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

[Cain]

Should anonymous make herself known? (I'm using that pronoun to cover all genders and non-genders.)

If anonymous were a cabinet level official like Pompeo or Haley, then, yes, she should have publicly broken with the administration. But if it's some no-name, UK-born Putin nerd, then this seems like THE way to maximize the resistance. A no-name person would not get nearly this much attention for writing the same exact thing. People want intrigue and mystery.

This reveal helps Trump. Christ, is everyone in that administration incompetent? I wouldn't trust them run a cathouse.

 

[theprestige]

Well, that's disappointing. I was hoping it would be someone bigger.

Assistant Regional Manager, at least.

 

[dmaker]

Assistant to the regional manager

 

[dirtywick]

Maybe him, Paul Ryan, and John Bolton can go on a book tour together. Following a long line of noble, courageous men who, when their country called, sat quietly and only spoke out when they could maximize their personal profits.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe him, Paul Ryan, and John Bolton can go on a book tour together. Following a long line of noble, courageous men who, when their country called, sat quietly and only spoke out when they could maximize their personal profits.

Did any of them speak out about anything that would have changed anything if they'd done it while still on the job?

 

[theprestige]

This isn't a science journal with peer reviews, Bob. It's the experiences of a senior WH official as verified by the NYT.

Turns out it's not a senior White House official. Didn't stop the NYT from saying he was, though. Didn't stop people from appealing to the authority of the NYT, though.

 

[Stacyhs]

Turns out it's not a senior White House official. Didn't stop the NYT from saying he was, though. Didn't stop people from appealing to the authority of the NYT, though.

Wow...you really had to go looking for that one from a year ago, didn't you? A post that really has virtually no importance or relevancy in the scheme of things considering what we know about Trump now and are experiencing a year later. I have to wonder why you'd even bother looking through a year old thread when you could have said the exact same thing without bringing me into it. Actually, I don't have to wonder.

 

[alfaniner]

Just had an interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN, who called him out on the obvious questions. However, in following the news as much as I have, his name has not really made a blip in my consciousness. I doubt any of the revelations he has made will make any difference at this point.

 

[theprestige]

Wow...you really had to go looking for that one from a year ago, didn't you? A post that really has virtually no importance or relevancy in the scheme of things considering what we know about Trump now and are experiencing a year later. I have to wonder why you'd even bother looking through a year old thread when you could have said the exact same thing without bringing me into it. Actually, I don't have to wonder.

Do you think the NYT has gotten better at verifying its anonymous sources, and accurately reporting the results of its verification process, in the past year?

I think the amount of faith we put in organs like the New York Times, and whether that faith is justified, has a lot of importance and relevancy in the scheme of things. Last year, this year, next year, any year.

Also, it's not my fault we had to wait a year to find out who the author was. And there's no statute of limitations on the claim it was a senior official. I grant that Walter Duranty was a long time ago, and everyone who enabled him at the NYT is now long gone. But the people telling you Anonymous was a senior official last year are still at the NYT today, still telling you stuff today. Don't lash out at me for bringing it up. It's one of the more significant parts of the story, in my opinion.

 

[timhau]

Hey, I have an idea: let's bicker about the messenger, so we don't have to touch the message or its credibility!

 

[phiwum]

Wow...you really had to go looking for that one from a year ago, didn't you? A post that really has virtually no importance or relevancy in the scheme of things considering what we know about Trump now and are experiencing a year later. I have to wonder why you'd even bother looking through a year old thread when you could have said the exact same thing without bringing me into it. Actually, I don't have to wonder.

I reckon he's primarily aiming his barb at the NYT and he has a point, sort of. Chief of Staff of DHS is one of the top political appointees of DHS. Does that mean he is or is not a "senior White House official"? If not, the NYT should be criticized.

But "senior White House official" has no clearly defined meaning, far as I know, and I'd say there's more than enough plausibility to say that DHS chief of staff is such an official.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you think the NYT has gotten better at verifying its anonymous sources, and accurately reporting the results of its verification process, in the past year?

I think the amount of faith we put in organs like the New York Times, and whether that faith is justified, has a lot of importance and relevancy in the scheme of things. Last year, this year, next year, any year.

