There seems to be a bit of a double-standard here. It's true that by a strict reading of the constitution, it is not unconstitutional for the president to "attack" the independence and authority of the judicial branch, only to deny them the powers enumerated in the Constitution. And similarly, it's not unconstitutional to "attack" the media, only for Congress to pass a law abridging their freedom to publish.
But by the same strict reading of the Constitution, it is also not treason for intelligence officers to leak information to the press. Treason is narrowly defined within the Constitution as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
If seeking to discredit the media or control its access to information is just all in the game, then seeking to deliver that information to media is also just all in the game.
I think much of the article's point was that there are established norms & institutions by which the President usually interacts with the rest of the government. If the President ignores them, then it's highly likely that other power centers will also say "Well, if they're going to come after me with all the resources available to them, I'm going to go after them with all the resources available to me." And the end result of that is often multiple competing power centers in open warfare with each other, much like what happened in Syria. That would be bad for everyone in America (and a good many people outside of it), and so we should be wary of all parties that seek to ignore the norms of peaceful democratic society.
I saw one senator use the phrase "Inconsistent with the values enshrined in our Constitution". I think they're intentionally making it easy for others to misuse the word "unconstitutional" after hearing that. "Constitution" is an uncommon word, and someone not carefully listening may conflate it with things that are actually unconstitutional, especially when people use the word "dictator" and "fascist" in a similar context.
I'd kind of like to keep the legal meaning of "unconstitutional"(an action that would be ruled against by the Supreme Court), because the alternative is for me to say things like, "It's okay for the President to do an unconstitutional act", which the fuzzier meaning allows.
There's a reason I've been saying "defend the Constitution" rather than calling specific actions unconstitutional.
That reason is pretty simple: populist dictators need to be stopped early, if we're to minimize the harm. (That is, if we're going to resolve the issue politically, rather than through other means.)
Many dictators (and early in history, emporers) who take over from democratic societies do so "legally". They enact measures to remove the various aspects of government they dislike or which check their power after destroying the judiciary and seizing control of the media.
Defending the American system against a dictator -- and America becoming a dictatorship could happen -- requires winning the hearts and minds of the public, and getting them to engage with the system to show their support.
Without the public -- who make up the military, civil servants, etc -- judges are people in silly robes, the Congress is a bunch of old people in a building, the president is just some guy, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
Trump's actions are those of a nascent dictator, the people arguing with me are rules lawyering rather than talking about the substantive issues, and neither should be surprised that people stand up to their nonsense.
I know which side of history I want to be on -- the side with people like John McCain speaking out how this, what's happening now, isn't okay, and not the side who has to quibble about technicalities rather than the substance of the issue.
That also requires proposing an alternate vision for the country that is more compelling than the dictator's, though.
See eg. George Lakoff's comments on framing [1]. If you set yourself up as "opposing Trump", you actually reinforce Trump as the leader of America. You need to propose an alternative frame about what America should look like instead, one that is more compelling than "Make America Great Again", and then let people judge for themselves that the facts of Trump's policy do not fit in with a great America.
I agree, in general, and generally am not a fan of how Democrats are conducting themselves -- they've failed to articulate their vision in a compelling manner, in the language a large portion of the voter-base speaks. (This is mostly what I work on changing in person. That, and they've adopted some bad policy positions.)
This thread is a little different than the general case though, because we're specifically talking about the appropriateness of various agencies talking about brewing scandals and/or internally resisting orders.
For that case, it's perfectly appropriate to point out that the person we're discussing is a nascent dictator and likely Russian collaborator, because it explains why I'm more aggressive on the issue than, say, with Bush.
I appreciate the link, will be doing some reading this afternoon. :)
Whether the deep state is doing something unconstitutional is utterly irrelevant. BTW: these are the same groups that overthrow governments abroad, and seem tempted to do it here.
The original argument was whether the deep state was defending the Constitution, which relies on a) whether Trump did anything unconstitutional, and b) whether the deep state is specifically opposed to Trump on those issues, as opposed to pushing their own (war?) agenda under that cover.
The deep state is not protecting the constitution, but seems to be trying to a) weaken Trump by any means possible and b) push for aggression in Ukraine and escalation against Russia. You'll notice that Trump's position on Crimea and Russia shifted just a few days ago, after the whole deep state debacle.
The rest of your comment is covered under game theory. Trump being friendly to the deep state would have been stupid of him, for reasons that are obvious now.
But by the same strict reading of the Constitution, it is also not treason for intelligence officers to leak information to the press. Treason is narrowly defined within the Constitution as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
If seeking to discredit the media or control its access to information is just all in the game, then seeking to deliver that information to media is also just all in the game.
I think much of the article's point was that there are established norms & institutions by which the President usually interacts with the rest of the government. If the President ignores them, then it's highly likely that other power centers will also say "Well, if they're going to come after me with all the resources available to them, I'm going to go after them with all the resources available to me." And the end result of that is often multiple competing power centers in open warfare with each other, much like what happened in Syria. That would be bad for everyone in America (and a good many people outside of it), and so we should be wary of all parties that seek to ignore the norms of peaceful democratic society.