Who's the "Anonymous" source in the NY Times Op-Ed piece?

Trump said he didn't even know Ray Shah. He was being racist as always.

We'll know by tomorrow morning when they haul Trump off to prison with the his tiny hands wrapped around the source's neck.

it's probably a typo, but it's JEFF Sessions, OP

Barron, natch.

One name I haven't seen is Don McGhann. Considering he's out before the end of the year he's certainly got means and motivation.

Lawrence O’Donnell just gave a fairly reasoned analysis of why he thinks it’s Dan Coates. As good an argument - or better! - than any others I’ve heard so far

White House staffers this morning when POTUS walks into the Oval Office

It's likely Pence. One word in that op-ed jumps out at you: lodestar. Guess who has used that several times in his written or oral statements over the past few years -- Pence. It's an odd, sanctimonious word that sounds just like that prick.

I hope this country can withstand this mess.

I don’t feel like anybody in the White House, from Trump on down, will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United State of America.

melania or ivanka. or don jr. he hurt his kids and spouses to appear innocent

Now that Putin has his grubby hands in his Oval Office puppet, do actually think he will let that power go just like that? He already knows our country’s launch codes, so yeah, we’re fucked.

r8 - We've already established many times in the original thread that certain words were included in the text or Op-ed as a means to "throw people off the scent." Please read the first thread.

It's going to be awkward in the White House break room today.

I think it is someone from the old school... Coats is likeliest. I think Mattis and Kelly would have some military code of honor that prevents them seeming disloyal... Kellyanne and Fatty are too lunatic devotee.... Maybe it is Sessions... hell hath no fury and all that.

It certainly wasn't me. In this heat and given all mah tender feelings of late, it's all I can do to sit on the front porch and fan. Or go on the TV and suck up.

Pompeo, overseas, just denounced it very strongly and denied it was him. He seemed credible in that it was quite a show for a lie that could be proven in the future.

Read it was someone who reported to Pompeo. Does anyone have a list of who reports to him?

Omarosa

I just saw Jon Avalon on CNN talking 25th amendment.... it is highly unlikely the 25th can be used to get him out. Requires too much resolve by too many Republicans.... like that's gonna happen.

Don't know, don't care. They lost me at "the popular “resistance” of the left". Douchebags. They're accomplices, if anything.

It's Barron.

Uranus

Reply from the office of VP Pence:

The Vice President puts his name on his Op-Eds. The @nytimes should be ashamed and so should the person who wrote the false, illogical, and gutless op-ed. Our office is above such amateur acts.

I think it’s John Kelly.

It's likely John Kelly.

It's not any one person. No one person would dare do this. Mueller, Woodward, the related prosecutions of Trump associates. Trump's widely reported aberrant behavior. Theoretically, the VP and Cabinet can invoke the 25th Amendment at any time. But they need political cover so that the Congress does not reverse the usurpation of power by the VP. That wasn't clearly available a year ago, but the evidence has been building. The momentum has been building. A variety of shit is hitting a multiplicity of fans. It doesn't hurt that Trump and the GOP have already packed the judiciary. Trump is now expendable to the party.

Pence and his minions are stoking the public relations fires. It will give them the pressure needed to look justified in acting to end Trump's presidency and take over, as per the 25th Amendment. If the media frenzy is sufficient, then the members of Congress will have cover to endorse the takeover and deny Trump any petition he makes to be restored to power.

But Pence did not write this. Not his style. He never gets his hands dirty. Dan Coats and Pence are both Hoosiers, both Republicans, and both have long political careers. I'm sure they are as allied as any two can be. Pence has to be on board as to the timing of the invocation of the 25th Amendment, because he is the one who will have to do it. But he desperately wants to be seen ONLY as the saviour, not as the traitor who stole the presidency. It is the only way for any VP to be successful who does this.

It is notable that both Hillary and Donald have problems with that 'vast right-wing conspiracy' that puts Republican power over the rule of law. (McConnell v. Merrick Garland.) We should all think about that. Those mutherfuckers are mean and they play hardball for keeps. It is also notable that his is happening in the run up to the election. We are getting the October surprise in September. Provoke a crisis and a lot of people will vote Republican. They always do. Put Pence in place in October and watch the GOP voters do 'the right thing' and flock to the polls to support the new president. Bastards.

It’s been Kelly who has been holding back Trump fr nuclear warfare.

25th the bastard already

What if a death bed conspiracy between McCain and . . . ? "Promise me you'll do this. For me and the country." It makes sense it would be the CIA or IC-- any smart person knows you don't piss THEM off. As for the tone of it-- the writer would want to write in a "steady" manner to be credible and to make things seem as if they are not flying apart, when they are indeed. COATS.

Ding-ding-ding

r27 is right.

R27 sure isn’t right about this, that Pence will seen as “the traitor who stole the presidency.”

That dishonor belongs to Donald Trump in history’s annals.

Pence is being investigated by Mueller too. He was put into place by Putin.

Betsy DeVos is too illiterate to write coherently. Instead, she is the Secretary of Education.

It shows how much they lack empathy. They use Trump to push their own agendas when the Constitution tells them how to manage the situation. They likely also know what a shitstorm it would create with deplorables who support Trump. What a fucked up reality.

It would be to Pence's great advantage to get this done before Mueller indicts him. The NY Times op-ed already makes it harder for Mueller to get Pence, as Pence has effectively underscored in a very showy way that he can slay the Trump Monster and restore Truth, Justice and the American Way. That's something of the role Mueller has quietly been playing. As regards to Pence, Mueller's job just got a great deal trickier.

