ADVERTISEMENT

NYT op-ed from someone who works for the president.

gushing over anonymous (aka fake news) sources. keep it coming.
Anonymous does not necessarily equate with fake.
If I anonymously publish that the world is not flat, does it mean my publication is wrong?
I agree that anonymous does equate with questionable value, which may range from simple falsity to absolute truth
 
Sad to see how far the right has fallen. Anonymous now equals fake in your eyes? Do you think the New York Times completely made it up?
I'm not right. I'm independent and fiercely so. It might as well be made up. Could be the freakin limo driver for all you know.
 
I'm not right. I'm independent and fiercely so. It might as well be made up. Could be the freakin limo driver for all you know.

Fiercely independent but you just so happen to follow the Fox News talking points exactly with any topic. Ok. The NYT isn’t going to print a fake article from a limo driver.
 
It is unrealistic for such a person to believe that any anonymous letter will in anyway impact the situation. Does anyone expect such to sway a single Trump supporter to change his/her mind? Does anyone believe that an anonymous letter will lead to change?
Puhleeeze...
IMO, if (and that is a HUGE "if"), there is a grand conspiracy for the media to do everything in it's power to disparage the current administration, it has nothing to do with convincing the Trump supporters, it is aiming for the middle 10%.
To put it bluntly, I would guess that in the 2020 election 45% of America will vote for Trump and 45% will vote for whomever the Democrats put up there simply based upon the party / beliefs they support. It is the middle 10% that either A) doesn't particularly care who they vote for or B) are enough of a moderate / independent that they consider all sides and pick who they think will reasonably do the best job or C) Are really just not sure who the better option is.
Trump got roughly 6% of that 10% (at least electoral college-wise) to Hillary's 4% in order to win in 2016. I suspect the ultimate goal of the constant media barrage (regardless of whether it is coordinated or not) is aimed at flipping those percentages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDBoiler1
I have read enough mysteries to know that most often "who done it" is the person that gains the most. Therefore, I think there is no question that Pence wrote it. Plus, of course, there is that "lodestar" thing.

[PLEASE NOTE: This is a JOKE]
 
I have read enough mysteries to know that most often "who done it" is the person that gains the most. Therefore, I think there is no question that Pence wrote it. Plus, of course, there is that "lodestar" thing.

[PLEASE NOTE: This is a JOKE]
Personally, if it’s real, I think it could be 1) DNI Dan Coats, 2) Jeff Sessions (doesn’t seem like his writing style), 3) Rod Rosenstein.

That said, it could be someone with a hugely-inflated sense of self-worth that none of us have ever heard of. Based on previous comments he’s made, I think it could be Coats.
 
Personally, if it’s real, I think it could be 1) DNI Dan Coats, 2) Jeff Sessions (doesn’t seem like his writing style), 3) Rod Rosenstein.

That said, it could be someone with a hugely-inflated sense of self-worth that none of us have ever heard of. Based on previous comments he’s made, I think it could be Coats.

I am still going with Pence but I agree that it might be someone that none of us know. Wasn't that true of "Deep Throat" [Watergate informant]?
 
So, bad in what way? That a lot of non elected alleged cabinet members and senior staff members are trying to guide America's policy and thwart the person voted in? I agree-pretty bad. That is the closest thing one has seen to treason so far.

Not sure what you or this article are getting at. Unfortunately, a lot of liberals/democrats just crapped their own pillowcase. Why? Because this article all but admits the deep state. The same thing many liberals/democrats vehemently deny exists and dismiss as paranoia. So now Trump is right when he speaks of it? People are so blind in their hatred for him they just added to his credibility. I will be shocked if there is not a tweet in 24 hours where Trump basically says, 'I told you so' and the 'Swamp needs drained'

Agree that this does not put Trump in a good light. Not sure it adds to anything not already known about his behavior. And the opening paragraphs about Trump not being conservative is hardly news. He ran as and is a populist.
no deep state is needed to figure out that Trump is exactly as described by insiders. Publicly, it is obvious the man is amoral, completely indifferent to truth/lies (neither matters to him), has attention span of an ADHD pre-teen boy, seems incapable of understanding complex/nuanced issues, has an admiration for autocrats, makes bizarre decisions and then changes his mind on a whim, debases level of discourse to an unimaginable level. The one thing I give him credit for is that he a pompous showman who has an uncanny feel of the pulse of certain segment of the population (folks like TopSecret, SDBoiler1 etc). He understands how they feel and is able to articulate their feelings.

