Not the resistance from the left but from within. The New York Times is publishing a shocking anonymous op ed from a Senior Trump Administration official. It is so unusual, it is so biting, its such ab indictment of the president , the only way to lay out the case this person makes is to read the entire thing to you. So, here it is in full. The opinion piece in the New York Times. President trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern american leader. Its not just the special counsel that looms large or that the country is bitterly divided over mr. Trumps leadership or even that his party might well lose the house to an opposition hell bent on his downfall. The dilemma that he does not grasp is that many Senior Administration officials are working diligently from within. I would know, i am one of them, he writes. It goes on to say, 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. Trumps more misguided impulses until he is out of office. The root of the problem is the president s a morality. 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 ideas long espoused by conservatives, free minds, free markets and free people. At best he has invoked these ideals in scripted setting. At worst, he has attacked them outright. In addition to his Mass Marketing of the press as the enemy of the people, hes generally antitrade and antirepublic. Dont get me wrong, there are bright spots that the administration fails to capture effective deregulation, historic tax reform, 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 chiefs 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 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, the writer, of course recently. Exas perfect rated by an Oval Office Meeting in which the president flip flopped on a major policy decision he had made only a week earlier. The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it werent for Unsung Heroes in and around the white house. Some of his aides have been cast as villains 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 there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening and we are trying to do whats right even when donald trump wont. He goes on, 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 koreas leader, kim jongun and shows nothing about the ties that bind us to allied like minded nations. Astute observers have noted that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like russia are called out for meddling and punished 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. Putins spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former russian spy in brittain. He complained for weeks about senior Staff Members letting him get boxed into further confrontation from russia and he expects frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its maligned behavior but his National Security team knew better. Such actions had to be taken to hold moscow accountable. This isnt the work of the socalled deep state, he writes, its 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 its 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. Allamericans 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. We may no longer have senator mccain, he writes, but we will always have his example, a lone star for restoring honor to public life and the national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men but we should revere them. Finally he puts it this way, there is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put Country First, but the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one, americans. Again, a current Senior Trump Administration official in his own words in the New York Times tonight. Caitlyn collins is out front for us now live at the white house. Caitlyn, the president responding to these words to this opinion piece. Whats he saying . Reporter in his own words, kate, the president , it didnt take him long to respond to this. In an event with sheriffs at the white house, he was about half an hour late to that event and presumably thats because this op ed, this stunning op ed written by someone who works here in his own administration. The president came out. He denounced not only the author of this op ed but also the New York Times for publishing it. He was armed with a diatribe and a list of his accomplishments. Heres what he said. So if the failing New York Times has an anonymous editorial, can you believe it, anonymous, meaning gutless. A gutless editorial, were doing a great job. The poll numbers are through the roof. Our poll numbers are great. And guess what, nobody is going to come close to beating me in 2020 because of what weve done. So you hear from the president there, kate, and then hes tweeted just a single word. The word treason in all caps with a question mark and his press secretary, Sarah Sanders put out a statement calling on the coward, in her words, who wrote this op ed to resign. This is a rough it up, day. The president is wagging a witch hunt. Reporter thats right. The white house was knee deep in a crisis and the president directing who he believes are loyal aides in this white house to find out who it was that spoke with the veteran reporter for his book, a book that also made stunning allegations, a lot of which seemed to be backed up by this op ed. And now theyre scrambling to not only mount the defense to that book but also to figure out who it was that wrote this op ed. Kate, there was already this growing sense of pair annoy you in the west wing. Staffers often thought any time there was something negative that was published it was someone in the white house that doesnt like them. Theyre predicting since the paranoia is going to get worse with this op ed, theyre trying to figure out who it is as the president s anger only continues to grow here tonight, kate. Not to a boiling point already. Caitlyn, thanks so much. Out front now, david gergen, dana bash is here, and patrick kieley. Thank you all so much for being here. Patrick, you had read it and you just heard me reread the whole thing for our viewers. Im not going to ask you the name of who wrote this. You wouldnt tell me even if you knew. What do you make of the New York Times publishing this . Yeah, i dont know the name and the op ed pages are managed separately than the News Department so it was handled separately. Look, it is unprecedented. The Editorial Board of the New York Times and the op ed editors at the times look over submissions very carefully, very deliberately and deliberatively and, you know, you can be sure they know exactly who this person is. It was probably vetted very closely. There was a lot of care and just knowing the people up there, probably a lot of discussion went in not only to the content but also to the appropriateness of publishing an anonymous editorial. Like you said, it is unprecedented. The times takes very seriously whether or not to use anonymous information, and i think in the times, they sort of said this, that they believe and we believe, the editorial page believes that the importance of the subject matter, the details, the specificity of the discussions that were going on inside those rooms warranted publication, met a standard of newsworthiness and criticalness to understand what is going on inside of the trump white house. And the degree says it resonates what bob woodward is reporting, what other books, the times, cnn, what others are reporting for a year and a half about this