... I would think that there is no real person behind the famous anonymous op-ed. I'd think it was a concocted composite based on the Woodward book and motivated by the Woodward book. Look how that little thrown together collection of paragraphs is now drawing more attention than the book Woodward labored over, which dominated headlines on Tuesday. Wednesday, this column comes out. What is in the column that couldn't have been extracted from the book and worked up into an op-ed purporting to be from a senior official in the White House?
That's just a conspiracy theory. I couldn't help thinking it, but I don't believe it's true, because I think the NYT has too much of a stake in at least the appearance of journalistic integrity. I do think that the real senior official who wrote the op-ed felt stimulated by the Woodward book, maybe thinks it's a good idea to add momentum to the various stop-Trump efforts, and is perhaps close to resigning and hoping to depart into the open arms of the Trump-hating elite.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
215 comments:
1 – 200 of 215 Newer› Newest»We already know that the media is a arm of the Democrat party. They prove it everyday with things like this. Would The New York Times have run an opinion piece like this about President Obama? I highly doubt it.... They are just proving President Trump is right.
Kind of weird that the most important media outlet in the United States is owned by a Mexican and that their strongest value seems to be unfettered migration from Mexico into the US.
Yep. Since John Dean, it's been a pretty sweet deal performing the role of the Republican "even your own guy says so." Joe Scarborough has reaped and pillaged at MSNBC, followed by McCain's right and left hand people.
This guy/gal was probably the only source for Woodward, but unlike Deep Throat, they want to get paid. Do the book tour with Woodward, get their own media consulting gigs, etc.
I agree that the person probably exists, but they are not so senior as claimed and have an undisclosed axe to grind.
Then again, maybe the op-ed is 4chan's greatest triumph.
There can easily be a real person. GroupThink in DC and NYC simply means they're all thinking the same thing. So while the "Senior Administration Official" wrote it, they used words heard at Cocktail Parties in DC, NYC and The Vineyard over the Summer that NYTimes Editors also attended.
You have far more confidence in the integrity of the NYT than I. My first thought upon hearing about this op-ed was that it was Trumped up. Nothing that I have seen since has given me any reason to change that opinion.
It sure is a shame when a "journalist" gets killed...
What facts make you believe in the integrity of the NYT's? The NTY will play the same game as Woodward and keep the source anonymous.
I agree with Ann.
Tucker Carlson claims to know who wrote it. There is a theory that it is a speechwriter for Pence. This guy has used the word “lodestar.” At least he didn’t use “garner.”
Woodward, NYT and the Anonymous Source - Deep State meets Deep Throat!
Well, here's my conspiracy theory.
(Assumption: It's a real person. A big-government Republican with a distinct interest in foreign policy. It's not a liberal calling himself a conservative, liberals don't have a very good ear for their opponents.)
It is rumored that our intelligence people have pulled this trick on a number of terrorist cells where they hint to the leader from "multiple sources" that someone he trusted, someone in his inner circle, has turned on him and is secretly working for us. Leader is distracted hunting for the turncoat. Maybe he even kills some entirely loyal subordinate.
Now: Remember Sen. Schumer's warning not to piss off the IC, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you?
Just how strong is your trust in the NYT, Prof. Althouse? Do you think they'd recognize that a story had this purpose? If they did, do you think they'd refuse on principle to run it? Or might they decide that, Trump being so uniquely dangerous, gosh we wouldn't usually do this but we owe it to our readers....
"That's just a conspiracy theory. I couldn't help thinking it, but I don't believe it's true, because I think the NYT has too much of a stake in at least the appearance of journalistic integrity."
They recently ran an opinion piece with a lesbian basically saying nobody knows anything, so I don't trust them to be anything but NewAgers. And I don't go for conspiracy theories. I know that's hard for others to believe, but I just know others believe things and act on them - I don't believe them myself. That so much of belief is "spiritual" or ephemeral complicates it for others but not for me.
I also get accused of trying to start a cult - because I hate cults - which makes no sense to me, but, others not making sense is why I started blogging to begin with, and that was long before Trump became president or ever ran for office.
I think I sound crazy to people who aren't used to rational thought. Y'all get caught up in these intrigues, and let them drag you into the madness, while I feel like I soar over them, watching the battles from above, easily taking in who's right and wrong because it's not my war: I'm just the foster kid.
Watching y'all churn this bullshit has always been my place.
'SENIOR'?
"thinks it's a good idea to add momentum to the various stop-Trump efforts, and is perhaps close to resigning and hoping to depart into the open arms of the Trump-hating elite."
So anonymously publishing a screed by this kind of person preserves the "appearance of journalistic integrity"?
Anyway, much as I like most of Trump's actual decisions, I do not think of him as a paragon of virtue and I'm sure he is often "erratic." But then, after the Brennans have done their thing, we get this exercise in back-stabbing, to remind us that Trump's opponents in the deep state, the MSM, and the Dem party have even less integrity than he does. And for now I'll take Trump's erratic instincts over his opponents' predictably bad rational judgment.
Of course you want to believe that the NY Times would not pass off fiction to be part of the pile-on currently taking place in our slow-motion coup. If that were true, Ann, what would that do to your favorite source of information? This happened to me a few years ago with the NY Times. One day you wake up and say- holy shit- these guys are no longer reporting. They're manipulating stories. And they're ignoring other serious stories right in front of us.
I call bullshit on the continued use of anonymous sources. For me this is Occam's Razor. The simplest solution when faced with a report based on anonymous sources is that the report is fiction. Until proven otherwise, there is nothing else I can do with that information. But that will not stop the entire media complex from making this another in a series of breathless attacks.
I have never seen anything like this. Every President has people around him, mostly government lifers, who are trying, in their judgement, to keep the President from making a terrible mistake. Where were those guys when Obama went in front of the world to claim that an aged, small produced video out of California was the cause of the overrunning of the US Embassy in Libya? Every six year old in America knew it was a planned terrorist attack. But that was accepted as a good statement from Obama, because it was done by Him Who is Good.
There are issues on the street, that our elite and government officials do not seem to understand. There are issues, foreign and domestic, that our government and some elite have information on, that we on the street do not. We'd all better start talking to each other or we're done- quickly. As a nation we're more stupid than we've ever been, and social media is only a part of the problem. (ask any random person who Arianna Grande is. Then ask them who their US or State Senator is. Then ask them to find Norway on a map.) The Russians only have to keep us at each others throats to break us up. AND IT'S GOTTEN SO DAMED EASY.
I see those sponge people at the Kavanaugh hearings, yelling like spoiled little children that their world is about to end, and I see Russians in the background high-fiving and giggling as they put more code pinkers and antifas to work.
Well, now that thats's out of me, I can go to work.
Thats a very wide deep dark valley between consipiracy theory and high ranking Trump official. Lefties have already given us Tawana Brawley, the bellman at the Moscow pee show hotel and Lena’s composite boyfriend. They’ve offered us many composite characters in fact...
Remember Trump is such a special case NYT gave itself permission to abandon usual journalistic standards. They gave themselves permission. Inventing a composite is well within that self granted authority. If not, a name might be tossed out later- some unknown staffer set up to shill. NYT can certainly mold a creation that keeps thier journalistic integrity intact. According to them.
Remember: whenever you hear "anonymous source" substitute "an old gypsy woman".
Damned. Ooop.
The anonymous person is the NYT. Fake story.
Why the rudimentary trust?
What’s striking is how old this all feels- wasn’t this the exact same plot of the Michael Wolff book?