That said. Even if we elected an idiot, that's who we elected. Either carry out his idiotic agenda or come out in public and be against him. Carrying out a shadow agenda and purposefully undermining the President is treasonous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Purdue97
That said. Even if we elected an idiot, that's who we elected. Either carry out his idiotic agenda or come out in public and be against him. Carrying out a shadow agenda and purposefully undermining the President is treasonous.

I agree with your sentiment in the first part. Carrying on in the shadows does not help the situation. At the very least, regardless of whether it is true or not, it is enforcing an image that our government is weakening and the world is watching.

With that said, for the record, what the op-ed writer has done can in no way be considered treason as defined by the constitution.
The Constitution defines it specifically:
“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” It also later specifies that "enemies" must be countries against which Congress has formally declared war or otherwise authorized the use of force. It is one of the more specific defined offenses in the Constitution and is thus, one of the hardest crimes to prove. So unless you can get proof that this op-ed piece is specifically written to help a foreign power that we are at war with (which at this point, would only be ISIS, and that itself is a stretch), there is no chance of a treason charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuilderBob6
I agree with your sentiment in the first part. Carrying on in the shadows does not help the situation. At the very least, regardless of whether it is true or not, it is enforcing an image that our government is weakening and the world is watching.

With that said, for the record, what the op-ed writer has done can in no way be considered treason as defined by the constitution.
The Constitution defines it specifically:
“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” It also later specifies that "enemies" must be countries against which Congress has formally declared war or otherwise authorized the use of force. It is one of the more specific defined offenses in the Constitution and is thus, one of the hardest crimes to prove. So unless you can get proof that this op-ed piece is specifically written to help a foreign power that we are at war with (which at this point, would only be ISIS, and that itself is a stretch), there is no chance of a treason charge.
thanks for clarifying and teaching me. constitution is not my area of expertise, i shouldn't have called it it treasonous. "Deeply troubling" might be a better term. Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuilderBob6
thanks for clarifying and teaching me. constitution is not my area of expertise, i shouldn't have called it it treasonous. "Deeply troubling" might be a better term. Thanks
I agree completely.
And just to be fair, by the same token, NOTHING the President has done to this point can be considered treason. Even if it were to come out that he specifically coordinated with Russia to win the election, that is still not treason. Even extreme cases like the Rosenbergs, who were found to have been giving nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were found guilty of "espionage", not treason.
Granted, we are talking semantics here. You were not technically wrong when you said "treasonous" because that could still count under the Webster definition as "actively working to overthrow the government".

I really am only pointing this out because I suspect the word is going to be thrown around a lot in the next few months by both sides.
 
I appreciate the self own in the website your citing and your criticism of the editorial.
and why is that? They point out material facts relevant to the NYTs misuse of anon sources and reporting on sources, which after all, is exactly what I was asked about. I award you 0 points and may god have mercy on your soul.
 
Axios' Jonathan Swan attributes a conversation with Senior Trump Administration Official to include
  • "I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating — that people seem so shocked that there is a resistance from the inside," one senior official said. "A lot of us [were] wishing we’d been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows — maybe he does? — that there are dozens and dozens of us."
Link at
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3ClXfY2yWBHNhdqT0YqmFi&cshid=1536264201238
 
no deep state is needed to figure out that Trump is exactly as described by insiders. Publicly, it is obvious the man is amoral, completely indifferent to truth/lies (neither matters to him), has attention span of an ADHD pre-teen boy, seems incapable of understanding complex/nuanced issues, has an admiration for autocrats, makes bizarre decisions and then changes his mind on a whim, debases level of discourse to an unimaginable level. The one thing I give him credit for is that he a pompous showman who has an uncanny feel of the pulse of certain segment of the population (folks like TopSecret, SDBoiler1 etc). He understands how they feel and is able to articulate their feelings.

