"A warning", upcoming book by anonymous White House official

[BobTheCoward]

Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.

 

[phiwum]

What's the over-under until this person is outed? It wouldn't be illegal like exposing the whistleblower.

Heck, I don't see that it would be troubling morally to out him either. I genuinely think that if he sees the president as so incompetent and dangerous, he would do more good to resign and go public with his concerns. It would also be the honorable thing to do, rather than to publicly support the administration while anonymously trashing it.

I'm not saying it would necessarily be virtuous to out him. The reason would certainly matter, for instance. But I don't know that I'd think he has any sort of right to remain anonymous. (He has a right to not divulge his name, of course, I just mean that he doesn't have a right to demand others keep silent as well.)

I agree that he's likely to be outed at some point, though I don't know how soon. I'd reckon that baseless speculation on the internet will be the first step, assuming that isn't already the case.

Speaking of baseless speculation, I guess I'm reckoning he isn't a household name yet. He's a senior official according to the Times, but I don't think it's an official often discussed.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's totally Pence.

 

[autumn1971]

Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.

Wrong again. The NYT confirmed that the original Anonymous was, in fact, a highly placed republican staff member. Same with this book.

Apparently the Right is so committed to disloyalty and scavenging the bones of their dead that they still truly do not understand keeping a verified source anonymous.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Wrong again. The NYT confirmed that the original Anonymous was, in fact, a highly placed republican staff member. Same with this book.

Apparently the Right is so committed to disloyalty and scavenging the bones of their dead that they still truly do not understand keeping a verified source anonymous.

I reject secret claims. "It's true but I can't provide evidence" is not an acceptable argument.

 

[Lurch]

I reject secret claims. "It's true but I can't provide evidence" is not an acceptable argument.

Sure, Bub. Until we all are omnipresent, or at least have clairvoyance and a crystal ball, none of us can know or trust anything.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sure, Bub. Until we all are omnipresent, or at least have clairvoyance and a crystal ball, none of us can know or trust anything.

We have the process for advancing knowledge. You produce all evidence, both in support and not, for review. Reject secret claims.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Wrong again. The NYT confirmed that the original Anonymous was, in fact, a highly placed republican staff member. Same with this book.

Apparently the Right is so committed to disloyalty and scavenging the bones of their dead that they still truly do not understand keeping a verified source anonymous.

Oh, well, if the NYT says it’s true it must be true.

 

[Trebuchet]

I just want to know where this guy was four years ago, when we needed him.

 

[Bob001]

Oh, well, if the NYT says it’s true it must be true.

Generally, it is. Unlike, say, Fox.

 

[Bob001]

I reject secret claims. "It's true but I can't provide evidence" is not an acceptable argument.

The testimony of an actual witness is evidence in itself. What additional evidence could he provide of unrecorded conversations?

 

[BobTheCoward]

The testimony of an actual witness is evidence in itself. What additional evidence could he provide of unrecorded conversations?

Open evidence that the person was in the room.

 

[Bob001]

Open evidence that the person was in the room.

You understand what "anonymous" means?

 

[BobTheCoward]

You understand what "anonymous" means?

And anonymous assertions are unacceptable.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Thread successfully bobbed .

 

[TragicMonkey]

Thread successfully bobbed .

He himself said anonymous assertions are unacceptable. Since we don't know who Bob actually is we must therefore disregard everything he says.

 

[Craig4]

Oh, well, if the NYT says it’s true it must be true.

They didn't say it was true. They said they confirmed the author's role as a senior member of the Trump Administration.

 

[BobTheCoward]

He himself said anonymous assertions are unacceptable. Since we don't know who Bob actually is we must therefore disregard everything he says.

This is why I rarely make claims of fact.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is why I rarely make claims of fact.

I fear I must disregard whatever it is you just said, anonymous stranger!

 

[BobTheCoward]

I fear I must disregard whatever it is you just said, anonymous stranger!

You should.