On second thought I think it might connected to Vice President Pence who believes that God has picked him to be president and not Trump.
Althouse still believes that there is such a thing as “journalistic integrity” in the US in the 21st century. How quaint.
The NYT has gotten a lot more splash by printing it anonymously, so it will probably happen again.
For Crack, it's about himself. For Ann, it's about the New York Times.
Here's the quote I like, "So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over."
".... stimulated by the Woodward book,..."
Better be careful here - we wouldn't want to stimulate the Deep Throat....
Watergate would have been much more exciting if Deep Throat coulda just wrote anonymous op-Ed pieces directly for the WaPost. Cutting out the middleman.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Anonymous turns out to be the speechwriter for Mike Pence? The main beneficiary of Impeach Trump.
Sort of like Deep Throat's Mark Felt, who thought he was J.Edgar Hoover's designated successor, and was determined to wreak revenge on Nixon for going outside the Agency with Patrick Gray.
"I think the NYT has too much of a stake in at least the appearance of journalistic integrity"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA*GASP*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one Ann. I see a future for you writing comedy.
"So anonymously publishing a screed by this kind of person preserves the "appearance of journalistic integrity"?"
I didn't say it did.
I said I don't think the NYT would fake the existence of this person while concocting a column out of the material that's there in the Woodward book. That, if found out, would be blatantly destructive of the Times's reputation, enough that they would not dare do it.
I am not saying that means I'm giving a seal of approval to what it appears they did do.
I'm merely trying to understand their thinking and make inference about facts, not being the arbiter of integrity.
It reads like an AI program trying to write a Freshman english paper.
Call it Deep Blue Throat.
Wendybar: Would The New York Times have run an opinion piece like this about President Obama?
Kidding? They would have turned him in.
"Of course you want to believe that the NY Times would not pass off fiction to be part of the pile-on currently taking place in our slow-motion coup. If that were true, Ann, what would that do to your favorite source of information? This happened to me a few years ago with the NY Times. One day you wake up and say- holy shit- these guys are no longer reporting. They're manipulating stories. And they're ignoring other serious stories right in front of us."
You're missing my point.
1. I have to read something and the alternatives are bad for various reasons.
2. I'm reading to blog and the NYT is great raw material for me.
3. Human life is shot through with dishonesty and self-interest. I'm interested in it.
I don’t want to make light of it- it is hard to have to abandon those trusted barands you once cherished. Reading the NYT and listening to the morning political talk shows used to be a rewarding way to begin a Sunday.
The NYT owners and editors believe they are on a "mission from God" and much too fervently wish that this piece is for real to be suspicious of the slickness and vagueness of the presentation.
"I said I don't think the NYT would fake the existence of this person while concocting a column out of the material that's there in the Woodward book. That, if found out, would be blatantly destructive of the Times's reputation, enough that they would not dare do it."
But the NYT understands plausible deniability.
If the NYT had received dirt filled story from an anonymous person in the Obama administration, they would have never published it because it was from a cowardly anonymous person.
HT said...
"For Crack, it's about himself. For Ann, it's about the New York Times."
See? 25 posts and - for whatever reason - he has to PICK OUT THE BLACK GUY and get specifically critical. Now whatever happens is my fault. Fucking pieces of shit white people. Look, Asshole:
They recently ran an opinion piece with a lesbian basically saying nobody knows anything, so I don't trust them to be anything but NewAgers. And I don't go for conspiracy theories....Y'all get caught up in these intrigues, and let them drag you into the madness,..."
I think you got enough there, on topic, to have left me the fuck alone. So leave me the fuck alone. Damn.
Well, after The Village Voice finally folded NYC and the East Coast need a replacement. Perhaps young Salz sees an opportunity to increase his circulation. Next up sex adds and cartoons featuring broad hipped women and men with large feet...
See? 25 posts and - for whatever reason - he has to PICK OUT THE BLACK GUY and get specifically critical.
He?
Human life is shot through with dishonesty and self-interest. I'm interested in it.
That should be first.
I keep seeing the anonymous writer of the op-ed being described as a "senior White House official," although the Times' into to the piece only refers to him as a "senior official in the Trump administration." There's a significant difference between those two things, given estimates suggesting that the latter term could probably encompass something upwards of 1200 positions in the administration--most of them people we've never even heard of.
Other way round makes more sense. Woodward probably didn't interview Mattis et al to get those quotes (quotes that Mattis et al have already denied). Someone else told him. Someone like this guy, or one of his fellows.
ads
Too much at stake? You mean like a media company that passes on fraudulent documents about George Bush right before an election?
True, the media has learned since then. Conceal you sources and they can't be proved as a fraud.
That being said, I have no problem believing the vast majority about what is written on Trump from his behind the scenes associates. Equally, since it fits the narrative, it makes it all too easy for a critic to just make stuff up.
Which is all the more reason for proof. No proof, no go. I can reject Pres. Trump based on the actual evidence of his character and history. I don't need to reject him on false accusations or accusations made by those who won't allow their claims to be scrutinized.
Certainly it's a real person in the administration. Hundreds of people could present the title.
And certainly it was written with the expectation by both the Times and the writer that his name would be exposed. The anonymity part is a fiction or a teaser.
This fuzzily violates the standard of basic integrity, but they can still retain the standard of plausible deniability.
Disclosure is the point. It makes it a several-day news cycle instead of a one-off. They weaponized anonymous sources. It's brilliant. It's like they're re-learning how to make the news from Trump. He should take credit for it.
I predict it will be a libertarian with "Mercatus Center" in his vitae, based on tariffs being the only policy he specifically criticizes, his sly effort to say he is not a Republican without saying what he is, and the likelihood that the GOP and the libertarians stuffed as many of those guys as possible onto the hamster wheel (gerbil wheel?) early on.
So a reporter comes in to his editor's office with this letter. What happens next? Does the reporter say, "I can't tell anyone who this guy is" or does he agree to tell one other person
who then tells one other person? How many people at the NYT know the identity of the letter writer? One? Three?
Are you trusting the integrity of the NYT or just one person?
It's not just the paper's integrity you have to trust. It's also their judgement.
The NYT's record of judgement and integrity includes Jason Blair, for example.
""So anonymously publishing a screed by this kind of person preserves the "appearance of journalistic integrity"?"
I didn't say it did."
I didn't say you did. I simply took the further step of suggesting that, even if there's no far-fetched conspiracy, this anonymous publication might also undermine the appearance, and lead one to question one's "rudimentary trust in the basic integrity" of the NYT.
Of course, as covered on this blog in the past, some of us concluded long ago that people who deliberately and gratuitously expose a secret anti-terrorist program in a way that manifestly gives aid and comfort to our enemies have no "basic integrity." In a different world, such traitors would be shunned as the scum they are.
Wild,’ says Trevor Noah. ‘The whole time we’ve been dealing with the watered-down Trump'
Would The New York Times have run an opinion piece like this about President Obama?
here's a fun game! let's assume that it's 2010, and a right wing publication
(the WSJ? Breitbart? Glenn Beck? Rush? ) published an anonymous OpEd from someone IN the O'Bama admin that said that they were doing everything they could to thwart its objectives and goals. That they were NOT resigning because they wanted to continue the sabotage for as long as possible.