That said. Even if we elected an idiot, that's who we elected. Either carry out his idiotic agenda or come out in public and be against him. Carrying out a shadow agenda and purposefully undermining the President is treasonous.

Exactly my sentiment. You say things better than I do.
 
I am still going with Pence but I agree that it might be someone that none of us know. Wasn't that true of "Deep Throat" [Watergate informant]?

Deep throat had denied being deep throat.

That being said, some of the administration official denials are coming directly from them, some coming from their office. Someone's communications director won't have a clue if they anonymously did this or not, so those mean nothing in my opinion.

Also, the op-ed referenced multiple people feeling this way - and it didn't sound like it was a "hunch". Look at this White House - they aren't even on the same page on things publicly, can't imagine internally. It's a $hitshow.
 
I mean glad you agree. Maybe you can get Brenban and the few Dems that spout off about it to agree.

What am I agreeing with? Your moronic statement that writing an op-ed is equivalent to treason?

Do you think Obama was treasonous? There were plenty of Republicans that spouted off about it.

I think Brennan went too far. However, I certainly recognize his anger at the time - when you're throwing your intelligence agencies under the bus on foreign soil while meeting with an adversary. That's a helluva lot more anti-American than kneeling on a football field during the national anthem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MANelson85
I am still going with Pence but I agree that it might be someone that none of us know. Wasn't that true of "Deep Throat" [Watergate informant]?

Have you ever read something that Pence wrote? This was pretty well written. The NY Times said the only editing they did was punctuation and such. No chance Pence wrote that himself.

For instance, take his hard hitting review of the movie Mulan:


sub-buzz-24551-1468778861-1.png
 
Have you ever read something that Pence wrote? This was pretty well written. The NY Times said the only editing they did was punctuation and such. No chance Pence wrote that himself.

For instance, take his hard hitting review of the movie Mulan:


sub-buzz-24551-1468778861-1.png
Yeow... reads very similarly to many of my drafts. However, I usually bother to edit or rewrite.
 
What am I agreeing with? Your moronic statement that writing an op-ed is equivalent to treason?

Do you think Obama was treasonous? There were plenty of Republicans that spouted off about it.

I think Brennan went too far. However, I certainly recognize his anger at the time - when you're throwing your intelligence agencies under the bus on foreign soil while meeting with an adversary. That's a helluva lot more anti-American than kneeling on a football field during the national anthem.

What am I agreeing with? Your moronic statement that writing an op-ed is equivalent to treason?

Comprehension is a thing. Reread what I wrote. I said trying to thwart a President's agenda, his policy, and attack him for the purpose of getting him out of office is the closest thing we have seen to treason so far. No, I do not think it is treason.

Do you think Obama was treasonous? There were plenty of Republicans that spouted off about it.

No. And for what? Moving the govt to the left is not treason,and one can argue that was his responsibility since that is the platform he ran on, at least in the primary. He moved more to center in the GE.

I think Brennan went too far. However, I certainly recognize his anger at the time - when you're throwing your intelligence agencies under the bus on foreign soil while meeting with an adversary. That's a helluva lot more anti-American than kneeling on a football field during the national anthem

As for Brennan, just went a tad to far lol. Not tom mention a complete hypocrite in concern with crying about his clearance. He did the same thing to all of the contractors that were in Libya, yes for political purposes he took clearances away.

As for the rest of the statement do not disagree but not sure what it had to do with the said topic.
 
