Patterico's Pontifications

9/5/2018

NONE DARE CALL IT “TREASON?”: NYT Publishes Op-Ed from Anonymous “Senior Administration Official” Slamming Trump

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:33 pm



This op-ed is one of the more entertaining episodes of this season of the Trump presidency:

[M]any of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

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. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

But an official trying to undermine the President isn’t the real fun here. The real fun lies in the open contempt with which the author treats Trump in the piece:

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

. . . .

[Trump’s] 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 chief’s 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 his 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 recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The Times makes this claim about the author:

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.

Trump is mighty upset about it:

LOL.

Assuming the author is being truthful and accurate, and the NYT is telling the truth, at least three people know the author’s identity:

1. The author
2. Someone at the NYT
3. The “top official” who said to the author: “There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next.”

I don’t think this stays secret long but I have been wrong before.

I tend to think this is an overblown story, and agree with Allahpundit:

And anyway, while the flap over this op-ed is entertaining and everything, the author is saying nothing about Trump that isn’t already on public display every day. What’s that you say? Donald Trump is ill-informed? He veers off topic and says dumb things that he has to walk back??

NO &*^(*&^*& WAY!

Thank goodness we have a “senior administration official” to tell us that!

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

172 Responses to “NONE DARE CALL IT “TREASON?”: NYT Publishes Op-Ed from Anonymous “Senior Administration Official” Slamming Trump”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. I’m torn between thinking it was Pence or else Trump himself in a Bannon-like play to reframe Woodward’s book. “Yes, things are crazy, but the grown-ups are in charge.”

    Liv (33f81a)

  3. Hi Liv. I tend to think Pence is too gutless and unprincipled to have been the culprit.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  4. It’s Pence. He’s a well-known practical joker.

    Jay (3e70b5)

  5. Come on, it’s Dan Coates, obviously.

    He’s been undermined too much and is now moaning about it.

    Look, I agree with him about all of this, but to not put your name on it is not showing the…intestinal fortitude, to actually stand up and be counted.

    If it’s such a problem that everyone is leaking like a sieve, then stand up and be counted, else, just shut up.

    Colonel Klink (0e3d41)

  6. trump will use this against the nyt for months. Winning.

    mg (7e0e37)

  7. If #5 is right….F’in Hoosiers!!!!

    urbanleftbehind (fea0b4)

  8. And the White House bloodletting will now crescendo.

    CStudent (5474c6)

  9. It could be Miller in jest or in seriousness, which for me would be like Appalled with J. Sessions, having to feign respect. Or Flight 93/ Decimus Mus himself, although he left almost a year ago.

    urbanleftbehind (fea0b4)

  10. Also, like Fire and Fury, whatever Omarosa’s book is called, Woodward’s book, this op-ed, what is new in here? The White House has been leaking this message for a year and a half, this is not new, this is repeating that which is known.

    If all of these folks were real patriots, they would not provide all of this on deep background. Just like Trump’s inability to actually fire someone, there is just way too much personal cravenness, regardless of intentions, this petty virtue signaling really just ticks me off. And that’s coming from someone who wants Trump out and Pence in, and Pence is at best beige paint.

    President Pence, 25th Amendment or bust.

    Colonel Klink (0e3d41)

  11. Explain this to me: if it’s really some senior undercover savior of the republic, why write the op-ed? Why jeopardize this critical resistance position? Why create this new discord and doubt and drama?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  12. I wouldn’t be surprised if its General Kelly.
    It’s not treason, and it demonstrates that Trump doesn’t even know what the word means. Nor is it a “constitutional crisis” as Frum suggests, because Trump’s staff have sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, in service of the Office of the President. There’s no loyalty oath to Trump personally. It could technically be insubordination, but if Trump keeps changing his mind from one day to the next, are the staff that do not immediately follow orders actually insubordinate? It’s unclear to me, but perhaps not. Nor is it a “soft coup”, not when the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t actually know WTF he’s doing.
    What the Woodward book and today’s op-ed should really tell us is that maybe there should be a 25th Amendment solution. It would be messy and it would have the perception of a palace coup, but it’s getting clearer every day (to me) that he’s unfit, both mentally and psychologically.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  13. I think Allahpundit is right – anonymity is a handy way to conceal the fact that you’re assistant to the deputy whatever, while making people think maybe you’re a cabinet member or the vice president.

    I’ve seen several people say that “no good can come of this” (Allahpundit was one of them), but I disagree.

    By making Trump even more isolated and paranoid and hostile, suspicious of everyone around him, and more determined to go his own way, there is an increasing chance that he’ll lash out and do something (or try to do something) that will get him removed from office.

    Dave (445e97)

  14. Assuming the author is being truthful and accurate ….

    I suspect there is some truth but much more spin. I guess this proves there is a Deep State after all.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  15. There’s a phrase in the op-ed noting early on mentioning the 25th amendment was discussed and tabled. Hoosier Coats would have been there to have participated in that chatter. Per wikibio: ‘On January 5, 2017, Coats was announced as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for the post of Director of National Intelligence, to succeed James R. Clapper. His term in office commenced on March 16, 2017.’

    So was Pence. My guess remains the Veep. He’s media savvy- an old conservative talk radio guy before his days in Congress and the Indiana governorship and VP. Given his strong moral streak, the rhyming phrases, economy of words, terminology and tone of the piece, it has his scent. Perhaps he worked w/Coats on it or vice versa. And after the flag kerfuffle and death-dissing w/his duties at the McCain ceremonies– that may have been the final straw–perhaps for both of them. We’ll likely find out soon enough.

    Nobody’s job is safe in that WH. But are you not entertained?!? What a show, kids.

    You asked for it and you’ve got it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  16. It would seem, the policy issues suggest hooks and Mitchell of formerly of the hay institute, and Lerner the fellow turned down as pences vp so you lost an policy argument, move on.

    Narciso (489b63)

  17. 12. I wouldn’t be surprised if its General Kelly.

    Doubtful. He has said the best job he ever had was as a sergeant.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  18. What they do
    They smile in your face
    All the time they want to take your place
    The back stabbers (back stabbers)
    (They smile in your face)
    All the time they want to take your place
    The back stabbers (back stabbers)

    nk (dbc370)

  19. It would seem, the policy issues suggest hooks and Mitchell of formerly of the hay institute, and Lerner the fellow turned down as pences vp so you lost an policy argument, move on.

    Can you maybe diagram this sentence, I guess? Is it a sentence, or could you post a link to the magic decrypter/translator?

    Colonel Klink (0e3d41)

  20. The first two signed a,statement they would never serve in the administration. The third had ties to Paul singer,

    Narciso (489b63)

  21. That death star might be operational after all, remember o’brien:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1037473547692793856

    Narciso (489b63)

  22. I would guess it’s either Richard Armitage or Mark Felt.

    JVW (42615e)

  23. Lol, jww.

    Narciso (489b63)

  24. It’s not treason. Yet. But Trump is otherwise right. If this person really exists and is not an NYT editor, he or she is a risk to national security. Just as much as Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning or Reality Winner. He or she needs to be removed from the Administration.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. Rod Rosenstein.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  26. The Seth Mandel tweet, suggests ala admiral ackbar this might be a trap.

    Narciso (489b63)

  27. I hope it’s Mueller or Rosenstein. Would fit with what’s happening anyway.

    Whoever these people are are more authoritarian than trump could ever dream of being. Why bother voting if this “steady stare” will just “protect the country” from your choices?