What would the NY Times say about that? What would ALL the MSM say about that? What they be demanding? Would it be The Greatest Outrage Of ALL Time?
think about it
well recall that comey relayed those memos through richman and wittes, and buzzfeed and cnn relayed the dossier without hint of it's provenance and hence it's authenticity,
Your rudimentary trust in the NYT was always misplaced perfesser. They haven't deserved it for years and are now in full TDS mode. It's a business model at this point.
NYT integraty. Another obviously face headline, like the next article above it.
this was the kind of signal directed at Gerald walpin, they called him senile and crazy, for challenging Obama's friend kevin Johnson's AmeriCorps entitlement, the same kevin Johnson who would later dispossess Donald sterling of his property,
"I predict it will be a libertarian with "Mercatus Center" in his vitae, based on tariffs being the only policy he specifically criticizes, his sly effort to say he is not a Republican without saying what he is, and the likelihood that the GOP and the libertarians stuffed as many of those guys as possible onto the hamster wheel (gerbil wheel?) early on."
Trump is likely the most Libertarian president of the past 50 years. Sure, the tariffs suck. But most libertarians hate the deep/steady state more than Trump.
Walter Duranty smiles.
Armstrong and Getty take - if it's legitimate, it's stupid.
One of the reasons I haven't fretted too much over Trump and see no reason to get caught up in the anti-Trump hysteria sweeping the left, is precisely because I have faith that the senior people in the Administration are sane and normal. I certainly expect them to temper the President's worst excesses.
You know why I expect that? Because it's entirely what has happened throughout the history of our Republic. Americans don't generally have an attitude of "oh, he's the boss, I have to do exactly what he says no matter what." We are, still, independent and ornery.
The problem we're currently having is that a lot of the folks at the top of the establishment, the folks in line for cabinet and deputy cabinet positions, aren't being independent, they're playing off the same sheet music, dancing to the same tune... and they've learned how to play a long game of manipulating public opinion and our institutions just enough to preserve their power and authority.
But the left's cries that Trump will open massive internment camps, or round up all people who aren't caucasian, or stone gay people or whatever have always been false and hollow.
Not that Trump is powerless or can't or won't take individual, particular actions that some will not like, and which could manipulate particular circumstances to Trump's benefit, but in terms of taking whimsical actions that have a long-term detrimental effect on our society or large swathes of our society, the President just doesn't have that kind of power in America.
Remember when so many people on the left claimed that George W. Bush would use 9/11 or some pretext or other to make himself President-for-life? Didn't happen. Not just because they were insane to believe that George Bush ever even thought about doing so, but because power in this country is highly, highly distributed, and the President simply can't. Same was true when many on the right were freaking out because Barack Obama made a joke about how much easier it would be if he were a dictator. Besides the fact that that's a standard joke that's been made countless times by Presidents and Governors of all parties, the senior officials of the government would simply not go along with that kind of illegal action that violates massive cultural norms of our country.
So while I appreciate that the anonymous author is willing to try to temper the worst aspects of the President, that's not "heroic" by any stretch. It's simply what I expect from any American.
@Known Unknown: libertarians are the most fervent anti-Trumpers. They funded every candidate except Trump. They salivate for open borders. They hate his core belief and that of his supporters, that national borders should be defended.
The tariff thing is just more fuel on the very large fire they're burning for him.
Don't forget the New York Times fell for that obviously fake letter to their advice column it's about how to deal with his white privilege / guilt. They could easily be had. And unlike you I don't think they would have any compulsion against fabricating the whole letter so it could be pure deception also. So they're either stupid or lying in my opinion
“I call bullshit on the continued use of anonymous sources. For me this is Occam's Razor. The simplest solution when faced with a report based on anonymous sources is that the report is fiction. Until proven otherwise, there is nothing else I can do with that information. But that will not stop the entire media complex from making this another in a series of breathless attacks.”
A good summation of why I don’t think this is a real person. This sort of thing has become utterly boilerplate by now and while it excites the Golden Shower Left, it makes no impression at all on the middle and the Right. Were I a professional moby I could write this sort of thing all day long.
"his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable. This [is] the work of the steady state."
The reason I don't believe this is real is that it points straight at Dan Coats, the National Security advisor. "His national security team knew better", i.e. Coats.
And there's more
"ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people." This shows a Russel Kirk supporter, a deep conservative which Coats is - along with many others.
One of Coats' main issues is that we are raising a generation of children who act without principle. Now the President is accused of that same character flaw.
But this cannot be.
It seems impossible to me that any real person could say "Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men." with its obvious echo of the play, Julius Caesar where the assassins were "honorable men" in their own eyes and with its suggestion that "Mr. Trump" should "fear" "honorable men". And note that the elected President of the American republic is called Mr. Trump. This isn't "steady state", this is deep state disinformation.
Also, anyone who thinks as this article suggests that McCain's behavior was exemplary senatorial collegiality and that the NYT is a possible partner for Republican with ideas would be stuck in a Nineties time warp and would be so out of touch as to be disabled for a senior position.
So it isn't happening.
I'd be great if Stormy Daniels is the author of the anonymous letter.
Then, we'd at least have some "Deep Throat" authencity.
"@Known Unknown: libertarians are the most fervent anti-Trumpers. They funded every candidate except Trump. They salivate for open borders. They hate his core belief and that of his supporters, that national borders should be defended. "
Uh, no they're not. Hell, even Rand Paul has a unique relationship with Trump. Many are open borders but many are not quite there. I am open borders in theory but I recognize that as long as there are nation-states there will be borders and rules about getting from one place to another. You obviously don't know many libertarians.
Are we ignoring the obvious? It seems very likely that the op-ed writer is the same person who was the source for the material in Woodward’s book. So the op-ed looks like confirmation but it’s probably only repetition. How believable is the story that people are grabbing papers off Trump’s desk so that he can’t sign them? Who is preparing these papers for Trump to sign? Why aren’t they just printing off a second copy?
My guess is that this person is a senior staffer on the White House National Security Council, not a political appointee, which would make this high level Deep State resistance. But let’s say it is someone Trump put on the job. What do we call that, Shallow State?
but I don't believe it's true, because I think the NYT has too much of a stake in at least the appearance of journalistic integrity.
Why?
"If I didn't maintain rudimentary trust in the basic integrity of The New York Times..."
"...trust in the basic integrity of the New York Times"???
ROFLMAO!!! Athouse, what a kidder!! That's like trust in the basic goodwill of Stalin (and given the NYT's relationship with Stalin, that is a very pointed reference).
I don't care what anybody thinks of Trump, but no sane person can trust the NYT.
I think you got enough there, on topic, to have left me the fuck alone. So leave me the fuck alone. Damn.
Stop shitting on the carpet and we'll stop yelling at you for shitting on the carpet.
The NYT piece already fails the integrity test for one simple reason that Althouse touches on.
The piece doesn't make clear to the reader whether these assertions are claimed as the writer's first hand observations or hearsay, the key element of the editorial trade-off between newsworthiness vs anonymous authorship.
Thus it adds no real insight to the general criticisms of Trump's style that we've been hearing second and third hand from the get-go.
Nor does it provide specifics about actual policy decisions, well except that everything good was due to the intervention of the Resistance within the administration.
Althouse is right, however, this strangely written NYT piece is eclipsing the Woodward book at a bad time for the "Resistance".
There's a part of me that wonders whether this is a Trump loyalist punking the NYT for that very purpose.
There is a theory that it is a speechwriter for Pence.
Yes and I also agree with Left Bank. This is either a non-appointed deep stater or a Bush type who got the nod from another Bush type.