Also, it's not my fault we had to wait a year to find out who the author was. And there's no statute of limitations on the claim it was a senior official. I grant that Walter Duranty was a long time ago, and everyone who enabled him at the NYT is now long gone. But the people telling you Anonymous was a senior official last year are still at the NYT today, still telling you stuff today. Don't lash out at me for bringing it up. It's one of the more significant parts of the story, in my opinion.

And it was a senior official.

 

[Bob001]

Do you think the NYT has gotten better at verifying its anonymous sources, and accurately reporting the results of its verification process, in the past year?
.....

The Times always knew who the guy was. His publisher always knew. Thry don't print random ramblings. And some would argue that any chief of staff to a cabinet secretary who meets regularly with the President and VP is by definition a "senior official," no matter what their actual title might be.

Mr. Taylor, 33, ultimately became chief of staff to Kirstjen Nielsen, Mr. Trump’s third homeland security secretary. In that position, Mr. Taylor was one of the most senior political officials in the sprawling department, which employs more than 240,000 people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/politics/anonymous-miles-taylor.html

 

[Firestone]

While we all yawned at the revelation of Anonymous' identity, someone is still tweeting about it, 5 days before election day.

So it turns out that the wise guy promoted as “Anonymous” by the @nytimes, named Miles Taylor (who I never even heard of!), was only a little known “staffer” as opposed to a “Senior Administration Official”. He then scammed @CNN, lied to @andersoncooper, & got a job there....
....He also worked at, of all places, @Google. They all have big liability!!!


And he still claims he "never even heard" of him.

 

[Stacyhs]

I reckon he's primarily aiming his barb at the NYT and he has a point, sort of. Chief of Staff of DHS is one of the top political appointees of DHS. Does that mean he is or is not a "senior White House official"? If not, the NYT should be criticized.

But "senior White House official" has no clearly defined meaning, far as I know, and I'd say there's more than enough plausibility to say that DHS chief of staff is such an official.

No, he could have made his point without finding and quoting a year old post from me. He knows, and I know, exactly why he did it. Enough said about it.

 

[Susheel]

Considering theprestige's responses until now, if it had turned out that the source of revelations was the Veep, it would still be not "high-level enough" because...reasons.

 

[Firestone]

The revelation has given Trump one more irrelevant subject to tweet about and ad lib about during his super spreader events.

He is just so easy to manipulate.

 

[theprestige]

Considering theprestige's responses until now, if it had turned out that the source of revelations was the Veep, it would still be not "high-level enough" because...reasons.

Actually I grant that this guy was in fact a senior official.

But now that you mention it, I'm not sure about the vice president. High ranking member of the government, yes. But senior official in the administration? He's not part of the cabinet. He's not an agency or department head (or even an agency or department head's chief of staff). All of his constitutional duties are senatorial, except for succession.

On the other hand, presidents do sometimes delegate some of their authority to the VP. Trump put Pence in charge of the Covid task force, for example. So I guess he's a senior administration official now. But was he before 2020? Probably doesn't matter.

ETA: I take that back. I just remembered that the VP is actually the head of the Cabinet. So yeah, the VP is always a senior administration official.

 

[Craig4]

Just had an interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN, who called him out on the obvious questions. However, in following the news as much as I have, his name has not really made a blip in my consciousness. I doubt any of the revelations he has made will make any difference at this point.

If anything, it's kind of a let down. I was hoping for someone more prominent, someone who makes the rounds on the Sunday shows or in the briefing room.

 

[Craig4]

Do you think the NYT has gotten better at verifying its anonymous sources, and accurately reporting the results of its verification process, in the past year?

I think the amount of faith we put in organs like the New York Times, and whether that faith is justified, has a lot of importance and relevancy in the scheme of things. Last year, this year, next year, any year.

Also, it's not my fault we had to wait a year to find out who the author was. And there's no statute of limitations on the claim it was a senior official. I grant that Walter Duranty was a long time ago, and everyone who enabled him at the NYT is now long gone. But the people telling you Anonymous was a senior official last year are still at the NYT today, still telling you stuff today. Don't lash out at me for bringing it up. It's one of the more significant parts of the story, in my opinion.

He was the chief of staff of a cabinet department and reported directly to the Secretary. That's a very senior position and wielded a great deal of power and authority behalf of his boss. The NYT did correctly verify he was a senior official.