Disappearing a paper so that the president fails to enact a policy he decided on seems to be a violation of faith and duty that leaves little room for doubt. That is if they can pin the act on someone in the first place.Anaxagoras wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:48 amThe oath is basically to "support and defend the Constitution" and to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office". Could an argument be made that the individual is not "well and faithfully discharging the duties of the office"? I think it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (meaning it would be a subjective judgment, not an objective one).
My mindframe is, if someone can do this to Trump, they can do it to the next guy. What if it was something that the voters wanted, Congress wanted, and the president wanted, stopped because someone in the WH took matters into their own hands? Despite the letter author's protestations, that sounds exactly like a "deep state" subversion of our government.
If they were so righteous they'd refuse to cooperate and go on the record. I am reminded of a marriage where one parent is abusing a child, and the other one thinks they can "manage" the situation and protect the child from the worst of it while still carrying on the relationship and hoping it all works out. It's a fucked up thing to do.
There is, of course, the possibility that it's complete hogwash front to back. But there's no hero to find here either way.