The morning blog that Insty links to mentions that she knows Trump supporters who wanted to work in the administration and were blocked by the "old boy network."
This person is also Woodward's source. He is notorious for raising the status of his sources.
The speech writer is probably the best bet. They usually think they are more important than they are.
Again, Pat Buchanan's book, "Nixon's White House Wars" is a great source for the sort of guerrilla war that goes on in any White House.
1. I have to read something and the alternatives are bad for various reasons.
2. I'm reading to blog and the NYT is great raw material for me.
3. Human life is shot through with dishonesty and self-interest. I'm interested in it.
What does any of that have to do with trust? Read the NYT, somebody has to. But trust?
I'm merely trying to understand their thinking and make inference about facts, not being the arbiter of integrity.
Sure you are: "I have to read something and the alternatives are bad for various reasons."
You have decided that the NYT has more integrity than the alternatives.
"What do we call that, Shallow State?"
I call it the San Andreas state where a group is stuck, frozen on a moving fault line. The NeverTrumpers are such a group. They only see incidents to which they respond as in the past. Effectively they are frozen in place. Other conservatives such as Mike Pence have grasped the need for change even though they are conservative. The Chinese Restoration, 9-11 with its call for a caliphate, Russian nationalism, the birth crash, the destruction of American manufacturing, fracking, the rise of the black and Hispanic middle class - all these need a response. Not Hillary, not socialism. The person who could defeat Hillary was Donald Trump and his policies show that capitalism still gives a better life. That's why a conservative such as Mike Pence can support Trump. But no doubt there are others who are stuck on stupid and frozen on a huge historical fault line. And this disinformation is a sort of character sketch of this new kind of political actor - a Nineties conservative who is stuck.
That's not to say that the letter was written by a real person, just that it shows a real type and calumniates conservatives by suggesting that really we are all like that.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
What do we call that, Shallow State?
LOL. The Doh! State.
Let's talk about conspiracy theories.
A year ago Trump's claim that the US government spied on his campaign, used (bogus) intel generated by a source paid by the Democrats to get highly sensitive national security-related warrants on members of his campaign, and selectively leaked details of a secret investigation to the Media was dismissed as a wild conspiracy theory. Today it's not only admitted by everyone involved it's admitted wiht a shrug--"of course his campaign was spied on!"
A few months ago the claim that the "Deep State" within the Executive was actively working against the Trump admin to thwart his policies and advance their own (more liberal/Dem-favoring) agenda was dismissed as a wild conspiracy theory and people putting that idea forward were mocked as simply making things up in order to excuse alleged Trump failures. Today the NYTimes op-ed confirms the existence of people working on behalf of the "deep state" within Trump's administration and claims there are "dozens" of them.
The news cycle from "this Trump supporter's claim is a crazy, wild conspiracy theory" to "yes, of course this thing is true (and by the way it's proof that Trump is bad" seems to be shortening, doesn't it?
Poor Ann, her raison d'etre is dying.
Ann, you read my mind. It’s got to be a NeverTumper planning his exit.
Much of this will be revealed when Trump declassifies the FISA warrants and their attachments.
I think he has delayed until everybody is focused on this stuff.
Mueller is trying to come up with an October surprise but seems to be struggling. Maybe Trump is waiting to "trump
" Mueller's surprise with the FISA material;.
Could be Stephen Ford, a Pence speechwriter with Koch brother connections.
Donald Trump, master of the fake, gutless misdirected-attribution sourcing to reporters.
Moving towards group think; I'm willing to accept that the NYT can name an actual person as a source; just like CNN can for its fake news about Cohen. CNN won't admit it is the same source that has been discredited elsewhere, because they want to retain the fake news and know the only way they can be forced to retract is for Trump to take legal action. CNN would like that, and doing so would be worth the risk to their journalistic integrity. I'm off track about CNN, because the similarity is why I don't trust the NYT.
However, if the person isn't very senior; then the NYT suggesting they are senior is as much a lie as making the person up. And we've heard through the course of the Mueller investigation about supposedly senior campaign officials, who were not.
Finally, there is no story here. This is someone's opinion regardless of their position. And the opinion is shared by many, but not enough to prevent Trump from being President. For all the attempts to call Trump crazy; he's not convincing his followers to dress up in a pink onesie overlaid by a human size condom to protest the Kavanaugh hearing. True story or not, it isn't news and it isn't relevant to anything.
How interesting that the left has morphed from "the Deep State doesn't exist" to "thank goodness the Deep State is successfully thwarting some of Trump's decisions." So profoundly undemocratic--dare I say, un-American?
"the basic integrity of the NYT"?!?
Please, please tell me you are joking....?
Historical Presidential Deep Throats:
1. Nixon had Mark Felt
2. Clinton had Monica Lewinsky
3. Trump has anonymous NYT op-Ed writer.
Hmm. I fear that Trump is getting the short end of the dick.
We are witnessing the grand crescendo of this opera. I believe the anti-Trump forces on the left and the right have played their last card. The public, now inured to scandalous books and Russian myths, have completely tuned out the anti-Trump narrative. The only thing left for the left is a straight up coup, not the Keystone Kops silent coup they’ve attempted so far. And a straight up coup is a bridge too far.
They have descended into madness. Even a House flip in November, which I’m highly skeptical if, won’t save them.
Where does Grudge,-er, Drudge, step off with a headline of "Saboteur Inside White House", that is merely a link to the NYT Op-Ed?
Saboteur? I know damn well what the Trumpkins will say. Trumpkins, like Matt Drudge. They will say that the definition of "sabotage" includes acts of "obstruction... for political purposes." And that what the anonymous Op-Ed essentially confesses to, is a series of loosely-organized obstructions, of certain acts, statements or requests by Donald Trump.
But I am not clear on that at all. Does the Trump Administration say that the President is not getting done certain things because of sabotage? What I get from the Administration is that the claims are all lies. Going to the Woodward book ("Fear"), what I understand is that they are denying that Gary Cohn took a letter off Trump's desk and prevented him from signing it. They are denying that Trump told Mattis that he wanted Assad to be assassinated, and that Mattis issued orders that no such operation would be undertaken. And on and on.
If there has been any "sabotage," what -- according to Trump and his supporters -- are the details? Which of Trump's presidential acts have been subverted?
The text reads like a journo not a pol or deep stater. So, I thought this immediately myself. The editorial board would justify itself by saying that it is just reporting what the Gray Lady is hearing over cocktails in Georgetown. It is "authentic", just retyped from the verbiage without Mr. Anonymous' knowledge (but with his implied consent). As for to much at stake to do something so dumb ... the past two years has been filled with such surprises from the anointed elites.
Michael K said...
There is a theory that it is a speechwriter for Pence.
Since everybody wants to make a guess in this parlor game, I want to say that I agree with this angle. I'm going with a Pence speechwriter along with you.
And, for what it's worth; it could never be Pence himself. The reason (besides the fact that I don't think Pence could write an Op-Ed like that) is that the extension of anonymity by the Times was on the basis that the author had a genuine fear for his position if identified. And Pence could have no such fear. Trump cannot fire Pence. Pence's position is elected, and is a matter of Constitutional law, and he can only be removed via impeachment.
It may be a concoction, but there is little question there are high ranking officials looking to thwart Trump's agenda at every given opportunity.
Trump did not have a pool of trusted individuals qualified to fill the various roles needed to run the White House. He had to trust recommendations.
One man could keep the deep state somewhat at bay. Jeff Sessions. But, for whatever reason, he won't. It's madness.