president and this presidency, you know, its probably why people are talking so much about it. It feels like someone from the inside is just really validating, again, whats been reported. And, david, put this in perspective from your perch. Would you imagine this happening in any of the administrations that youve worked for . Yes, the nixon administration, but no other administration in the past. And i can guarantee you from my work with the times, i think its virtually certain that whoever the person is who came to them, the times didnt seek out this piece, the person came to them, had to be a member of the cabinet or in the top inner circle of the white house. I just dont think the New York Times would print something from somebody whos in a secondary agency far removed from the action. And the conversation itself has it seemed very centralized and people who actually work in the white house, it could be one of the intelligence agencies. It sounds like it could be National Security why you but i can guarantee you it comes from someone with a lot of authority. The times would have had a conversation with that person to check out everything and to try to talk understand the larger scope and they published this because they understood it would be a bombshell because theyre deeply concerned about what is going on. And i think thats the larger question here. We now have a fresh portrait. They reinforced each other as we just heard. We have fresh portraits of the chaos and dysfunctionality and the governing force going off the tracks by a person who is considered immoral or amoral by the writer, chaotic, impulsive, off the tracks, need to be guarded like a child in some fashion. I join in the question of where are the republicans . It does seem to me, i can understand why they would not want to consider this and bring it out and hash it over in public before now and the mid term, but after the mid terms there has to be a serious effort by the republican party, by the leadership of the party to come to grips with this. Somebody this is not good for the country. Weve never been through anything like this. Even in watergate the country was insteadier hands than what we have right now. Wow. Dana, another former white house official is weighing in on this, on this person, on who it could be. A. A. M. Moamorosa says on page 330f her book and she attached a graph for everyone to see. Rest assured there is an army of people who oppose him and his policies. They are working silently, tirelessly to make sure he does not cause problem to the public. Many are in his army and his own family. His own family sounds certainly hard to believe as the author of this opinion piece but do you think do you think this persons identity will be revealed . Its hard to imagine it wont at some point if for no other reason than perhaps this person is going to at some point, depending on how things shake out, come forward and say who he or she is. I completely agree with david or patrick, i dont remember who said it, that this is that the focus of this, so much is on National Security, on what really happens in conversations with allies and what really happens in really holding russias feet to the fire despite what the president says in private and public. It seems as though the senior official is from the National Security realm. Now that could be, you know, just a way to kind of get us off track, that its really somebody else, but it really seems to be a focus there. And regardless of who it is, we have to take the fact that you read the whole thing, kate, speaks to the extraordinary nature of what this is. Yeah. It really, really is. First, for somebody of this senior level to write it and, second, as patrick said, for the New York Times to actually publish it. Jim dao whos the editor of the New York Times op ed page, i actually covered the bradley campaign, im aging myself here. I knew him then as an excellent, excellent journalist. Obviously hes risen in the ranks for that reason, that he has very good judgment and clearly standards and im sure he took a lot of steps in order to make sure that this was done correctly because it is so unusual for the New York Times to publish something never mind for a Senior Administration official to present Something Like this in publication. Im sorry, da snna. Patrick, she got to this. The president was already fuming about the woodward book and then this. What does this piece do . Right. It goes so intensely to his own fears about enemies within, about sort of the deep state around him. You know, so many Senior Administration officials have resigned. There are others who he doesnt see as part of his team or loyal to him, particularly Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department. And the people who were with him early on. I mean, people like hope hicks or cory lewandowski, people who he felt like sort of had his back. I mean, michael cohen, he did try once to take a bullet for him. He doesnt have those people anymore. He has sort of the families still with him, but it goes stroech, you know, i think caitlyn used the word paranoia, but the sense of like, you know, who is out to get me . You both in speaking to that, i mean, the writer, da sn a, writes that this isnt the socalled deep state. The writer says its the steady state. Wondering what that means. Well, and also do you think the president sees a difference there . No, i dont think he sees a difference, but i think its good that you pointed that out because its important to note when people talk about the deep state what theyre referring to and what theyre referring to are career government officials, people who work for the government across the board and they serve, for the most part, regardless of who is the president. This person made very clear that he or she is a political appointee, which means he was appointed or she was appointed by the president of the United States and there is a big difference there. Big difference. Well definitely almost guarantee to be lost by the president , but there is a difference. Thank you so much, guys. Out front for us next more news on this scathing New York Times opinion piece. What was happening behind the New York Times before the times decision to publish the piece and the impact now. Plus, the confirmation hearing for President Trumps Supreme Court nominee still underway at this time. What Brett Kavanaugh says about recusing himself. And a younger woman beating an older male in congress. Is the face of the Democratic Party changing and changing fast . Alexandria morcasio is my guest. Big jim, hes got you covered great big jim, there aint no other so, this is covered, right . Yes, maam. Take care of it for you right now. Giddyup hi this is jamie. We need some help. Ahoyy excited squeal, giggling, panting gotcha ah nooooo. Noooooo. Nooooo. Quick, the quicker picker upper bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. Bounty, the quicker picker upper. On a budget . Try new bounty essentials. You dont always use your smartphone for directions. Are we there yet . Hey guys, up there. Or to laugh out loud. But when it matters most, you count on tracfone to keep you connected for less. Our smartphone plan gives you talk, text and data with unlimited carryover starting at 15 a month, no contract. All with nationwide 4g lte coverage. Get top smartphones or bring your own phone. Tracfone. For moments that matter. Our mission is to provide complete,