grave fears about the state of the nation, knows of plans to remove the President based on mental fitness issues, and is concerned that the commander in chief is so unstable that he could seriously damage the country. If all of that is true, the brave – and honorable – thing to do would be to come forward and tell the world everything he knows.

If things are that dire, he owes it to the whole of the United States to expose it and aid in the effort to remove this madman from office. Instead, he’s chosen to remain in the shadows to protect his employment?

There are three options here.  Either the article is:

A: Red meat written by someone who’s not as ‘senior’ as we’ve been led to believe.
B: Grotesquely exaggerating its claims, or just outright lying.
C: Completely True, and the author is, in fact, a gutless coward.

Pick one.

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did