MAGA
The speech writer is most likely Woodward's source for the book.
We must remember that Trump did not have a "shadow government" sitting around in DC think tanks like most presidents.
Romney had long lists of loyal followers ready for his transition team. Trump was a loner with a tiny campaign staff, five before Manafort was hired.
It stands to reason that there are covert NeverTrumpers in the staff positions. My first thought was that it is an Obama holdover and that could still be true.
What is interesting is that a NeverTrumper would pull this just as the results of Trump's policies are becoming clear and they are all; positive.
Why sabotage success ? I doubt even Chuck would do that.
Michael Ledeen has a theory.
The short explanation is: every bureaucrat in Washington believes he or she should be president, no matter who technically holds the title. This is true in all agencies, at all levels. Never mind the claim that the author is a “senior official” somewhere or other. Anyone from the level of deputy assistant secretary to special assistants to Senate-confirmed ranks can make such a claim. If you want documentation, have a peek at all those employees expected to show up for work during a “government shutdown.” They’re all desperate to be classified “essential.”
More from Ledeen supports the Morning Report account.
Trump and the New York crowd don’t seem to get this. They seem to assume that it’s sufficient to issue orders, and the rank and file in the bureaucracy will salute and do what they’re told. That is not how Washington works, and failure to understand that lies at the root of this president’s greatest failure. Trump’s personnel policy is a disaster. There are innumerable cases where highly talented pro-Trump candidates have failed to win administration jobs, while those jobs were given to outspoken critics or even Obama holdovers. Remember when General McMaster denied there was such a thing as a “holdover"? Everyone was on the same team, right?
This will be a task for the second term. They have to get the drones out.
Methinks Jayson Blair might be back at work at the NYT.
Or Walter Duranty.
Maybe Dan Rather too.
And Mary Mapes.
Not like this stuff hasn't been made up out of whole cloth before. This is why we need access to real sources to evaluate it's credibility. Someone named who can be questioned and challenged. We can't just fall back on the supposed integrity of the press.
Imagined if Trump had nominated an anonymous source to the Supreme Court. And once confirmed, we would not get to know who they were.
There is an active campaign to associate the name Pence with the op-ed. The reason is obvious.
Believe what you want, but Pence as a covert NeverTrumper is fantasy.
There is an active campaign to associate the name Pence with the op-ed.
Probably one of his speech writers.
If there has been any "sabotage," what -- according to Trump and his supporters -- are the details?
The NYT source said they were preventing Trump for acting on his impulses. The word for that is sabotage. You may not like the use of proper words for describing events, but if you are an uncivil asshole, don't demand details from others which are already provided in the NYT op-ed.
I'm rather surprised that anyone outside NYC has ANY faith in the NYT.
So our hostess says:
1) The NY times can't risk losing reputation by lying about this.
2) Where else are you going to go for news?
Doesn't the NY Times knowing that their readership agrees with #2 pretty much wipe out #1? If their deceptions so far haven't caused you to move somewhere else, I think they can rightly be confident that lying about this wouldn't change #2 either.
Whoever wrote article is a male, but it sounds rather like the jacket blurb for a book.
I rather like the theory that the "author" does exist and was Woodward's source, but it would be well to remember that Peter Strzok was also described as "a senior administration official."
If it should turn out that the article was ghost written by a tech writer at Woodward's publisher, I would say that the NYT has indeed been "punked" into publishing a book promo as an op-ed.
Here's an interesting take: What if Trump wrote that NYT op-ed
What if Trump wrote that NYT op-ed
OFFS
I think the NYT has too much of a stake in at least the appearance of journalistic integrity.
Think again, please. My guess is that the op ed is the work of a committee (or cabal) of Journolist types – either at the NYT or for the NYT. Except for the Pence “lodestar” insertion as a cute touch, the op ed is an obvious rehash of the Wolf/Omarosa/Woodward slanderous fictions. But we’ll never know who it is because as Althouse says, the NYT has a “ … stake in at least the appearance of journalistic integrity.” Thus the failing NYT would NEVER admit that the op ed was fiction.
I expect in a few weeks to hear something akin to a "fake but accurate" mea culpa.
It's Chuck.
Pretty clearly, it's someone trying to rescue the GOP/conservative/evangelical brand from the toilet bowl.
Who benefits from a palace coup? The article is from Pence, probably via Coats.
LLR Chuck: "Pence's position is elected, and is a matter of Constitutional law, and he can only be removed via impeachment."
Dont worry. If you and your fellow smear merchants on the left succeed in your coup against Trump, the impeachment of Pence will be next on your list, along with undoing all the conservative policies and returning the dems to a place of unchallengeable political supremacy.
The good news is how unlikely your lefty/dem/LLR fever dream of removing Trump actually is.
Has Time magazine lost any of its reputation over the fake cover with the crying child?
Tucker Carlson said he thinks he knows who it is. Maybe a name tonight.
@Chuck, Pence could be forced to resign, like Spiro Agnew. A more frightening possibility — from his perspective as a politician — would be to be cut out from the inner circle and his office budget cut.
Ms. Althouse,
I went through the the exact same thought process myself when trying to come to a decision of whether or not I believed the person to be a real "Trump" official. And, I came to same conclusion- the person is real, and that the editors of the paper do know his identity. I also agree with you that he is planning to resign at some point with a big public display in order to win the big money for tell all books and interviews.
I wrote early this morning that he would likely turn out to be someone that none of us have ever heard of. That he is a nobody would not prevent the NYTimes from publishing the piece since it serves the editors' political narrative purposes, but when he cashes in, their reputation is going to take a hit.
Is this the game? NYT writes an anonymous Op-Ed. The left drops rumors that it is Pence. Get Trump to force Pence to resign. Then impeach Trump and not allow him to pick a new VP. Then they get their magical excuse for making Hillary President?
This is Robert Reich craziness.
There is basically no chance this is Michael Pence. It could be a Pence aide, but even that is doubtful in my opinion.
From the essay itself, it sounds to me this is someone who works in one of the cabinet departments, and not the White House. At best (or worst depending on ones viewpoint), it is an associate/deputy Secretary official, and if I had to lay a wager, it is someone who worked in the Obama Administration and the W. Bush one- in other words.
Isnt it interesting how quickly LLR Chucks beloved dem hack allies have expanded their assertions of Trump's illegitimacy to Kavanaugh.
And, as we all have known for 50 years, the Chucks pals on the left have no intention of stopping there.
To me, the most important aspect of the saboteur's op-ed is that he/she is not acting alone.
That aspect seems to be lost in the discussion.
I have to say that when I watched the coverage last night on CNN of this op-ed, I immediately got the feeling that this was John Bannon (i.e. Trump) as the underlying cause of this op-ed.
I'm not saying he wrote it word for word, or that he sent it to the NYTimes directly. But I'm not ruling out that he's the instigator of it.
It's too pat. It verifies everything Trump has been saying about the deep state and swamp. Meanwhile the Kavenaugh hearings go unabated and budget negotiatons are happening without fanfare.
People would wonder why would Trump do this to himself? Drive negative coverage? He doesn't care, there will be more ngative coverage in a week's time...
Bob Boyd asked a good question:
"Are you trusting the integrity of the NYT or just one person?
It's not just the paper's integrity you have to trust. It's also their judgement."
I also was asking myself this last night- is it the editorial board that knows the identity, or are they depending on a single person's assurance that "Anonymous" actually works for the Trump Administration? Like, Ms. Althouse, I decided the risk to reputation was too high to print this without the board knowing who it is.