    Hi (72bfde)

  28. Chris Hayes tweeted:

    The op-ed is an attempt to take out an insurance policy for the GOP and conservatism if and when things get much much worse. It’s a very public hedge meant to preserve the reputation of the GOP’s entire political and governing class.

    Tillman (d34303)

  29. Most of these policy decisions, have been chewed over like cooked gator, with the worse interpretation applied to them.

    Narciso (489b63)

  30. now these goobers are quoting chris hayes. whats next a jethro and heathcliff pantomime?

    mg (7e0e37)

  31. mg, I thought it was an interesting thought. Who you gonna quote? Manafort?

    Tillman (d34303)

  32. Once again Trump couldn’t just keep his yap shut but had to jump into full-throttle defense mode and prove the mercurial ranting madman assertion true. Once again, he shoots him self in the foot.

    Melania wrote it.

    Dana (023079)

  33. Explain this to me: if it’s really some senior undercover savior of the republic, why write the op-ed? Why jeopardize this critical resistance position? Why create this new discord and doubt and drama?

    That’s essentially my take on it, Dustin. If the person is really effective at what he’s doing, broadcasting that fact would ruin his chances at being effective in the future.

    I’m no Trump fan, but I think this was let out as a distraction.

    Chuck Bartowski (3ad03d)

  34. “Americans should know that there are adults in the room.”

    Because it’s so adult for a “senior official” protected by anonymity to pretend he was the one voted into office.

    Munroe (f7f941)

  35. I’m tired of these stage-whisperers.

    Why the hell don’t they grow a pair. The Founding Fathers didn’t sign their names to documents using invisible ink.

    “Goddammit, when is somebody going to go on the record in this story?!” – Ben Bradlee [Jason Robards] ‘All The President’s Men’ 1976

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  36. And it turned it was a,real life cigarette smoking man who ran black bag jobs on the Panthers and the weather underground, that’s what almost got him convicted until Reagan pardoned him and ed miller.

    Narciso (489b63)

  37. Nick Gillespie in Reason reflects on the deranged frenzy:

    “There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first,” writes the author, wrapping in treacly cliches of patriotism the bald fact that a duly elected president is being undermined by his own staff.

    Exactly the same sort of thing, albeit in softer form, could be said about any White House. There are always factions and cross-currents. How many members of George W. Bush’s administration, for instance, really gave a s*** about their boss’ desire after re-election to enact immigration and Social Security reform? Zero. The Obama White House was riven by differences over health-care plans and foreign-policy disputes as well. Read any history of the Reagan years and you’ll find that it was amazing that anything ever got done given all the in-fighting. Bill Clinton actually had officials resign over policy differences. It’s patently absurd to elevate frictions within the Trump White House to an existential threat to the Republic. In fact, it’s the sort of overstatement that is worthy of, well, Donald Trump, who just doesn’t do nuance…….

    There is no question that Trump was a uniquely unqualified candidate to run for president and he seems to have virtually no expertise in anything other than Twitter trolling. He clearly understands nothing about trade deficits, for instance, and his policies clearly don’t add up to anything particularly coherent (then again, they didn’t on the campaign trail, either). He is not a traditional Republican, but since when is that an impeachable offense? The author genuflects to John McCain, a well-respected public figure but also one whose incoherent and grandiose economic, social, and foreign policy positions were hardly worth emulating, and concludes

    Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans 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.

    With all due respect: What the f*** does that even mean?

    Few outlets have been more stridently #NeverTrump than The New York Times, a fair stand-in for the legacy media which also has nothing but contempt for Donald Trump and sympathy for Hillary Clinton (it was her time!) and a broad Democratic agenda of more-active government. The anonymous op-ed can only be read through that light and thus discounted.

    Despite the hand-waving about breaking “free of the tribalism trap,” this op-ed is clearly in the service of the anti-Trump resistance. The real liberation is to break free both of Trump loyalism and Trump Derangement Syndrome, which both put the president at the white-hot center of every god**** minute of every god**** day. As even the anonymous author of the op-ed will grant, good things have come out of the Trump White House. So have many bad things, especially on the immigration and free trade fronts. That doesn’t make Trump uniquely awful, it simply means he’s the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/05/anonymous-tell-alls-in-the-new-york-time

    harkin (c7ccf8)

  38. The coup against trump are free trade vermin still left in his administration, in the media and anti trump libertarian conservatives and democrats.

    lany (2c77ee)

  39. The koch brothers and other free trade vermin thought they had just about destroyed the industrial working class with free trade and illegal immigration and along comes trump to save the workers!

    lany (2c77ee)

  40. Trump once kicked a cat.

    mg (7e0e37)

  41. 39, he needed the solid on short notice

    urbanleftbehind (fea0b4)

  42. NYT falls for classic false flag operation?

    Fred Z (954f5b)

  43. Whoever it is will join John Dean in the circle of people ostracized by friends and distrusted by enemies. They may SAY they respect him for speaking out, but in the end no one in DC wants a potential betrayer near hem.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  44. this is part of dirty john mccain’s legacy no doubt about that

    for the anonymous cowards

    he’s quite the inspiration

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  45. If Trump is so bad, the 25th Amendment is a dead letter. It is becoming more and more clear that he is suffering from mental degradation — all the symptoms of Alzheimer’s are there: short-term memory loss (“lies” about yesterday), rage, frustration, paranoia, inability to focus thought.

    There is no way the GOP can renominate him and survive.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  46. Of course, this could all be part of the Big Lie, but how the heck do they fake all those tweets?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  47. This was written by someone who (i) thinks this will do more good than a very public resignation and talk show exposure (ii) has probably been around since early in the administration (iii) is in the White House (iv) writes fairly well or hired a ghost writer (v) likes McCain (vi) probably is not as anti-immigration as most Trumpers.

    I don’t like Kelly for this (sorry Paul), because the emphasis on the good things done have an economic thrust. Look at #2 in the list below for my candidate.

    https://www.weeklystandard.com/michael-warren/these-are-the-four-people-most-likely-to-be-behind-the-anonymous-new-york-times-op-ed-from-the-resistance-inside-the-trump-administration

    Omorosa, incidentally, hints at it being Ivanka in her twitter. She is the only one I can see maybe getting a personal benefit from being “revealed” as the author, but given her husband’s Russia exposure, maybe not. (I just doubt she could have written the sort of piece that’s in the NYT.)

    It’s all speculation. Fun, but meaningless, actually. One takes the amusements one can in a period of decadence.

    Appalled (96665e)

  48. This was written by someone who

    the person who wrote it isn’t who wrote it

    this stilted contrived oped was designed in a lab and then some cowardly mccain-like goomba submitted it in his name, but he didn’t write it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  49. It woudnt be a goomba as we are taught to think of one…#firstitalianpresident

    urbanleftbehind (fea0b4)

  50. the comey memos whose substance was ‘relayed’ by wittes and richman, suggest they aren’t to be trusted, I gave my three candidates, based on foreign policy concerns, which were apposite to those trump suppporters in the main, voted for,

    narciso (d1f714)

  51. “Explain this to me: if it’s really some senior undercover savior of the republic, why write the op-ed? Why jeopardize this critical resistance position? Why create this new discord and doubt and drama?”

    This has nothing to do with being a savior of the republic and everything to do with creating discord, doubt and drama, sink Kavanaugh, win the mid-terms, and show fly-over country deplorables what happens when they get uppity.

