NY Times editorial bombshell

[quadraginta]

<snip>

For those old enough/interested enough to know about Watergate, how many knew who Mark Felt was when he was revealed as "Deep Throat"?

<snip>

My point was that people were guessing he was someone very prominent, and it turns out he wasn't (that I knew of, anyway).

<snip>

The word "prominent" in this usage is a rather indeterminate, perhaps even slippery one. It tends to relate more toward the degree of public familiarity with the person more than anything else. Kanye West is 'more prominent' than VP Pence in many ways.

Mark Felt was the Associate Director of the FBI. The second highest ranking official in the country's top law enforcement organization.

That certainly would fit the definition of "senior official" even if his name wasn't particularly "prominent" to most casual news readers.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I think it's possible to dislike the op-ed author and the things s/he's admitting to doing in the op-ed, and to like the fact that it sets the cat amongst the pigeons while also offering more evidence as to Trump's unfitness for office and thereby potentially hastening his removal from that office. It's possible to see things in terms other than black and white.

Of course. Than again, Trumps unfitness is quite apparent and has been for a while. And this op-ed confirms they'll keep Trump in place for as long as he's useful the the party. Also nothing new.
I don't see how this op-ed would hasten his removal, because it's clear that the only people in a position to remove him are keeping him there to secure their own jobs.
Unless the plan is to goad him into becoming so paranoid he'll make a mistake even his handlers can't prevent so they can safely wash their hands of him.

I don't think that kind of subterfuge is good for the USA, regardless of which party one votes for.

And for those who want to get rid of Trump because of his policies rather than his personal ineptness, president Pence would be even worse.

 

[Firestone]

Felt may not have been a household name in 1974, but when the WSJ published an article about "Deep Throat" 10 days after All the President's Men was published, his name was literally the first thing mentioned in the body of the article.




https://twitter.com/ChetPowell/status/1037740349723168770

 

[timhau]

Murder on the Orient Express. They all did it.

Nah. More like Making Excuses on the Orient Express.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

At least we can be certain Trump will never quote Louis XIV on the matter. Because he's never heard of him.

It's pronounced "Louie Ziv" not many people know that. Great guy, he really likes me, thinks I'm doing a great job.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't see how this op-ed would hasten his removal, because it's clear that the only people in a position to remove him are keeping him there to secure their own jobs.

It's now public knowledge that that's what they're doing. That puts more pressure (only slightly more, but more) on them to stop doing so.

Just yesterday, a senator publicly called for the invocation of the 25th Amendment. That's something that wouldn't have happened three days ago.

Will that lead to the 25h Amendment being invoked? No. But it's one more brick in the wall.

I don't think that kind of subterfuge is good for the USA, regardless of which party one votes for.

Perhaps not in the short term. Maybe in the long term.

And for those who want to get rid of Trump because of his policies rather than his personal ineptness, president Pence would be even worse.

Sure. I think it's possible to want a worse, competent president in place of a better, incompetent one, if the former helps stem the erosion of democracy.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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 reaction within the WH would seem to suggest it was accurate enough for them to believe it came from the inside.

 

[Craig4]

I'm going with either Kudlow or Bill Shine. The letter is from a party ideologue and there aren't all that many of those at the senior levels of the administration.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If we're trying to work out who it is, then it has to be someone who was either there at the beginning, or who is friendly with people who were there at the beginning, because s/he talks about the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment early into Trump's presidency.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's clearly Ivanka. She has fallen under the compelling influence of that master mesmerizer Omarosa. Every night Ivanka creeps around the White House in a cat costume, stealing papers and spraying her territory. But when the Secret Service has the urine DNA tested it comes back as Trump DNA so they assume it's Donald doing it, and take no action, chalking it up as a reaction to Diet Coke overdose.

 

[Belz...]

Not all of us are cheering. I think this is very dangerous.

Not only dangerous, but it sets a terrible precedent. With time, anything you disagree with the president on, you can interfere with.

 

[smartcooky]

It's clearly Ivanka. She has fallen under the compelling influence of that master mesmerizer Omarosa. Every night Ivanka creeps around the White House in a cat costume, stealing papers and spraying her territory. But when the Secret Service has the urine DNA tested it comes back as Trump DNA so they assume it's Donald doing it, and take no action, chalking it up as a reaction to Diet Coke overdose.

/thread

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not only dangerous, but it sets a terrible precedent. With time, anything you disagree with the president on, you can interfere with.

What about when Reagan was losing it? Bush and Co. were running the country, working around Reagan. Should they have not done that? Or gotten him out of office? What would that have been like, during the Cold War?

 

[Belz...]

Of course. Than again, Trumps unfitness is quite apparent and has been for a while. And this op-ed confirms they'll keep Trump in place for as long as he's useful the the party. Also nothing new.

That's what they thought about Hitler, too.

 

[Belz...]

What about when Reagan was losing it? Bush and Co. were running the country, working around Reagan. Should they have not done that? Or gotten him out of office? What would that have been like, during the Cold War?

All excellent questions. But here's the catch: that it's desirable to do that when the president is clearly wrong or crazy doesn't change the fact that it becomes harder and harder with time to distinguish between that situation and one where you simply strongly disagree with the commander-in-chief.

 

[Mycroft]

That's really not true. For example:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-o...t-of-the-resistance-1536182473-htmlstory.html

That person isn't angry with the NYT for publishing the op-ed, they're angry with the writer for not doing the right thing.

And rightly so. They're basically using Trump to advance an ultra-conservative agenda while trying to contain his incompetence. What they should be doing is removing him from the office, either by invoking the 25th amendment or publicizing his incompetence enough that he will be impeached.

 

[Mycroft]

If there's only one anonymous source with no confirmation, then yes, an article is suspect. Most journalists know this. Most readers should too.

Except the confirmation is in three other books written about the Trump White House. They all tell the same story.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Except the confirmation is in three other books written about the Trump White House. They all tell the same story.

It's also not an anonymous source as far as the NYT is concerned. They know who it is but chose to publish as "Anonymous".

You do not require corroboration if you know the only salient fact - that the author is able to be verified by your editors. Because? It's an opinion piece. People are free to hold other opinions but you don't corroborate Op Ed pieces, fer crissake! That's a dodge that the Trump Defenders, Interference Runners and Enablers came up with. You have to feel sorry for them. The best they've got so far is "well, he/she wasn't necessarily said to be "in the White House" by the NYT, so there!" Without a name to smear, they can either continue splitting hairs or simply trash/smear every name associated with the Trump Administration.

It's proof of the deep state. No, wait, it's fake news. Oooh, I know, it's not corroborated so the NYT fails at their journalistic standards. Oh, yeah, well he's a poopy head, that much we can all agree on!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

What in the world is a cut-out?

The NYT said they talked to someone in the Trump admin who confirmed that they were the author.

Did you listen to the podcast where the NYT editor was talking about how he determined it was real?

At the end of the day it really wouldn't make any practical.difference anyway, if a member of the Trump Admin claims it and is willing to endorse what was written who actually put pen to paper is secondary. When a politician gives a speech or press release it is their endorsement of the words that matters, not whether they used a speech writer.

 

[LSSBB]

Awesome Poe!

See, your problem is there is no OTHER evidence to support your claims. So on its own, that was barely funny. Unlike Op-Ed, which is being confirmed by Donny's own reaction. If he had only kept his trap shut and ignored it, it would have fallen with a thud. But then there is Woodward's opus to respond to. Tougher prospect - he has footnotes! &#55357;&#56841;

Just remember, when the message is bad, shoot the messenger, and all is well.