AA, I don't understand your 'soft pedaling' the NYT with this comment, "....because I think the NYT has too much of a stake in at least the appearance of journalistic integrity....?" I guess your definition of "..stake..." is different than mine? You are talking about a failing news organization which has been going down hill for many decades now. It is comments like this which flabbergast us. Have we given up on "real integrity" now and morphed into "...appearance of journalistic integrity..?"
I don't think it is Trump for this sole reason. I don't believe he could have contained himself from crowing over getting one over on the NYT for this long.
There'd have been a tweet with his smug grin next to the acceptance email from the NYT or something equally "up-yours-y" from him to them sent out the moment it was hot off the presses.
Animus senior official means anyone over the age of 35. Deep State is the FBI/CIA, this guy is obviously just a no-name straight-faced butt-plug note taker that nobody but Mum has heard of. The boilerplate is a track-covering devise.
The reaction from Trump loyalists here and eleswhere is textbook cult-cuck swallow-state doubling down their investments in the most successful MLM reality daytime soap in history. This is mirrored in a perfect ying-yang symbiotic group grope on the left spinning fantasies of Trump as a prison bitch getting hammered daily by the Aryan Brotherhood.
"I decided the risk to reputation was too high to print this without the board knowing who it is."
-- What risk? If they're wrong, they'll shrug it off. They gave their #Resistance Audience what they wanted. The only ACTUAL risk is if this is them getting punked from the right through some sort of Sasha Baron Cohen-esque trickster, which I just don't see anyone pulling off.
Known Unknown: libertarians are the most fervent anti-Trumpers."
As an actual libertarian (small l), who interacts with many, many libertarians (see: www.glibertarians.com), I can assure you this is not true.
BTW, check out the site.
There'd have been a tweet with his smug grin next to the acceptance email from the NYT or something equally "up-yours-y" from him to them sent out the moment it was hot off the presses.
He can't do that because it ruins the game. That's why he still denies the John Miller stories despite the fact its his voice on tapes.
My hope is that there will be a book from him after his term has ended.
Ah yes, "rudimentary trust in the basic integrity of the NYT." That naive trust is the only thing that distinguishes the rag from the National Enquirer. Even for Trump haters, the "McCain affair" story in 2008 should have provided a clue.
NYT v. Sullivan is all that is keeping them in business. That and the unwillingness of Eunuch Sessions' DOJ to subpoena the identities of the supposed leakers of classified intelligence information and jailing reporters who refuse to disclose.
The leftmediaswine have transformed is into a nation that gets its news via pathetic, cowardly, anonymous snitches who are likely receiving bribes for their fabulistic drivel.
Rudimentary trust in anonymous sources? Seriously?
Rudimentary trust in the purveyers of their crapola? Seriously?
Leland said...
"Is this the game? NYT writes an anonymous Op-Ed. The left drops rumors that it is Pence. Get Trump to force Pence to resign. Then impeach Trump and not allow him to pick a new VP. Then they get their magical excuse for making Hillary President?"
President Paul Ryan. And 100% GOP voter turnout for a generation.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the left doesn't actually care about winning -- they're getting such a rush out of the idea of being a part of the Glorious Resistance that the drama is more important than any actual progress on any actual issues.
EDH also makes an excellent point about the piece:
"The piece doesn't make clear to the reader whether these assertions are claimed as the writer's first hand observations or hearsay, the key element of the editorial trade-off between newsworthiness vs anonymous authorship."
I noticed this, too. None of it seemed to be first-hand, I-was-in-the-room testimony, but more easily described as hearsay. Of course, the writer could have done it this way for greater anonymity.
Blogger Temujin said...".....I see those sponge people at the Kavanaugh hearings, yelling like spoiled little children that their world is about to end....?" 9/6/18, 7:08 AM
I agree with most of your statement. People yelling at "..the Kavanaugh hearings..." are paid "yellers" no more no less. They have as much credibility as the NY Times which hasn't had any credibility since the '60s. The NY Times has been run into the ground by the "nepotistic" family - morons all. So I'm at a loss with AA who still has some admiration for this dying rag.
Pence via his old indiana buddy, Coats.
Pence needed Coats to sell the story, because the NYT wouldn't give the Pence camp the time of day.
The question is, "Who benefits?"
No one benefits more than Pence.
Ann Your rudimentary trust is sorely misplaced.
@Hstad re: 11:56
Great comment!!
Blogger Howard said...
Animus senior official means anyone over the age of 35. Deep State is the FBI/CIA, this guy is obviously just a no-name straight-faced butt-plug note taker that nobody but Mum has heard of. The boilerplate is a track-covering devise.
I pretty much agree with this. Trump did not have a loyal group, like Romney did, to staff his administration.
The staffing was done by Reince Priebus who packed it with GOPe types. Trump picked the top guys and had a couple of misfires we all know about.
There is also some information that Trump supporters were shut out by the insiders and this is another factor.
This is why I want to see dispersal of the agencies. EPA to Oklahoma, HUD to Detroit, Education, to Salt Lake City, etc.
Let the drones find honest work.
The question is, "Who benefits?"
No one benefits more than Pence.
No, Trump benefits the most.
Actually, my cat wrote the op-ed. When questioned by myself, she would not deny it. Also, when questioned, her brother cat refused to deny the accusation.
I think that proves it - and I think that is the current state of 'journalistic integrity' present in the NYT and the rest of the msm.
They are making krap up, talking about it, then writing about it, and gosh, it appeared in the Post for god's sake it must be true..
I have seen creative writing exercises in high school that have produced better quality drek.
As has been said - this is how you get more Trump. There is a lot about the current administration that can be legitimately questioned and written about - but the hate and fever dreams have taken sway and we are now in peak crazy.
Doc Mike Trump benefits" Exactly. All of this chaos strengthens the forcefield around POTUS. The Dems and MSM are playing the perfect role in Trump TV
Well I finally read all of the blogging comments and my single biggest takeaway is as to how low the 'venerable' NYTimes has now stooped with this op - ed. This appears to me to be the NYT's panicky desperation to economically survive much less be influential. A pathetic, anonymous assault on a sitting President - of which the NYT says 'We are immensely proud.'
Yes, proud to have become a common fish wrapper of 'journalism'........'Anonymous tips, anyone, get your anonymous tips here!'
The modern NYT...a piece of junk.
I haven't trusted the judgement of the New York Times since they put a story on their front page about how the economy was so terrible some woman in Florida couldn't afford to buy herself two pairs of designer jeans for Christmas. She could only afford to buy herself one pair. That was around 15 years ago, I think. Stopped reading it after that.
"we are now in peak crazy"
I think this about 3 times a month, then the Left proves me wrong, again and again.
What's with illegal leaks of classified and confidential information for political gain going uninvestigated?
There is no federal reporter/source privilege. Remember Judith Miller? DOJ/FBI are so busy covering their corrupt asses that they can't be bothered to plug the leaks.
That may not apply to this latest NYT gossip, but it surely applies to earlier NYT and WaPo stories.
What are the odds the op ed writer is at a more senior level than #2 guy at FBI. Someone passed over for promotion? Will we find out when he's 92?
The question is, "Who benefits?"
No one benefits more than Pence.
Only if Pence thinks they have the votes of 2/3 the house, 2/3s the senate, and a majority of the cabinet to remove him via the 25th amendment...