    The govt. Deep State is nothing more than an expanded, much more powerful version of the Seattle City Council.

    harkin (c7ccf8)

  52. Given the track record of the NYT, I’d say the odds are better than even that the whole story was fabricated.

    David Longfellow (8cba7a)

  53. Speaking of the pointed Woodward tie-in mention in the Examiner article, 2 autumns ago, Tyler Perry dispatched an army of creepy clowns to black neighborhoods to push his Boo Halloween movie.

    urbanleftbehind (fea0b4)

  54. And here we go again. It didn’t take long:

    “…cowardly mccain-like goomba….”

    I just wish there was a thread, once, that didn’t follow this kind of tiresome nonsense. Ditto “roseytwat,” “harvardtrash,” and similar low wattage thinking designed to offend rather than illuminate. Elementary school pottymouth nonsense. How much better to simply make arguments?

    But hey, that’s me. Posting in an infantile and offensive way is a choice. Maybe most folks like that kind of thing. I wonder how many don’t, and what that costs Patterico’s blog? Maybe nothing at all.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  55. you spelled rosytwat wrong Mr. Jester

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  56. I expected more, signaling over policy decisions already made, it’s like that Godzilla back in 97, that’s all they got.

    Narciso (f842ce)

  57. and it’s very very relevant that this coward cites another coward as his inspiration i think

    it tell you two things which i will enumerate

    #1 (first thing this tells you): this is not a cri de couer this is a media campaign what’s leveraging the battle-space preparation done at mccain’s obscenely politicized and vulgar funeral… as such one should analyze the oped accordingly: what it contains are carefully planned newshooks designed to give this story legs and to resonate with various other threads of #resistance attack

    #2 (other thing the invocation of mccain tells you): people are deeply invested in normalizing the cowardly values of john mccain because these are the values of the fascist anti-democratic deep state John McCain served and nurtured

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  58. Rosensteins, has been sufficiently suspect, not to require invective, like I say I see him as parallel to Comey on the chessboard whereas strzok is comparable with eickenrode.

    Narciso (f842ce)

  59. And you are a hateful and offensive person, lacking basic consideration for others, who does not think deeply and is wholly partisan.

    You are like cheap graffiti careless scrawled across a building someone else built, and call it art. May I remind you of “cancer drool” that got your offensive backside sidelined? Unnecessary, meanspirited, and…hateful.

    And here is thing: your offensiveness, hatefulness, lack of thought, and partisanship are choices. Patterico has dredged up, in the past, times when you posted in a clear and straightforward fashion, making your points without vulgarity or personal attacks. Now you post like potty mouthed child trying to hurt other people.

    Since you like that approach so much, I thought I would return it in kind.

    Personally, I think you pollute this site with your nonsense, and make it easier for more nonsense to appear. That in turn creates more hateful types like yourself. And it gets in the way of promoting discussion. Not that you care about that. You just want to urinate on someone else’s work.

    On your own site, that’s cool. On someone else’s? Really, really classless.

    Stick to recipes.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  60. you’re mean I’m just explaining how i interpret this oped cause it’s the topic

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  61. No, I think you are expressing yourself as the pedophilic, slicked up twat mouth who knows nothing other than how to self-pleasure yourself while dying of a disease…

    See how that works?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  62. Offensive, isn’t it?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  63. All in All, I say it’s very weak tea, I blame banno n, for opening up this market, I see you haven’t found the irony in remnicks banning of him, because of crimethink.

    Narciso (f842ce)

  64. Now, imagine I call you that every single time I post, while making other points.

    Does that get in the way of expressing my opinion, or make it clearer?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  65. you’re just cross with me today for some reason

    it’s kind of an unpleasant way to start the day

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  66. Now that would make three posts by you without your being an offensive cowardly twatmouth pedophile who is dying of a disease.

    Progress!

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  67. i’m awesome

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  68. 42.Trump once kicked a cat.

    And grabbed pussy.

    Thanks for playing.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. You mean, when you aren’t being an offensive cowardly twatmouth pedophile who is dying of a disease and defends a lying sociopath who occasionally makes good decisions and also has real issues with self control.

    Okay, I’ll stop for now. I hope you see the point. PLEASE post without being such a jackwagon. I believe that you have important points to make, even when I disagree with you. Acting like a child on peyote isn’t helpful.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  70. Greshams law, Simon, why were still less likely to get to Luna in 2076

    Narciso (f842ce)

  71. Thank you sometimes I’m just dyspeptic cause of the coup and stuff. And I hold a long-standing enmity for some people for example the late senator and glorious war hero john mccain. And also I think it’s worrisome how acculturated and desensitized we’re all becoming to being obeisant to people who tell us what we can speak about and how we can speak about it.

    I wonder if Mr. P could copy out a list of all the banned words here. It’s a burgeoning list.

    Conversational health.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  72. I did mention some time ago, how a similar pamphleteer who went by the name of Janus, was behind the witch hunt Burke made against Warren hastings.

    Narciso (f842ce)

  73. it’s kind of an unpleasant way to start the day… i’m awesome

    Diet Coke in your Wheaties, Mr. Feet; it’s the breakfast of Trumpians.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. It was not burkes finest hour

    https://www.bartleby.com/268/6/3.html

    Narciso (f842ce)

  75. I’m not a cereal person anymore really Mr. DCSCA or even a breakfast person

    i tried it – i got these really fancy commercial cereal dispensers like you see at the free breakfast at the hampton inn or whatever

    number one it makes it WAY too easy to come home and do cereal for dinner

    number two it looks really cool in the kitchen

    so i gave it away to my brother cause he has kids what appreciate it more than i did

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  76. Hmmm…I’m not sure Patterico cares about that in most cases. I can see you are trying to turn it into a “freedom of expression” issue.

    “I wonder if Mr. P could copy out a list of all the banned words here. It’s a burgeoning list.”

    I have a feeling these are not words one would use in a discussion room. Lunch room. At home with Mom and Pop.

    My late father cursed all the time: he was a truck driver, then an oil field worker, then a firefighter. My first language is thus vulgarity; I learned from the Master. And the key to effective use of profanity is not to become repetitious. I suspect you know this.

    My father never cursed during a meeting, in church, at the dinner table, or when having friends over. He told me it was about respecting others to whom he was speaking—and especially when a guest in someone else’s home. He wasn’t wrong.

    He described it thusly: “You never fart in church, kid. But farting isn’t free speech. So pick and choose where you cuss.”

    Your mileage may vary.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  77. i’m still curious though

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  78. Probably joking about a person dying of cancer is a good place to start, you know?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  79. Narciso and DC: I guess we’re really not going back to the moon if even a few straight men quibble about diet soda on chicken tenders.

    urbanleftbehind (fea0b4)

  80. ULB: the fact we turned our backs on the greatest frontier makes me beyond sad.

    We’ll have to wait until someone starts bringing home platinum from an asteroid. Then it will seem like a good idea again.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  81. In my mind this is no different then the Patterico blog post on 5/28/18 concerning the NY Times quoting a PDT spokesman saying that it was “impossible” for the June 12th meeting to occur. I thought Shipwreckedcrew had the best analysis of the event on that thread :

    “The NYT didn’t quote the official because they couldn’t quote the official. Quoting the official would have been consistent with what Trump and others have said, and THAT WASN’T THE STORY NARRATIVE THE NYT WAS SET TO RUN.

    The NYT narrative was that Trump was out of step with his staff, he wasn’t listening to his staff, or he didn’t understand what goes into planning such a summit. Having Trump making comments holding out the possibility that the June 12 date remains possible, while reporting that a senior WH Official told the press that June 12 was “impossible” FIT THEIR NARRATIVE, so that’s how they reported it.

    Their dishonesty is that they wrote a “senior WH Official said” and then used the word “impossible” rather than quote what the WH official said.”

    In my mind the same analysis Shipwreckedcrew advances in that thread applies to this op-ed. It is nothing more then the NYT, once again, advancing their narrative.

    bendover (8f3556)

  82. By the way, did we ever figured out which “Senior WH Official” was quoted using the word “impossible” ???

    bendover (8f3556)

  83. I believe I know who that person is:

    https://youtu.be/Z3sLhnDJJn0

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  84. It would be interesting if it were Pence, the only senior official that Trump cannot fire.
    Funny quote from Ed Koch: “I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue were notarized.”

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  85. #89

    It takes a lot of wine
    To see Pence with a spine.

    If I have had a drink..
    To see that crazy link

    I prefer that I see
    Ivanka dating me.

    Appalled (96665e)

  86. I am minded of this:

    President Trump’s stump speeches and campaign events famously had a 4th grade comprehension level.
    Yet, President Trump’s AIPAC speech had a 12th grade comprehension level.

    It is obvious that Trump grades his speaking style to the lowest level of the audience so that everyone in the audience can understand what he says. He can turn the dial wherever he likes. When he is speaking to an audience where he knows everyone is a college graduate, he sets the bar just under that.

    And here is my friend-of-a-friend story about Trump: An hispanic fellow of my acquaintance is watching a Trump speech on the news. His grandmother comes in, watches for a moments, and laughs. Then tells him, “You know I used to work for him in New York? He started out talking like that to me. Then, inside of two sentences as he watched me, he realized I was smart and started talking to me differently. And then he put me in charge of the shift and later, all the cleaners”

    So call Trump a chaotic whatever, but if he did not have interpersonal skills of this caliber he would never be where he is today.

    And then I read these tell-all books where people complain, “Trump talked to me like I was an idiot, like I was a four-year-old, repeating himself! And then I got fired!”

    And I know that Trump talked to you like you were a four-year-old because he thought you were dumb. He repeated himself because you weren’t listening. You never proved him wrong, you never proved that you were smart, you never proved that you were listening, and he fired you.

    Ingot9455 (afdf95)

  87. President Trump’s stump speeches and campaign events famously had a 4th grade comprehension level.
    Yet, President Trump’s AIPAC speech had a 12th grade comprehension level.

    It is obvious that Trump grades his speaking style to the lowest level of the audience so that everyone in the audience can understand what he says. He can turn the dial wherever he likes. When he is speaking to an audience where he knows everyone is a college graduate, he sets the bar just under that.

    It’s the difference between a toddler speaking his own words and a toddler reading someone else’s.

    Patterico (889bad)

  88. The Chinese don’t think he’s dumb. I wonder what they know.

    I don’t claim I could be President, even if I had the money, the jets, and the ability to hire the team. I can just spot the technique, as many others have.

    It’s easy to mistake a difference of opinion as a lack of intelligence. Because boy, if someone was smart, they’d think just like me!

    Ingot9455 (afdf95)

  89. Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  90. The question is, how “Senior” is this “Senior Official”?

    Given the NYT history of lies, I’ll bet he’s not “senior” at all.

    Probably, an assistant to the deputy of some less well known Cabinet Officer. Who attended some cabinet meeting with 60 other people.

    Or what about Rod Rosenstein?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  91. ingot,

    It’s always interesting to me when someone offers that type of admiration for a politician. I was wondering if you (or any other Trump supporters) have an example of Trump speaking at this high-intellect level you’re describing. Obviously this example should not be Trump reading from a teleprompter.

    No doubt you are correct that Trump is more likely to elevate someone if he thinks they are capable, but he’s so frequently had to change assignments throughout this administration that it’s doubly surprising this is listed as one of Trump’s strengths.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  92. The person who did this, is a gutless coward. That he talks about “Honor” and McCain is laughable. Whatever you may think of McCain, and i thought very little of him, he wasn’t a coward or a skulker or a back stabber.

    He let if fly,and attached his name to it. And never apologized. IOW, he acted like a man.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  93. By whatever means necessary seems to be the new Never Trumper motto.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  94. These anonymous op-eds from senior people in the White House are coming out all over the place!

    Look how great everything is! It’s tremendous! This administration has the best president ever, and he is making America great again! The economy is huge! We have so many jobs, it’s too many jobs and we’ll need more people. Except we won’t get more people, because he is also closing the border. And no more wars in the Middle East; now all wars will be in space. Trump is delivering on every promise. It’s unbelievable! Everyone loves him!
    Some are saying the president is unhinged. This is FAKE NEWS! Maybe even TREASON? The fact is Trump is the hinged-est president ever. Everyone in the administration talks about how great he is and how rich he is and how brain-smart he is and how attractive his wives are, especially the current one.

    This president, he’s not just hinged, he’s the hinged-est!

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  95. Dustin: his televised cabinet meetings are s good place to start. Also, that Obamacare replacement planning meeting he invited the Dems to to get them on the record.

    Ingot9455 (7c1802)

  96. Dustin: his televised cabinet meetings are s good place to start. Also, that Obamacare replacement planning meeting he invited the Dems to to get them on the record.

    Ingot9455 (7c1802) — 9/6/2018 @ 10:03 am

    You seem to really admire how brilliant Trump can speak when he doesn’t believe his audience is stupid so I was hoping you would be able to provide me with a link to any example of this. Often our imagination fills in the blanks and I realize it’s possible you’ve never actually seen Trump speak this way without a teleprompter.

    If all you have is Trump reading something prepared for him, such as at a meeting, this is evidence Trump probably isn’t a very gifted speaker. Do you really not have a single example?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  97. Dustin,

    Trump’s 2018 SOTU registered at the 9th grade level, the highest of any modern President. But his campaign speeches register below a 6th grade level, which is far lower than other modern Presidents. As ingot says, Trump knows his audiences.

    DRJ (15874d)

  98. DRJ, that is really fascinating, but after a few years of Obama I started to be very skeptical of the teleprompter speeches, or speeches from notes at podiums or conference room tables. I’m fascinating to know what Trump really has going on upstairs, rather than how remarks that were carefully crafted for him are probably very well tailored to his audience.

    But now that you mention it, I wonder why Trump’s SOTU speech would be aimed at a higher level of speech than Obama or Bush’s. Perhaps the latter were trying to reach more Americans, and the former was trying to make a point about his intelligence?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  99. Dustin,

    It was probably written by Stephen Miller, Sessions’ former communications director. Trump speaks off-the-cuff at campaign rallies but speeches are written for him, like his books. Of course, that doesn’t stop Trump from ad libbing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  100. Apologies to Oliver Stone…

    =ring-ring= ‘Hello, Times? Hoosier Head hates Orange Julius.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. That would seen exceedingly unlikely, but if you want to entertain such thoughts you may.

    Narciso (b4022c)

  102. Rand Paul suggests using lie detectors on all WH staff.

    Lead by example, Captain, sir: #1- Donald Trump.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  103. @91. If memory serves, network newscasts were written targeting audiences w/high school level vocabulary and Cronkite deliberately slowed the pace and cadence of his on air delivery to enhance comprehension.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  104. SoS. Okay.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  105. By whatever means necessary seems to be the new Never Trumper motto.

    A very pithy phrase that fails to stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

    The op-ed author is clearly not a Never Trumper. He works for the man…no Never Trumper would do that, even to sabotage the administration. And he is certainly not trying to do that. He is trying, in a very inappropriate fashion, to save it. If he and those like him succeeded, Trump would come out looking better than ever.

    For my part, if I behaved as you suggested, I would wholeheartedly approve of the writer and his actions. I do not. However sincere his beliefs and however pure his motives, he is doing the wrong thing. He is trying to subvert his boss, who was constitutionally elected and installed as the chief executive of the country. God may bring forth good from evil, but it is not man’s place to commit evil in the furtherance of some real or imagined good.

    Demosthenes (c08caf)

  106. Lead by example, Captain, sir: #1- Donald Trump.

    If you hooked Trump up to a lie detector, there would be a brown-out across northern Virginia and most of Maryland.

    It would be worse than crossing the proton streams, believe me.


    “There’s something very important I forgot to tell you! Don’t cross the streams… It would be bad… Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.”

    — Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) on crossing proton streams

    Dave (445e97)

  107. 103, so she’s just typical South Florida (she was reared there before heading up I-95)

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  108. Dave, it’s not a lie if you believe it. Plus I can only imagine Trump’s baseline on a polygraph is all over the place even when he tells the truth.

    But the broken internal trust in the administration could have some terrible consequences. Some things shouldn’t be sabotaged.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  109. “The question is, how “Senior” is this “Senior Official”?

    Given the NYT history of lies, I’ll bet he’s not “senior” at all.”

    Just saw this earlier at Townhall:

    Serious stuff. But President Trump should relax and remember it is the New York Times after all. The paper has a scandalous history of lying about the seniority of officials it quotes anonymously – especially when that source parrots their agenda.

    A few years back they were caught red-handed deceiving their readers in such a way.

    In a lengthy anti-fracking article they claimed that senior industry experts and insiders believed the industry to be little more than a “Ponzi scheme” … “set up for failure”.

    They even had the emails from a series of senior insiders where these doubts were expressed.

    According to the New York Times, one “energy analyst” wrote, “Am I just totally crazy, or does it seem like everyone and their mothers are endorsing shale gas without getting a really good understanding of the economics at the business level?”

    Another “federal analyst” said in an industry email, “It seems that science is pointing in one direction and industry PR is pointing in another.”

    Well unfortunately for the New York Times, the emails were from the Energy Information Agency – a government organization – so this meant Senate investigators were able to find the original emails and work out the identity of all these different senior experts. It turns out the federal analyst, the energy analyst and the officer turned out to be the same person who was actually an intern when he wrote the first email and in an entry level position when he wrote the other comments. Yes, that’s right, the “Paper of Record” misrepresented an intern/junior employee as a senior official to push an agenda“

    https://townhall.com/columnists/phelimmcaleer/2018/09/06/relax-president-trump-new-york-times-has-history-of-exaggerating-seniority-of-anonymous-officials-n2516340

    harkin (c7ccf8)

  110. But the broken internal trust in the administration could have some terrible consequences.

    Yeah, if you had to pick one word to characterize the Trump White House, and administration as a whole, up to this point, it would have to be “trust”.

    But tragically, yesterday changed all that…

    Some things shouldn’t be sabotaged.

    Sabotaged means you want the sabotaged thing to fail. The Steady-Stater claims they want Trump to succeed. As I’ve indicated before, people who serve Trump by covering up his incapacity are part of the problem, but by going public, this one may actually do some good.

    The more Trump is unwilling to trust people smarter than him, the more he relies on his own knowledge and judgment, and the more he indulges his delusionary fantasies, the more vulnerable he his, and the sooner the country will be rid of him.

    This is also why I insist that Trump fulfill ALL his campaign promises, especially those that are unlawful or would have obvious disastrous consequences. Letting Trump really be Trump – ignorant, immoral, lawless, immature, incompetent, lazy and soul-less as he truly is – is the best way to get him out of the White House and send him back to the sewer he crawled out of.

    Dave (445e97)


  111. This is also why I insist that Trump fulfill ALL his campaign promises, especially those that are unlawful or would have obvious disastrous consequences. Letting Trump really be Trump – ignorant, immoral, lawless, immature, incompetent, lazy and soul-less as he truly is – is the best way to get him out of the White House and send him back to the sewer he crawled out of.

    Hm. I don’t think Trump feels obliged to keep all his campaign promises, and does not remember them all anyway. So, I doubt he’s listening to you. Think you are going to need to rely on Mueller for any chance of an early exit. In any event, Trump does keep the odd promise (with a bit of flag waving and yelping), which holds him in good stead with the variety of fan that believed that the GOP establishment NEVER kept their promises.

    Appalled (96665e)

  112. Best response I have seen thus far on this farce is this, addressed to Mr. Anonymous:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/new-york-times-anonymous-senior-trump-administration-official-open-letter/

    “For the good of the nation, you must identify yourself and back up your claims about the president with hard evidence.”

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  113. In any event, Trump does keep the odd promise

    But none of the important ones.

    “Hillary Clinton locked up”? Nope
    “Wall 100% paid for by Mexico”? Nope
    “National debt eliminated in eight years”? Nope
    “Obamacare replaced by something that covers everyone better at a ‘tiny fraction’ of the cost”? Nope
    “Pro-life judges who will vote to overturn Roe v Wade”? 0-for-2

    Dave (445e97)

  114. Dave, your reading is extremely, extremely selective, and it comes across a bit as debate theater. The anonymous writer boasts that he has frustrated Trump’s decisions. Yes, he says he’s doing this for the larger goal of success, but that’s because he’s decided that sabotage is better than cooperation. You joke about how there was no trust so deception is no change, but again, this is unfair. This was a calculated effort to create distrust, coordinated with Woodward’s book and the midterm election. They want to screw up the internal workings of the office of the presidency. I wouldn’t have praised such a thing in Obama’s white house any more than I can the Trump one. The stakes are too high.

    Better for this anonymous author to bring his observations directly and plainly to the voters, or simply keep his work silent and hidden to minimize the opportunities this creates for our nation’s enemies.

    Letting Trump really be Trump – ignorant, immoral, lawless, immature, incompetent, lazy and soul-less as he truly is – is the best way to get him out of the White House and send him back to the sewer he crawled out of.

    You should reconsider this goal. Trump is a symptom anyway. Get rid of him and very very little changes.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  115. Ugh.

    Assuming this is worth takin gat face value, this is indicative of a terrible disaster and a serious threat to the democratic legitimacy of the republic — unelected and therefore unaccountable-to-the-public administrative officials are effectively seizing power from the elected officeholders.

    That they are doing it because they believe the elected officeholder is incompetent and a threat to the country is no reassurance, because once the precedent is set and the behavior becomes reflexive, it’s not really something we can roll back easily.

    One of the reasons I opposed Trump from the beginning was because it was obviously true that his … problems … would induce those around him to do something incredibly damaging to the fabric of the republic, in order to avoid whatever worse things they beleived might come if they didn’t.

    Truly a no-win proposition.

    aphrael (b30f52)

  116. @115. It’s endlessly entertaining watching our Captain go Full Queeg, sweaty and strawberry-red-faced on the TeeVee. He’s the bad boy by Americans love to hate.

    The country will miss ’em when he’s gone, just like The Big Bang Theory.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  117. Dave:

    On those last two — Trump can blame Congress on Obamacare (since nothing, either better or worse, passed). And on the final item — seriously, Ms. Collins would not vote for a nominee who pledges beforehand to do away with Roe, and making such a pledge would just require the nominee to recuse him/her self from any abortion case.

    On the other three — the country is better off he didn’t try on 1 or 2, and he may come up with something he can claim is meeting #3 (though time is running out).

    Appalled (96665e)

  118. They want to screw up the internal workings of the office of the presidency.

    Again I will point out, with dripping sarcasm, just how flawlessly the office of the presidency was functioning until yesterday.

    I would say your concerns are misplaced. The reason things are screwed up is not because some mid-level staffer is trying to save the country from Trump, by saving Trump from himself. Things are screwed up because the country NEEDS to be saved from Trump and Trump NEEDS to be saved from himself.

    I still think of our situation like this: we are passengers in a sports car being driven down the freeway at 120 mph by an addled eight-year old who thinks he’s the greatest race car driver in history because he made it through the intro of “Grand Theft Auto 2015″ on easy mode. This is not the time to run some errands or visit grandma. We need to get the kid out of the driver’s seat NOW before he does irreparable harm.

    Get rid of him and very very little changes.

    It’s obviously important that he leave in disgrace, recognized as an utter failure.

    As he will.

    Dave (445e97)

  119. This was a calculated effort to create distrust, …

    And it will likely result in Trump being even more scornful of any counsel at odds with his whims, or instincts, and with the “great brain” that he imagines to be superior to all other brains.

    Radegunda (7137ae)

  120. we are passengers in a sports car being driven down the freeway at 120 mph by an addled eight-year old

    Sounds a little like the “Flight 93 Election” scenario coming around full circle.

    Radegunda (7137ae)

  121. Radegunda, yes the intention is clearly to play a mind game with Trump. I think the actual goal is to push Trump to alienate more of his advisors. At the same time, Mueller’s getting more traction and asking harder questions. Unfortunately this is a good time for North Korea or China or Russia to test us.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  122. 129.we are passengers in a sports car being driven down the freeway at 120 mph by an addled eight-year old

    Americans watch car races for wrecks.

    Sit back. Enjoy. Make popcorn.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  123. Assuming this is worth takin gat face value, this is indicative of a terrible disaster and a serious threat to the democratic legitimacy of the republic — unelected and therefore unaccountable-to-the-public administrative officials are effectively seizing power from the elected officeholders.

    That they are doing it because they believe the elected officeholder is incompetent and a threat to the country is no reassurance, because once the precedent is set and the behavior becomes reflexive, it’s not really something we can roll back easily.

    It is, indeed, “indicative of a terrible disaster and serious threat to the democratic legitimacy of the republic” – the election of Donald Trump, to be specific.

    A couple points though.

    First, I don’t believe any president has ever been served by a cadre of automatons who mindlessly execute his every directive without question or variation. In any organization, the mid-level people synthesize the directives they receive from above (and the recommendations they pass up the chain). So to some extent, this is a matter of degree.

    Second, peoples’ willingness to sublimate their own agendas and desires depends heavily on the degree of trust and respect. We have a president who goes out of his way to behave like a moronic fool and carries himself like a spoiled child. Strangely, people are more inclined to trust and honor those they perceive as being smarter and admirable. There’s even a word for that ability to motivate people to follow you: leadership.

    This has been understood for millennia:

    A leader is best
    When people barely know that he exists,
    Not so good when people obey and acclaim him,
    Worst when they despise him.
    ‘Fail to honor people,
    They fail to honor you;’
    But of a good leader, who talks little,
    When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
    They will all say, ‘We did this ourselves.’

    Tao Te Ching (The Way of Life) #17, Lao Tzu
    (translation by Witter Bynner)

    Finally, another reason why Trump is facing this is: Trump is lazy and incompetent, and he surrounds himself with other lazy incompetents. In a well-run organization, the bosses know what their underlings are doing. That requires active engagement with the process of management, though – it doesn’t magically happen while you watch TV and play golf.

    Dave (445e97)

  124. McCabe/popcorn2018

    mg (8cbc69)

  125. they’ve been passing the brown acid around, or that stuff William hurt had in altered states,

    narciso (d1f714)

  126. The White House should release this statement:
    “After a thorough investigation, we have concluded that the op-ed was written by James Bennet, the editorial page editor of the New York Times.”
    And just leave it at that. Only when questioned, respond with: “We have found no evidence to the contrary.”

    nk (dbc370)

  127. a thorough investigation

    *gigglesnort*

    Dave (445e97)

  128. Meanwhile the Wyoming GOP headquarters was vandalized nothing to see here.

    narciso (d1f714)

  129. Actually, it is the kind of thing James Bennet would do. He is a liar and a fraud who makes things up. Also, his brother is the Democratic Senator from Colorado and I’m not saying he did, but he might have, turned him on to an ounce of “senior administration official”. Maybe the same “senior administration official” who “sourced” him that Sarah Palin was the reason Gabby Giffords was shot.

    nk (dbc370)

  130. Meanwhile the Wyoming GOP headquarters was vandalized nothing to see here.

    There are no Democrats in Wyoming, so it must be an inside job, eh?

    :)

    Dave (445e97)

  131. I’ll say this. I don’t begrudge Mr. Anonymous for writing that op-ed, but I agree with Mr. French, he needs to out himself and sit before Congress. If Trump is that unfit where multiple White House staff are committing group insubordination, then the American people should know from the source what’s really going on and why. If Trump is this unfit, then Congress and Trump’s cabinet should have a meeting and decide whether or not the 25th Amendment should be invoked.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  132. What do you mean, “if”?

    Dave (01fd6f)

  133. Well, I’ll be… What a headline from The Hill:

    Psychiatrist: Trump admin officials contacted me because president was ‘scaring’ them

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/405476-psychiatrist-trump-admin-officials-contacted-me-because-president-was

    Tillman (d34303)

  134. Lefties and their dreams of overturning legitimate elections till their leftists are in power. Then, no more elections. No problems.

    NJRob (b00189)

  135. One might call this the mindzentsy protocol.

    Narciso (636179)

  136. Can’t wait to see Trump’s private collection of of pictures of Comey and Mueller hugging and kissing.

    Davethulhu (fddbc4)

  137. Is it (A)”Fake News”… or (B)”Treason”… or (C) “Deep State”… or (D) All of the Above?

    noel (96c84f)

  138. Who appointed these Deep Staters anyway?

    noel (96c84f)

  139. One opinion on the New York Times Op-ed……. “I didn’t look at it as new news. I mean, anyone who’s had any dealings over there knows that this is the reality that we’re living in. So I think a lot’s been made out of nothing”

    Sen. Bob Corker (Republican from Deep State of Tennessee)

    noel (96c84f)

  140. #145

    I really can wait, myself…

    Appalled (c9622b)

  141. How truly fitting: our “Make America Eight Again” so-called President is being forced to play Whack-A-Mole! So Spanky, nanny-nanny-boo-boo!

    Tillman (d34303)

  142. There are a lot of folks who have decided that character doesn’t matter anymore. They post here often, appalling our host. (I’m already Appalled, so I guess I am immune.) Apparently, most of these posters are impervious to the practical political arguments against relying on a creep.

    Here is a random congress critter who gives a class on why our Trump fans might want to reconsider their stance:

    https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2018/09/06/house-section/article/H7873-4

    Appalled (c9622b)

  143. He doesn’t have to say a,word, he has an almost unanimous orchestra like John Williams, the same with pat Fitzgerald who wasn’t questioned why he never charged armitage.

    Narciso (4d270a)

  144. Note how the supposed mole never says what he did, because he would have to admit which department he worked for, sanctions treasury, policy statements state, javelin deliveries Pentagon, unless he’s saying he’s the leader of a,cell.

    Narciso (4d270a)

  145. 153.

    Note how the supposed mole never says what he did, because he would have to admit which department he worked for,

    There is one clue, which is aclue because some people at the New York Times know who he is.

    This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

    Including this statement makes absolutely no sense, unless it is possible to think that he is part of an anti-Trump Deep State.

    And it is possible only if he if he did not come in with the campaign (which isn’t very logical anyway in the first place)

    But nobody knows that. All the deliberately circulated rumors by Democrats or leftists say have the author being apolitical appointee.

    Who knows for sure that’s not the case? The people at the New York Times.

    That particular sentence was aimed at the first readers of the piece, at the New York Times, who knew who he was.

    Why else bring up the idea he could be part of a “Deep State?” The idea only damages the piece!

    Who needed to be reassured that he is not part of so-called Deep State?

    It only makes sense to say that to the first readers of the piece.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  146. That last post was too wordy.

    So anyway who, or what, is he?

    As I said, the denial of being a member of any such thing as the “Deep State” only makes sense if the putative author (I think this was at least partially ghostwritten – because things in it ring false, and it is too obviously tied in to the PR campaign associated with the new Bob Woodsard book – I simply do not believe this is a coincidence – it backs up a key assertion in the promotion of the book yet it never mentions the book not even to say he writing because wants to better explain his intentions or something.)

    Getting back to the beginning of my sentence, the denial of being a member of any such thing as the “Deep State”, or of what he describes being the the very “Deep State” that Trump’s supporters are complaining about, only makes sense if he is plausible candidate for that.

    Which tells you that he is a long time government employee. Almost certainly somewhere in the National Security field, (not just because he talks about Russia, but because he goes out of hsi way to deny that waht he talking about is the “Deep State”)

    He may be a member of the military, or worked in the CIA, but he’s not in the State Departent, which has very few people, and they don’t get detailed to the White House.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  147. Since there are so many people pointing, against all reason, to Mike Pence, it probably is disinformation and significant for that reason. They are citing also the use of the word “lodestar” in the piece and citing Mike Pence’s use of the word (although Henry Kissinger’s use of the word “lodestar” at McCain’s funeral is also pointed to) – that might mean that the promoters of the piece realized a little bit too late that the word “lodestar”, or maybe better, the combination of the word “lodestar” and “Senator McCain” in close proximity might be a giveaway as to the true person who authored it, just like specific words and phrases told some people who that the author of the Unabober manifesto was Ted Kaczynski.

    http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002762.html

    It was David who first made the realization that the appearance of “you can’t eat your cake and have it too” in the Unabomber manifesto might be an indication of the writer’s true identity

    (The piece I quote here argues against someone probably taking false credit for recognizing it, but the point is valid – it’s just more likely to haopen with someone very familair with someone’s writings)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  148. I don’t follow Sammy.

    The writer wants to make clear that he or she is not some left-wing socialist or democrat sympathizer, but rather someone concerned because Spanky is taking a dump on conservatism every day.

    Dave (445e97)

  149. This person was probably attached to the Vice Predidents staff earlier in the Administration, and had some role in preparing Vice President Mike Pence’s prepared speeches. He probably transferred to the NSC staff later, working under Rob Porter. (because Rob Porter is dishonest)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  150. 157. Dave (445e97) — 9/7/2018 @ 11:26 am

    I don’t follow Sammy.

    The writer wants to make clear that he or she is not some left-wing socialist or democrat sympathizer, but rather someone concerned because Spanky is taking a dump on conservatism every day.

    He does that, too, but that sounds like a “concern troll”

    What I am pointing out is that he’s denying that is part of, or the existence of, Donald Trump’s “Deep State.” He declares that it is the “Steady State.”

    And that makes no sense unless you might possibly suspect that he was. Yes, even people at the New York Times might suspect that maybe it’s so, or at least suspect he might be accused of that.

    But you won’t suspect it unless he holds a job where he couild plausibly belong to it.

    He wouldn’t bother to deny it otherwise. And if you had no idea who he was, he wouldn’t raise the issue either.

    That sentence was aimed at the first readers of the piece, who knew who he was. I’m saying that he left a clue because the first readers he had to impress knew who he was.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  151. It was David who first made the realization that the appearance of “you can’t eat your cake and have it too” in the Unabomber manifesto might be an indication of the writer’s true identity

    You should read the footnotes. The forensic linguist says that the Unabomber’s brother (“David”) never mentioned anything about the cake idiom (i.e. the sentence quoted above is untrue).

    Dave (445e97)

  152. the word “lodestar” in conection with senator mcCain may also be aclue as toi who it is – and theer are probably all siorts of people (on the left, or associated with Woodward’s book) and my feeling is all the pointing to Pence and Kisisnger because of the word lodestar is misdirection because that is indeed a good clue. It’s just not Pence or Kissinger or somebody very closwe to them.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  153. What I am pointing out is that he’s denying that is part of, or the existence of, Donald Trump’s “Deep State.” He declares that it is the “Steady State.”

    The writer is making a distinction between the conspiracy he or she acknowledges membership in, and another (alleged) conspiracy with quite different goals and members.

    Dave (445e97)

  154. 160. Dave (445e97) — 9/7/2018 @ 11:35 am

    You should read the footnotes. The forensic linguist says that the Unabomber’s brother (“David”) never mentioned anything about the cake idiom (i.e. the sentence quoted above is untrue).

    Yes, it’s true I should read it, but it doesn’t matter what it says, because the point is valid nontheless, no matter how you slice it.

    Now James R. Fitzgerald doesn’t say that’s untrue. In fact, at one point he was taking credit for it himself, or at least someone quoted him as saying that. Later maybe he denied that played role at all.

    That’s not saying it wasn’t part of David Kaczynski’s reasoning, and it is not saying nobody else ever used that variation of “the cake and eat it” phrase before (just that it was rare in mid-to late-20th century America) and it’s not saying that Fitzgerald didn’t cite it some time later (and backed off) and it’s not saying that he didn’t claim credit for the FBI recognizing it all by itself!

    In any case now he denies that David Kaczynski told him that. Which is possible – David Kaczynski wouldn’t mention all of his reasoning, and some of it might not be easy to put into words.

    He thinks David Kacynski relied more on the phrase “cool-headed logicians.” It is very noticeable to me that he is very reluctant to credit David Kaczynski with anything!

    The point remains that words and phrases can be almost dead giveaways as to who wrote somethin , and it’s certain that David Kaczynski recognized something – possibly ore thanmjust phrases, but also some ideas.

    And what that means is that the writer of tghe Op-ed (and/or whoever else was involved in producing this) realized belatedly that “lodestar” and “John McCain” was maybe too telling and there’s now a campaign to say that “lodestar” in fact point to other people – like Vice Preddident Mike Pence (although that doesn’t make much sense for other reasons.)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  155. This iece was clealry designed to back up some thing in Woodward’s book but makes no mention of the book at all although it is supposed to have been wriitten in the last week.

