NY Times editorial bombshell

[Minoosh]

I thought the question and my answer were very easy to understand. What is it you wish to know?

The thing that kellyb wrote that had the question mark at the end of it. I think you know what question marks are; you just used one.

Or you can keep playing games, your choice.

 

[timhau]

I'm not claiming the article is false. I think it's actually pretty good evidence for the existence of a Deep State conspiracy to obstruct the President.

... and that the Deep State is Republicans putting up with Trump to advance their agenda.

 

[Minoosh]

Trump will never have "Deep State people". That's one of the reasons I voted for him.

I really have to wonder whether you can be quite so naive.

But you put "deep state" in quotes, so who knows what you meant by it.

 

[acbytesla]

I really have to wonder whether you can be quite so naive.

But you put "deep state" in quotes, so who knows what you meant by it.

I really can't believe how gullible people can be swallowing the 'deep state' and 'fake news' BS. They have turned Trump into an unfalsifiable God.

Isn't it more likely that a pathological liar is just lying again?

 

[trustbutverify]

I can't recall now but something was posted on ISF in the last year or so about aides working around Nixon when he was mired in depression, and drinking pretty heavily. Aides who protect the president from himself (and yes, this is enabling, but the specifics matter, IMO) might not be all that rare. Snopes rates as "unproven" if Reagan had any early dementia while in the White House.

I'm not enough of a historian to speculate about anyone else.

Yes, but this seems to be an exceptional case. Highly exceptional.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"Senior administration official" most likely means anyone of the nearly 100 interns who periodically work at the White House over the course of the year.

One of them no doubt felt slighted or snubbed (How come the president got two scoops of ice cream and I only got one?), and penned the anonymous op-ed.

You should contact the White House to point them in the right direction, then. They've come up with a list of 12 people. You could single-handedly save the administration. Here's the White House's phone number for you: 202-456-1414

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm not claiming the article is false. I think it's actually pretty good evidence for the existence of a Deep State conspiracy to obstruct the President. Unless it actually was written by someone in the Cabinet or the West Wing. In that case, it would be good evidence of a different, but no less serious problem.

Since it doesn't exist in isolation, another recent report says almost identical things about Trump-appointee Mattis, and yet another recent report claims "dozens and dozens" of senior officials act in the same way, and that "several" senior White House officials have also said that they consider their job to be saving America from Trump, which of those two options do you consider to be the most likely? Because a large number of sources, all saying exactly the same thing, many of them claiming to be or to be speaking about Trump appointees and/or senior White House officials, makes me think that the second option seems more likely. That, and the actual views expressed in the article which make it very clear that the person in question isn't a liberal.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What makes you think we're ever going to find out who it is?

Do you think the intelligence agencies will hunt them down, or they'll just go public voluntarily, or...?

I personally reckon that once Trump has left the office, by one means or another, it's credible that the op-ed author will go public in order to try to leverage their own political advantage. To drop the mask and go "hey, it's me! You hated Trump, but I was the good guy all along!"

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's clearly fake news, by any reasonable standard.

Lügenpresse!

 

[jimbob]

David Weber War God stuff is quite brainless, but fun

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's being reported that the White House has narrowed the list of suspects down to "a few individuals"

 

[Belz...]

Poll of 3000 people: can't be trusted. It's 3000 anonymous sources.

 

[jeremyp]

You seem to believe the NYT said something about the author that they never actually said. Senior officials can indeed include holdovers, as well as non-political positions. That doesn't require the NYT to have lied.

This isn't a hold over. That should be obvious from the piece we are all talking about.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous...

... There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

If we trust the NYT when they say they know the identity - and I think we should - then it is certain that the writer is a Republican. Either that or they published an article that they knew to contain lies. The latter possibility lacks credibility.

 

[theprestige]

This isn't a hold over. That should be obvious from the piece we are all talking about.



If we trust the NYT when they say they know the identity - and I think we should - then it is certain that the writer is a Republican. Either that or they published an article that they knew to contain lies. The latter possibility lacks credibility.

Walter Duranty.

 

[Mumbles]

It's being reported that the White House has narrowed the list of suspects down to "a few individuals"

As far as this story goes, "Source close to the White House" likely means some friend Toupee Fiasco decided to rant at on the phone.

Also, if other people are doing it, they my be able to figure out who actually wrote it. It's certainly not going to fix his problems, since he's ultimately the source for all this, both by ranting to his "friends", and by being an egotistical stupid backstabber. He can't abide criticism, can't seem to remember what his orders were, and causes disloyalty. An effective president would simply listen to the advise of his staff and cabinet when they state it to him, even if he doesn't necessarily follow their advise.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The significance to me is that those closest to the situation are going against the narrative some are pushing that it could be any one of thousands of people. It's also notable that there was a report that Trump called his closet allies in to his office and questioned their loyalties, which suggests that he, at least, doesn't believe that it's some random intern from the Fisheries Commission.

It's more evidence that Lodestar is someone quite high up, and quite close to Trump.

 

[applecorped]

Load indeed

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Load indeed

You're in a verbose mood. A whole 2 words.

Are you feeling okay?

 

[jimbob]

I'm guessing that Trump does recognise the description given his tweet of

"Treason?"

not

"Lies!"

 

[Mumbles]

The significance to me is that those closest to the situation are going against the narrative some are pushing that it could be any one of thousands of people. It's also notable that there was a report that Trump called his closet allies in to his office and questioned their loyalties, which suggests that he, at least, doesn't believe that it's some random intern from the Fisheries Commission.

It's more evidence that Lodestar is someone quite high up, and quite close to Trump.

Oh, the part that it "could be" many people, based on how they think of him is true. They're just worried about who it actually *is*, or at least who will take the fall for it, which is a different question, based on who was seen talking with which reporter, who was around for which events, what clues were left in the opinion itself, etc.

Anyone dumb enough to forget a document because it was swiped from his desk is also dumb enough to forget as soon as someone gets blamed and thrown out like Jazzy Jeff.