It's easier to impeach...
"What's with illegal leaks of classified and confidential information for political gain going uninvestigated?"
-- If Booker is serious, he should leave the Senate. He got what he wanted; now he should pay the price.
Well if it was a ploy to get into FLOTUS good graces it failed.
Democrats doing I'm Spartacus.
I'm not in the Booker train but all these he'll never be president takes make me laugh. Wasn't that trope retired a couple of years ago? Probably true but no fun anymore.
You know the thing that infuriates me the most about Booker's leaking?
He lied to us about the documents. He made us think Kavanaugh was pushing for racial discrimination and profiling against blacks and that the discussion had no bearing on national security.
In reality, Kavanaugh said he wanted race neutral methods applied that would stand up to legal scrutiny, and they were discussing how to *secure airports in the near-immediate aftermath of 9/11.*
Everything the soon-to-be-ex-Senator told us about why he wanted these documents revealed was a lie.
Big Mike said...
@Chuck, Pence could be forced to resign, like Spiro Agnew. A more frightening possibility — from his perspective as a politician — would be to be cut out from the inner circle and his office budget cut.
Well, if that is your measure, anybody could be forced to resign. Nixon was forced to resign. A federal judge with life tenure could be forced to resign.
My point being, Big Mike, is that Trump can't fire Pence. He could humiliate Pence; cut him out of all executive branch functions; but Pence still gets to sit in the Senate and vote to break ties.
Alternately, it's a hoax like the Bush National Guard memos.
The President can't fire the Vice President. It's an elective office. Congress could impeach him.
Pence is next in line if Trump is impeached and removed from office. There's a possibility that will happen. Also, Trump is pretty old and could die. Lots of reasons to be VP right now.
Good thing no one tried this on Obama; he'd arrest journalists to get their sources. Trump'll just mean-tweet about it.
In fact, the Dems COULD pull off a legislative coup by winning the House and Senate, then impeaching and convicting BOTH Trump and Pence, leaving the Presidency to the Speaker of the House, ie some Dem yet to be determined. This would effectively change the Constitution into something like a parliamentary democracy, where control of both houses leads to control of both executives. This almost happened in the 1860s. There's a high wall to climb to get there, but it could happen.
Otherwise, they'd have to live with a Pence administration and a GOP electorate enraged by having their guy removed from office. It's not worth it. Just wait two years and win in 2020.
"Just wait two years and win in 2020."
-- But that doesn't let them win NOW.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Peak Crazy????????
Not by a long shot. Just wait until it is revealed that Javanka is the source
"lodestar": Pence! Pence!
Sounds like a load.
Of all people, hard to believe it's him.
Oh wait..that's just how devious this is!
"No one benefits more than Pence."
Perhaps his camp thinks that. If so, they are joining the insanity of the NeverTrumpers.
They need to think harder.
1. They claim to worry that Trump will destroy the GOP. They should realize that destroying Trump will truly destroy the GOP.
2. If they are serious about worrying that Trump will destroy the GOP, they should realize that Trump does not care about the GOP. If they do care, the rational approach is to make Trump as GOP-like as possible. Which is not that hard. Which is actually happening. Which Mitch, to his credit, has done to a large extent. But it requires picking purpose and policy over pique and personality.
At least progs are crazy for good reason. NeverTrumpers don't have their excuse, apart from the pursuit of personal profit, as is likely in the case of the NYT writer.
If you hear the name Pence enough, some will start to believe it, even though there is nothing substantive behind it. Some already have. Some will never believe it wasn't Pence, even when facts are presented otherwise.
This is called propaganda.
People who call this treason are being silly. It is, however, admittedly seditious and should result in subpoenas to NYT editors by DOJ to determine the identity of the rat.
Unfortunately, Sessions and Wray are to busy covering up DOJ/FBI corruption to be bothered with sedition or, for that matter, earlier leaks of classified intelligence data to the media for political or monetary gain.
Federal law enforcement under Obama was a corrupt disgrace. Under Trump it is also an inept embarrassment.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Peak Crazy????????
Not by a long shot. Just wait until it is revealed that Javanka is the source
Nope. Peak crazy comes if RBG dies in the next 18 months.
If Booker is serious, he should leave the Senate. He got what he wanted; now he should pay the price.
If the Democrats had any integrity, or just stopped to consider the damage they are doing to the republic, they would join with the Republicans to kick Booker out of the Senate.
Frankly Booker would love this for the leg up it would give him for the 2020 nomination.
Here you go-
13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed
-Chris Cillizza, CNN
They all are out to get Trump! Trump needs to fire them all!
On a serious note, the only name mentioned that holds any credence to me is Don McGahn. Only because his name keeps popping up over the last months trying to undermine the President.
I think I just read that the documents released by Booker were all approved for release by the committee last night. So that Booker's claim to be risking expulsion may be mere showboating (shocking as that would be).
Actual video of what really goes on in the White House:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wfPlgKFh8
My understanding was that they were leaked first, and then the committee agreed to release them. They were released by the committee because Booker was lying about them. He made the claim that they solely had to deal with racial profiling and had nothing to do with national security, and swore he'd release them anyway.
So, the committee released them essentially under threat. On reading it, we learn, in fact, Kavanaugh was attempting to find a standard that would NOT be racial profiling, and that it dealt directly to national security shortly after the 9/11 attacks.
In short, the committee released the documents to prove Booker a liar and to allow people to talk about them openly without having to dance around the confidential parts.
I've heard a number of people wonder would the left would implode. I'm wondering if we aren't witnessing it over the last few days.
We had the McCain funeral, which even left leaning people noted as ironic all the praise heaped on a man so despised just 10 years ago. The mock civility at the funeral was shown as BS the moment Kavanaugh stepped to the mic. After the first day of the circus, in which the only conclusion was Democrats wanted to make a show for voters; Kavanaugh was pushed off the front page by an anonymous Op-Ed from a person admitting the malfeasances that the left claimed was Trump conspiracy theory. And today, we have Cory Booker violating Senate rules to release classified documents that shows Kavanaugh is not a racist.
Well done, Mattew Sablan.
"On a serious note, the only name mentioned that holds any credence to me is Don McGahn."
Plus he's leaving soon.
In short, the committee released the documents to prove Booker a liar and to allow people to talk about them openly without having to dance around the confidential parts.
Booker sure plays havoc wit that argument that "The Bell Curve" was wrong about black IQ,
'SENIOR'?
That could apply to anyone who is not the most junior, even a speechwriter with a penchant "lodestar".
Nope. Peak crazy comes if RBG dies in the next 18 months.
It comes after she dies and the Senate has an increased GOP majority.
Trump needs to find this White Horse souse and roll his or her head.
That could apply to anyone who is not the most junior, even a speechwriter with a penchant "lodestar".
H.R. McMaster has used that term many times in writings and speeches. Language analysts have already combed through the op-ed.
Just for fun, OddShark puts Pence at No.1 (-150), the next highest probability is Betsey DeVos (+200).
Like I said, this is a Propaganda campaign to drive a wedge between Trump and Pence. Irresponsible to repeat it, in my view.
If it really is a senior advisor, they will leak it in a day or two regardless of what they have promised the person, and if not, we will never read anything more about it.
McMaster is a possibility, I got the impression that he wanted to be in charge and did not get along with Trump.
I know he got rid of a Trump supporting deputy pretty fast. KT McFarland was an early Trump supporting casualty.
