No longer bothering to cover their hatred for America and President Trump, leading liberal weenies are meeting in Washington this week to determine if it is more effective to destroy the Trump presidency from inside the government or from outside. That is “sedition,” is it not?
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
Forlorn liberals took refuge at the American Constitution Society’s national convention in Washington this week, discussing whether to encourage the growth of the “deep state” resistance inside the government or fight President Trump from outside, reports the Washington Examiner.
“The election of Donald Trump was an assault on the federal bureaucracy,” William Yeomans said to a room full of students and civil servants, including those recently displaced by Trump’s administration. “His values are simply not consistent with the values of people who are committed to public service and who believe deeply in the importance of public service.”
Yeomans, an American University law professor with more than 25 years of experience at the Justice Department, was holed up inside the Capital Hilton hotel downtown on a sunny Friday afternoon leading a panel of bureaucrats and scholars divided about how best to fight Trump.
Who would you vote for if the elections were held today? (1)
UCLA law professor Jon Michaels said he favors filling the Trump administration with liberals opposed to Trump’s agenda.
“We hear a lot of language about draining the swamp and this idea about a deep state that somehow was going to thwart the intentions or the political mandate of the president,” Michaels said. “I kind of embrace this notion of the ‘deep state.'”
Michaels listed his ideas for how to ensure the success of the “deep state.” Act as a group — a department, across agency lines, as a community — rather than as an individual when pushing back against Trump from the inside, he said. Once such a coalition is formed, he suggested “rogue tweeting” or “leaking to the media” as options for fighting the president.
“It’s hard to figure out exactly what [way is best], I don’t think we’ve hit our stride on that,” Michaels said. “But from my understanding people are still kind of probing and poking around at what can be done and the creativity and resourcefulness of people is in some ways boundless and so I imagine what I would hope to see is kind of organic, loyal opposition is probably too strong, but ways of having well-prepared, well-defined boundaries of opposition.”
The anti-Trump career bureaucrats named the people in Trump’s administration who appear to be causing the most consternation. Yeomans listed Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt as outspoken opponents to the mission of the agencies they have been tasked to run.
Mustafa Santiago Ali, a panelist alongside Michaels, worked for the EPA for 24 years but quit his job rather than pursue his quest for environmental justice from inside the Trump administration. He sounded conflicted about whether joining the “deep state” is a universally good approach.
“I think it’s important to have strong folks both inside and outside [of government],” Ali told the room. “On the issues that I work on, that has always been a part of the overall strategy to be able to move forward.”
He said he chose to leave government work after he determined Pruitt’s actions would lead to Americans dying across the country.
“When I looked at what the administration and Administrator Pruitt were proposing, I knew that those values and priorities were vastly different than mine and the work and the communities that I had dedicated my life to for over two decades,” Ali said. “I also knew because I believe in real talk that the choices that they were making were literally going to be devastating to those communities and they would actually cause more folks to get sick and unfortunately more folks were going to die, and I couldn’t be a part of that.”
Ali also said “there is some appropriateness” to leaking information to the media if the leak would reveal information about a matter that could cost lives.
While Ali and company debated how best to thwart Trump, other liberals at the convention planned the best way to go on the offensive.