Have you ever read something that Pence wrote? This was pretty well written. The NY Times said the only editing they did was punctuation and such. No chance Pence wrote that himself.
For instance, take his hard hitting review of the movie Mulan:

I see your point! But the use of "lodestar" is interesting. I personally have never used that word in writing or speaking. I am now thinking it may be some person who is not known to the general public. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-times-editorial-lodestar-defined/1210402002/
 
no deep state is needed to figure out that Trump is exactly as described by insiders. Publicly, it is obvious the man is amoral, completely indifferent to truth/lies (neither matters to him), has attention span of an ADHD pre-teen boy, seems incapable of understanding complex/nuanced issues, has an admiration for autocrats, makes bizarre decisions and then changes his mind on a whim, debases level of discourse to an unimaginable level. The one thing I give him credit for is that he a pompous showman who has an uncanny feel of the pulse of certain segment of the population (folks like TopSecret, SDBoiler1 etc). He understands how they feel and is able to articulate their feelings.

That said. Even if we elected an idiot, that's who we elected. Either carry out his idiotic agenda or come out in public and be against him. Carrying out a shadow agenda and purposefully undermining the President is treasonous.
This stunt is backfiring. It feeds the narrative that the "Deep State" is trying to undermine the a duly-elected President and the rest of his administration. I agree completely about the treasonous comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwinDegrees2
Have you ever read something that Pence wrote? This was pretty well written. The NY Times said the only editing they did was punctuation and such. No chance Pence wrote that himself.
For instance, take his hard hitting review of the movie Mulan:

I see your point! But the use of "lodestar" is interesting. I personally have never used that word in writing or speaking. I am now thinking it may be some person who is not known to the general public. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-times-editorial-lodestar-defined/1210402002/
Whoever wrote this opinion piece used that word to deceive whoever reads the piece into thinking Pence wrote it. Pence wants to become President some day. This would be political suicide for him because the author will eventually be found out, if it's actually someone in the WH at all. Pence wouldn't get elected dog catcher if it's found that he wrote this because it shows him being disloyal to the President, 2) lying about it, and 3) he admits that he's a proud member of the "Deep State" wantonly working against the President's agenda.
 
This stunt is backfiring. It feeds the narrative that the "Deep State" is trying to undermine the a duly-elected President and the rest of his administration. I agree completely about the treasonous comment.
there is no deep state. what you call deep state is what I will call "momentum of bureaucracy" - which is basically "we do things this way, because this is how it has always been done and there probably was a valid reason in the distant past why we started doing things this way". Every organization, private or governmental has it. It is the unspoken rules and traditions that are kept alive by bureaucrats/ every day employees, long after new leaders or politicians come and go.

As an example, I remember Obama in an interview stating that there is a subtle but pervasive culture of war-mongering that permeates Washington and one of his proudest moments was him standing up and reneging on his "red line" speech about Syria because he found himself being drawn into another war. He took a lot of flack for that move because it made him (and some say America) seem weak. I guess he, Obama too, could have said he was standing up to deep state.

But it's no deep state. There is no overt conspiracy by any cabal to carry out some evil agenda. Government is just a big organization made of disparate individuals acting out of self-interest and/or patriotism. When a new leader comes along, and starts proposing a lot of things that are counter to long-established traditions, he is inevitably going to meet a lot of resistance. And when that leader can't demonstrate that he understands the complexities of issues he is trying to influence, or that he has a consistent core of underlying principles guiding his vision, he is going to run into even more resistance. That organic resistance is what Trump and his followers wrongly term deep state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuilderBob6
Whoever wrote this opinion piece used that word to deceive whoever reads the piece into thinking Pence wrote it. Pence wants to become President some day. This would be political suicide for him because the author will eventually be found out, if it's actually someone in the WH at all. Pence wouldn't get elected dog catcher if it's found that he wrote this because it shows him being disloyal to the President, 2) lying about it, and 3) he admits that he's a proud member of the "Deep State" wantonly working against the President's agenda.