Once in office, McFarland's style annoyed some of the more non-political staffers on the NSC.[51] She repeated the "Make America Great Again" mantra to career employees and mentioned that she was wearing shoes from the Ivanka Trump apparel line,[51] giving other NSC staffers the impression she was "too political."
Too political supporting the president she worked for.
Yeah, McMasters could be it.
Well, it seems that for all of you all, guessing is now the game.
This is my favorite among your speculations:
"Actually, my cat wrote the op-ed. When questioned by myself, she would not deny it. Also, when questioned, her brother cat refused to deny the accusation."
This is the wrongest: "the next highest probability is Betsey DeVos (+200)." She's a Trump crazee, and no way would she do that. He's her ticket! And would probably be among the first to go in a regular Repub administration.
This is too long a time frame: "Nope. Peak crazy comes if RBG dies in the next 18 months." I would say 18 hours.
This would be wonderful: "Not by a long shot. Just wait until it is revealed that Javanka is the source" but no way did either of those two dummies write it.
What stands out to me is the praise of McCain. Yes, I know that among most Althouse commenters, that is usually a sign of a Deep Stater, but most in his admin (aside from DeVos and maybe Pence and a couple of others) are Deep Staters, so now that I think about it, it will be hard to find on that basis. Also what struck me is how he/she praised the policies. That seems to be overlooked here. Hmm. Surprise.
I agree with others that it is probably some obscure "senior official" and that Strozhk whatever his name is was a senior official.
Anyway, here in DC, I rarely look straight at a big political event anymore, like a hearing, funeral, etc. Reverberations usually are enough for me to know what happened, though usually I don't even need those. There is the occasional surprise in spontaneity, though. Not often.
I know that among most Althouse commenters, that is usually a sign of a Deep Stater, but most in his admin (aside from DeVos and maybe Pence and a couple of others) are Deep Staters,
Lots of underlings since they are part of the permanent regime, no matter who is elected but, of course, they are more comfortable with Democrats expanding the state.
That's why dispersing the agencies should be a high purpose of the second term. Plus he will know better who are his enemies.
I have no problem believing that the op-ed written by someone in the White House. One doesn't have to rely on the essential integrity of the NYT to reach that view. The Deep State is real. It is also the case that there is no shortage of self-aggrandizing reality tv types who have no qualms whatsoever preening and strutting their imagined importance...and remarkable virtue.
This is the problem of centralizing power in Washington DC. The same shitbird working for the governor of any state wouldn't get the slightest attention from an editor or network for this kind of act. A big yawn. It's only because of the central importance of the federal government in all of our lives, a central importance the founders never imagined or intended, that we get this craziness.
It's real all right, and sooner or later we'll learn who it is, and it will be someone we've never heard of, just like Deep Throat turned out to be.
- Krumhorn
HT - I did not speculate that my cat did it to speculate - just to show how bloody stupid the whole thing is.
We seriously need to to get to a point where we care about our country and the rule of law whatever our political beliefs and stop trying to come up with the 'biggest outrage ever' to score points.
I don't hold out much hope for that and figure we will just keep on the crazy train for the rest of my life unless some really major world catastrophe occurs that throws everything into the dumper - think mad max scenario.
Arashi yes I got it. I just loved the image.
I wish it was someone like Sessions but realize it is probably someone in a maligned agency like the FBI or EPA, though the person is a self identified Repub.
Anyway, it's definitely not Pence - why on earth would he do that and not just resign?
" It is also the case that there is no shortage of self-aggrandizing reality tv types"
Um,
I don't read the Times I count on Ann for that though I do have a hard time understanding how she maintains any kind of trust in the paper. I will remind her that "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus". Recently the NYT has been a lot closer to falsus than veritas.
Althouse can’t find any other sources with the integrity (I’m paraphrasing) of the NYT so that’s what she reads.
I’m assuming you think your own blog has integrity. There are many other sources on the internet that would have you better informed than the NYT. Conservative Treehouse, Legal Insurrection, American Greatness are just a few, The Examiner, anything Victor Davis Hanson writes.
I don’t read or link to anything from the NYT or WAPO etc. I just scan realclearpolitics.com to see what’s being published. I don’t need to read the actual articles to know what they will say. The title and origin tell me all I need to know, both Left and Right. Quick, painless way to get current flow of things.
I made it a practice long ago not to listen to or read anything from mediocre intellects, which pretty much sums up the vast bulk of the media class. Total waste of limited time.
Learn the name Johnny Destefano if you want to know why Trump is surrounded by NeverTrumpers in the White House.
On a lighter(?) note from the WaPo: "Prosecutors use grand jury as investigation of Andrew McCabe intensifies". Link.
McCabe had two criminal referrals, many months old, and Sleepy Jeff Sessions just got around to convening a Grand Jury. A jury that will not likely return any indictments until after the mid-term elections.
HT - Thanks for the clarification . I got a good chuckle out of it.
Sorry--a little off topic:
Only Sen. Hirono (D-Hawaii) can make Kamala Harris sound smart.
A criminal grand jury is seated for Andrew McCabe.
One imagines FBI agents do not want to be in gen-pop.
This could get interesting as hell.
Jim Geraghty at NR/Corner had speculated that it might be Jon Huntsman, and today Huntsman issued a denial including this: "An early political lesson I learned: Never send an anonymous op-ed,” Huntsman said.
Which is downright weird, right? Who ever even heard of an "anonymous op-ed" before yesterday?
It reminds me of Mrs. Agnew's Diary, which ran in the National Lampoon back in the day.
Your para doesn’t quite match your title. You actually trust the NYT's rational self-interest. You doubt they'd risk a fraud. That shows you don’t actually trust their integrity. If you trusted their integrity you wouldn’t feel the need to consider that.
I couldn't help but think about this news story from 5 years ago with everything that the MSM, Dems, progs, FBI, DOJ, and "deep/stable state" have been doing for the last two years. There's a lesson here.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-sets-fire-snake-burns-house-article-1.1296414
Hey guys. It is clear that Trump wrote it himself . Another troll of the stupid CIA owned NYT to get intense coverage. There is nothing new in it not already thrown at Trump a year ago. But it says the Trump team has still
done wonders at making America great again.
The public can read and can understand English.
NYT believes in the prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
And they bray to Stork at the Twilight Fringe.
At least the writer is honest that he is a senior person in the Trump Administration...the most senior one of them all, blithely taking credit for all of the successes.
“There are many other sources on the internet that would have you better informed than the NYT. Conservative Treehouse, Legal Insurrection, American Greatness are just a few, The Examiner, anything Victor Davis Hanson writes.”
That’s commentary. I want news reporting.
I read some commentary, but I prefer to do commentary.
Back during the Viet Nam War, Anonymous wrote a book that criticized the US military's conduct of the war. Anonymous was identified as a "field grade officer". The reviewers of the book immediately concluded that he was a present or recent batallion commander, and that these are the guys who really know what's going on, but are ignored by the brass. ("Field grade", in case you don't know, means Major, Lt. Col., and Col. A batallion -- three infantry companies, plus -- was typically commanded by a LTC.) Those who wanted to criticize the US military gave a lot of credence to Anonymous.
It turned out that Anonymous was a Major, a Chaplain (!), and had never been to Nam. My guess is that this current Anonymous, when he or she is identified, will have just as much credibilty. But who will care by then?
Fox is angry at the writer for being a braggart with a big ego. Heh, heh. But what happens when the catch Trump for sending the op-ed? The President simply pardons himself.
Post a Comment