    Now while that’s sort of plsausibkle because it came out just one day later, that is too much of a coincidence.

    I’ll show you waht I mean:

    https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a01.htm

    לְכִי וּבֹאִי אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד, וְאָמַרְתְּ אֵלָיו הֲלֹא-אַתָּה אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲמָתְךָ לֵאמֹר, כִּי-שְׁלֹמֹה בְנֵךְ יִמְלֹךְ אַחֲרַי, וְהוּא יֵשֵׁב עַל-כִּסְאִי; וּמַדּוּעַ, מָלַךְ אֲדֹנִיָּהוּ. 13 Go and get thee in unto king David, and say unto him: Didst not thou, my lord, O king, swear unto thy handmaid, saying: Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? why then doth Adonijah reign?
    יד הִנֵּה, עוֹדָךְ מְדַבֶּרֶת שָׁם–עִם-הַמֶּלֶךְ; וַאֲנִי אָבוֹא אַחֲרַיִךְ, וּמִלֵּאתִי אֶת-דְּבָרָיִךְ. 14 Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm thy words.’

    You have teh dsame relastionship between the Op-ed piece and Bob Woodward;s book.

    And just like Nathan the prophet and Bath-sheba tried to make what they said to King David look unrelated, so does the author of this piece make what he writes look totally unrelated to Woodward’s book. But I don’t believe they are unconnected.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  156. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/reader-center/anonymous-op-ed-trump.html

    How did you find this writer?

    Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times?

    Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont.

    Norma:

    The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust.

    Ha!

    As I said @155:

    it is too obviously tied in to the PR campaign associated with the new Bob Woodsard book

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  157. Another peculiar thing in the Anonymous op-ed is the stsatement:

    Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.

    That this isa kind of a Reoublican slogan, or even aconservative slogan is news to me.

    But this sounds veet sumilar toi theslogan of the Free Soil Party in the Presidential Election of 1848:

    http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Free_Soil_Party

    The Free Soil Party’s slogan was “free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men.”

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  158. The New York Times apparently never solidly confirmed the identity of the writer:

    How do you vet a piece like this?

    How are you certain of the author’s identity?

    — Martin Trott, Jackson Hole, Wyo.

    Through direct communication with the author, some background checking and the testimony of the trusted intermediary.

    — Jim Dao

    Now if they had VOICE communication with someone who recognized the voice, there would be no need to say anything else. Yet they do.

    Therefore “direct communication with the author” means email, and not via an email address known to be associated with the putative writer either. (by the way I think the writer at least gave his consent. As I said I think this piece was at least partially ghostwritten)

    The other sources besides the direct communication that wasn’t good enough to verify whom they were communicating with are 1) The person who introduced him to the New York Times, and 2) “Background checking”

    “Background checking” means they verified that the named person indeed held a job in the Administration, (what else could they check?) which means this is not a high ranking official because good reporters would have known that instantly. They would not have had to look int any kind of listing of officials, or query some other people.

    I think more back and forth went on, (i.e. about the Deep State) and this also indicates this was not a matter done in one day or three days.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  159. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it.

    But the question is, why should he do that?

    Haldeman and Ehrlichman – and Schelesinger and Henry Kissinger even at times – ignored things they were told to do by Richard Nixon.

    But they didn’t write an Op-ed article in the New York Times saying that’s what they were doing!

    George C. Marshall didn’t have much resoect for Harry S Truman as aperson, but he didn’t do that, although maybe others did.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-york-times-trump-op-ed-treason-disloyal-1.4813460

    Levinson says the situation reminds him of what Harry Truman said about Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower, a five-star general, succeeding him as commander-in-chief.

    “He’ll sit here and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike — it won’t be like the army,” Truman is quoted as saying in presidential scholar Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents.

    But nobody who acted that way
    wrote anewspaper column or leaked to Drew Pearson that that’s what they were doing!

    I think. Maybe this did happen.
    ,

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  160. Now Thomas L. Friedman (and others) are saying it was a collaborative venture. (He may not realize it, but in saying so he is saying the New York Times was lied to because they definitely thought it had only one author.)

    I think it was indeed at least partially ghostwritten.

    And I think it was the intermediary who recruited the “author” (with his consent and participation) and not the author who recruited the intermediary.

    The intermediary is not Bob Woodward (even if he was in on it – that would be too blatant)

    Woodward denied knowing who it is, and said he wouldn’t use that kind of material in his book… …actually he went further and somehow claimed he never talked to him, like how would he know unless he knows who it is – because it was too vague. He likes specific anecdotes.

    But there is one anecdote in the article:

    “There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

    This could probably only be something to do with trade policy. If true, it might have bene supplied because the New York Times wanted one story and it was easier and safer to say something true than make something up, and this would have been said because he was tasked with drawing up optioon or details, and his suoperior wsas explaining to him why it was the opposite of what he’d been told to do a week before

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  161. I wonder what the following is supposed to mean, and how anyone could claim to have personal knowledge that: < 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 — it’s over. Whispers?? Surely not literally.

    I don’t know if this person is claiming knowledge (through hearsay) or if the New York Times thinks this is historical fact.

    It is also peculiar and dishonest that “anonymous” doesn’t relate the strongest objection: that it wouldn’t work.

    Not only would 2/3 of both the House and Senate need to go along, and the majority of the Cabinet, but it also would rewquire the participation of the Vice President, and it is extremely doubtful that Mike Pence ever contemplated that, or that anyoine would think he might be induced to go along, especially right at the start of the Adnministration. Yet this author does not give any of that as the reason not to try that. Only a “constiututional crisis” – like the outcome would be in doubt.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  162. Come tot hink of it – taht sentence had to make sense to the New York Times.

    So maybe he’s claiming that the 25th amendment process would have some chance to work, because then everyone would be telling the tales of Donald Trump’s instability or whatever which they have not told even yet.

    To me, this is kind of further proof the whole op-ed article is basically a lie.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  163. Rush Limbaugh, today:

    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/09/11/i-think-the-new-york-times-made-up-the-anonymous-op-ed

    I’m not denying that there are saboteurs in the Trump administration. Don’t misunderstand. The timing of this — you know, as a prelude to the Woodward screed coming out, and from everything I know about that? Look, they’re making up quotes! Bob Woodward’s partner, Carl Bernstein, still is in hiding. He can’t come out and share in the glory because his name was on a story signifying Lanny Davis as an anonymous source. Lanny Davis is now admitting he lied to everybody when he sourced the story originally…

    I forgot what the story was about now

    That Michael Cohen was going to say that Donald Trump had advance knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting wityh some Russians that his son had agreed to in order to get “dirt” on Hillary,

    I stick by the fact that nobody wrote it. I believe the New York Times made it up. I think it’s a composite series of opinions from a bunch of people New York Times have on staff or talk to.

    I don’t think so. If the New Yrk Times was that dishonest, there;d be plenty of signs of it. I think they were taken in and because some of it is what they already think, it sounded very credible to them.

    I’m not denying that there are saboteurs in the Trump administration. Don’t misunderstand. The timing of this — you know, as a prelude to the Woodward screed coming out, and from everything I know about that? Look, they’re making up quotes!

    I think there is an actual official, probably not so senior, who is the front man for that, but didn’t necessarily write very much of it – just took the credit – and I think it’s tied in with the Woodward book promotion (or something that’s been used to promote the Woodward book, although the real purpose of circulating that meme may not book promotion..

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.2751 secs.