It was a joke. Interesting point about the use of "lodestar" - clever distraction and I suspect not the only one in that Op-ed piece. I totally agree with your points and do not really think it was Pence. However, Pence is delusional if he thinks he will ever be president. Too much to reveal from his political history in Indiana.
 
Anonymous does not necessarily equate with fake.
If I anonymously publish that the world is not flat, does it mean my publication is wrong?
I agree that anonymous does equate with questionable value, which may range from simple falsity to absolute truth
Nixon and co blasted the WP for their "fake" unnamed sources. Of course "Deep Throat" turned out to be a real person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70boiler
Nixon and co blasted the WP for their "fake" unnamed sources. Of course "Deep Throat" turned out to be a real person.
If this person in the Trump Administration is real and they don’t agree with what he’s doing so much that are compelled to write an Op Ed in the NYT, why don’t they just come out publically and then resign? Otherwise, it feeds Trump’s “Deep State” mantra and actually lends some credibility to what he’s been saying. This unelected official thinks he’s so important that he can flout the agenda of the duly-elected POTUS.
 
If this person in the Trump Administration is real and they don’t agree with what he’s doing so much that are compelled to write an Op Ed in the NYT, why don’t they just come out publically and then resign? Otherwise, it feeds Trump’s “Deep State” mantra and actually lends some credibility to what he’s been saying. This unelected official thinks he’s so important that he can flout the agenda of the duly-elected POTUS.
I agree with you but I suspect it may be a case of someone wanting to come out of this administration looking like a "good guy" who stayed to save the country.
 
If this person in the Trump Administration is real and they don’t agree with what he’s doing so much that are compelled to write an Op Ed in the NYT, why don’t they just come out publically and then resign? Otherwise, it feeds Trump’s “Deep State” mantra and actually lends some credibility to what he’s been saying. This unelected official thinks he’s so important that he can flout the agenda of the duly-elected POTUS.
Agree SD.

I'm curious if the op-ed writer feels that they accomplished their aim in writing the piece? It feels like they pulled the pin on a grenade, tossed it in the room and then politely left, closing the door behind them.

I can understand on some level the idea of writing it, but remaining anonymous for fear that you will be quickly replaced by people inclined to allow the President to undertake the unwise actions he sought to enact...that you have, to date, stopped him. Also coming forward you assume that doing so will trigger some massive public demand for accountability and possible actions taken against the President, including removal. In normal times that would be quite likely, but given the current circumstances where people are inclined to disbelieve their own eyes and ears when doing so may endanger their preferred candidates (both sides), it would seem a tad risky.

There certainly is likely some pre-emptive CYA afoot in all of this, should this go the way of Nixon..."Yes, I wrote the op-ed (or supported the writer as part of this internal resistance) and so you can't hold what happened against me...particularly in my future employment in DC". Remember nobody would touch Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson and Liddy with a 100-ft pole after '74...yet John Dean is a welcome guest on any MSM outlet. I'm wondering if this person may "out" themselves if they think the op-ed didn't quite do the trick.
 
Fiercely independent but you just so happen to follow the Fox News talking points exactly with any topic. Ok. The NYT isn’t going to print a fake article from a limo driver.
You don't know that anymore than I know you may have done it. The Times absolutely hates Trump and will do anything it can to cause him angst and turn this country to the far left. There have been many times over the years that the TImes has had to put the infamous blurb in the middle of the paper apologizing for being wrong. Personally, I hope they find the "author" and prosecute to the fullest intent of the law.
 
Unelected bureaucrats ignoring and sabotaging elected officials is a deeply troubling precedent and should not be celebrated or encouraged, even if the elected official is an abysmal human being.
 
Personally, I hope they find the "author" and prosecute to the fullest intent of the law.
Therein lies the problem. No laws have been broken.
You can claim he (or she) is a coward. You can claim that person is attempting to sabotage the agenda of the elected president. You can claim this person is a despicable human being. All of these are possibly true.

..but I haven't heard anything definitive yet for you to be able to make the claim that this person can be charged with any crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70boiler
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT