NY Times editorial bombshell

[ponderingturtle]

This Op-Ed just confirms what Bob Woodward has said in his new book, and really only confirms what the rest of us (at least those of us with any brains) have known for a long time... and that is Trump is a pathological liar, an angry, immature man-child, and is utterly incapable of of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Presidency.

Which is what real americans know we need.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think we even have to trust.

This article may be offered as a window into the Trump administration, but I don't need to trust the claims of the article for it to have that effect. The administration response to the article paints a much more clear picture of the Trump administration than the article did. The claims in the article are beside the point, frankly.

Whether any single claim is true or false doesn't matter to me at all. That a person working at the white house would claim to have authored this article is enough. It speaks volumes about the people Trump has hired. Maybe Omarosa wasn't an anomaly, maybe she was the tip of the iceberg.

The best people.


Also, there is plenty of corroboration of some of the claims if you take the time to look for it.

Who at the White House has claimed to be the author?

 

[kookbreaker]

Oh, you found one bad article? What was it on, celebrity Gossip?

I’m betting he didn’t even read said article, just saw a Facebook meme about it.

Aaaand once again he pulled out the “but...but this is a skeptics forum!!!!” card again. Really tiresome.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whether any single claim is true or false doesn't matter to me at all. That a person working at the white house would claim to have authored this article is enough.

You may consider this a nitpick, but we do not know that the author works in the white house, nor did the NYT claim they did. The NYT merely described them as "a senior official in the Trump administration", which is actually a very broad category. That includes quite a lot of people in agencies who do not work in the white house, and it also includes a lot of people who were not appointed or chosen by Trump. It's worth pointing out that the author never claims to have personally interacted with Trump in any way.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That includes quite a lot of people in agencies who do not work in the white house, and it also includes a lot of people who were not appointed or chosen by Trump. It's worth pointing out that the author never claims to have personally interacted with Trump in any way.

He implies himself to be a Trump appointee by using the word "we" in that context.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Who at the White House has claimed to be the author?

I hadn't properly accounted for the fact that the NYT was duped on this and Ziggurat's point that they may actually office elsewhere but have a lot of access to the white house:

That a person who the NYT believes is working at the white housefor the administration would claim to have authored this article is enough.

ETA: surprised that is the sentence you both were attracted to.

 

[Ziggurat]

He implies himself to be a Trump appointee by using the word "we" in that context.

And maybe he is. But we don't know that, an implication isn't a claim, and the NYT doesn't say he is either.

 

[BStrong]

Which is what real americans know we need.

On that, we can agree.

 

[Ziggurat]

I hadn't properly accounted for the fact that the NYT was duped on this and Ziggurat's point that they may actually office elsewhere but have a lot of access to the white house:

Who said anything about the NYT being duped? I said that the NYT didn't claim that the author worked in the white house. The NYT didn't even claim that the author had a lot of access to the white house. Hell, neither the NYT nor the author actually claim that the author has even been inside the white house. Now, maybe they do work in the white house, maybe they're very close to the president, maybe the ambiguity is just to help protect their anonymity. But we don't know.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Who said anything about the NYT being duped?

I think theprestige has posited that it is possible that the NYT was duped in some way or another.

I said that the NYT didn't claim that the author worked in the white house. The NYT didn't even claim that the author had a lot of access to the white house. Hell, neither the NYT nor the author actually claim that the author has even been inside the white house. Now, maybe they do work in the white house, maybe they're very close to the president, maybe the ambiguity is just to help protect their anonymity. But we don't know.

And I said we don't need to know. The article is not important for the facts it lays out, it is important for how the Trump administration has reacted. Which, by the way, gives credence to the op-ed being true.

It could have been written by an intern for the NYT and it still has had the needed impact. Nonetheless, I think it was likely written by someone in the administration.

 

[Mycroft]

Or the author handed the text to a cut-out, who forwarded it to the New York Times under their own name. The editor would get in direct contact with the cut-out, who would claim to be the real author. The editor would have no way of knowing it was a trick.

Would a senior WH official act as a cutout in this way? No.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anyone checked in to see what FoxNews has to say about it? Or are they covering Uranium 1 this week?

I'm not getting Fox at the moment but RT went on last night about Hillary being behind all the bots and trolls.

 

[Sherkeu]

I noticed the op-ed author has various ways to address Trump. It didn't seem all that odd til it went back and forth a few times. (the writer does the same to Putin).

If I google the last few months, the top 3 results for "Mr. Trump" are all from the Opinion section of the NYT. So I think this anon writer was rewritten, NYT style, and we won't find him/her by looking at writing patterns.

All mentions of 'Trump" in order:

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency
bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership
thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses
President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade
trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t
President Trump shows a preference for autocrats
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because publishing the op Ed is itself an act to undermine. They've just sent the White House into another paroxysm of paranoia, witch hunting, and backstabbing. The serpents are biting each other in a frenzy. Everyone knows the fastest path to rattle Trump's cage good and hard is to announce to the press that he's not in control of things. He's probably tripled his Diet Coke consumption to rehydrate from all the spittle he's lost from screaming in the last two days. Another couple of leaks and he'll need an IV drip!

Expect more rallies that Trump needs to ease his disturbed mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which all leads me to wonder if the letter/op-ed piece could have been written by someone well outside the White House, with the simple intent of turning the knob up to eleven in an already paranoid Oval Office.
I know, that's crazy talk, never mind, forget I said it.

The Times said the source was

a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.

Unless you are buying into the Trump propaganda that these sources are made of whole cloth, the op ed is legit. Now whether it's this guy alone or that there are others depends on the cred of the op ed author.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump's lunatic base already believed that 100%. It's not going to serve to get them to the polls for the midterms, especially since it paints a picture of all those other non-Trump republicans being in agreement that Trump is bad.

I don't see the behavior of his base changing at all, in any way as a result of the letter.

No, they'll just fit it into a pigeon hole in their deep state beliefs.

 

[Mumbles]

Then don't believe it. Take it with a grain of salt. Or take it with the weight of the countless other similar stories such as the books 'Fear', 'Fire and Fury' and 'Unhinged'. Or the countless number of stories and leaks out of the White House.

And his public behavior going back for decades.

 

[acbytesla]

And his public behavior going back for decades.

The man is nuttier than a fruitcake. As well as being the most dishonest human being I have ever ever ever encountered.

 

[Distracted1]

The man is nuttier than a fruitcake. As well as being the most dishonest human being I have ever ever ever encountered.

Blatantly dishonest.

I'd wager the most dishonest person most of us have ever encountered is someone each of us think is a pretty decent guy.

 

[Mike!]

The Times said the source was

Unless you are buying into the Trump propaganda that these sources are made of whole cloth, the op ed is legit. Now whether it's this guy alone or that there are others depends on the cred of the op ed author.

Hadn't seen that quote, so, like I said, forget I said it.