No one is going to have any stomach for indicting Pence a month after he boots Trump. Most everyone will want to cling, misguidedly, to the belief that the nightmare is OVER. The GOP leardership, having survived Trump, will not tolerate having one of their own guys fucked with by a prosecutor. If Pence can get this done soon, he will be sitting securely in the Oval Office, at least until the end of the current term. And then, possibly, for two more full terms. No, the GOP establishment will not allow him to be touched by any prosecutor.

“No one is going to have any stomach for indicting Pence a month after he boots Trump.”

Bullshit. But interesting narrative you’ve talked yourself into there.

Breaking news: Photo leak of the "senior official" writing NYT Op-Ed.

The only way Melania could have "written" this is if Michellle Obama had penned such an op-ed before. She didn't, so . . . .

The Deep State is coming from INSIDE the White House!

The Vairst Letty herself.

I could eef I vanted to! Noo Yerk Time heff nice writing chelper letty nemd Miggy Hooperman!

I'm with R8. Lodestar is a tell. it's peculiar enough not to be something someone threw in to throw us off. IMO, it is someone connected to Pence. Pence didn't/doesn't write his own speeches. I also think the person is fairly young, maybe mid 40's, not someone seasoned like Kelly, Mattis or Coats. I mean, wasn't Coats one of the three people at some national security hearing in 2017, who refused to discuss their concerns about National security or criticize Trump, or even divulge what they talked about? They claimed executive privilege and simply refused to answer any questions, even though executive privilege was not even applicable. And Kelly Ann is not going to write an Op-Ed piece for the NYT. She'd much rather keep leaking to the press behind the scenes. This person, IMO, was triggered by the way Trump behaved towards McCain in the months and days leading up to his death. That is what provoked him to publish.

R43 here. My money is on Nick Ayers, 36 yr old Chief of staff to mike Pence. he is a died in the wool, bona fide Republican. he worked with Sonny Perdue in Georgia, Reince Priebus at the RNC, etc.

Coats is a strong candidate. So too is Elaine Chao.

[quote]This person, IMO, was triggered by the way Trump behaved towards McCain in the months and days leading up to his death. That is what provoked him to publish.

I agree with this, and watching (or even attending) McCain's funeral was the final straw.

That is the most disgusting piece I have read in a very long time. The Republicans are complicit.

I'd love it to be Chao - Mitch McConnell would have to defend her publicly.

For a question of power, and because they don't fundamentaly disagreee with "the vision".

Very glad the NY Times published this damning Op-Ed.

I hadn't even considered Chao, R45. So if it was her, then is McConnell on board with invoking the 25th Amendment?

I'l also add that at some point he is going to tell on himself. Betcha other members of Pence's staff have figured it out. It'll leak, and he'll confess to get ahead of it. The point is, though, he didn't say anything we didn't already know. And anyone here who has ever been close to their boss or had rapport or WTF ever, you know that sometimes you protect the person in charge from himself. You hope he'll forget something that's a bad idea, or you'll tell him a half truth to stop an explosion. So to point those things out, no matter how legitimate your concerns, demonstrates a lack of maturity. R45, IMO, this is someone who is not accustomed to being so close to power. It shows in the Op/Ed piece. Don't only analyze the language, analyze what this says about the author, it does not say seasoned veteran who is panicking. it could even be someone who is currently working in the Senate. Maybe telling us they were actually in the WH as part of "the resistance" was to throw us off. And using "the resistance" was really kind of immature. The Resistance is made up of people who would rather eat shit and die then work inside this administration in any capacity.

Has anyone tried running writing analysis software on the piece - like they did to identify the author or Primary Colors?

I agree with the folks who've said the author is not only NOT a hero, but is actually a self-serving coward. Never forget that whatever he thinks he's doing, every day this guy makes sure that he's not fired - his own job is job #1.

You can damn well bet when cheetollini is no longer president THROUGH NOT ACTION OF HIS, this idiot is going to announce his heroic resistance.

He's complicit in everything that cheeto does. No one should forget that.

[quote]It could even be someone who is currently working in the Senate. Maybe telling us they were actually in the WH as part of "the resistance" was to throw us off.

I don't think the NY Times would refer to this individual as "a senior official in the Trump administration" if it weren't true. The NY Times already knows it will be questioned for publishing the op-ed anonymously, so I don't think they'd play fast and loose with his/her role in the federal government.

Coward? Why? For informing us? As Wallace said yesterday she can understand why someone would go to the NYT because there's nobody to go to in this administration who isn't up Trump's ass.

Since our President is acting like a Roman emperor, he should remember that many of them ended up getting assassinated, often by their own men.

What "article' was that lunatic reading from, that was full of LIES????

My vote is still Kevin Hassett.

LOL when they pointed out "lodestar" I thought "loads - taking loads" and then "Pence."

Such a bottom.

[quote]Coward? Why? For informing us? As Wallace said yesterday she can understand why someone would go to the NYT because there's nobody to go to in this administration who isn't up Trump's ass.

He's not a coward for publishing the anonymous OpEd. He's a coward for working as a "senior official" and doing nothing. Sure, he can SAY that he's part of some internal resistance, but "just following orders" has not been considered an excuse for any senior official working for any authoritarian regime.

He spends his days protecting his own job. A "hero" would be a whistleblower who informs the world DESPITE what it might do to himself or his career.

In the end, this guy wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to keep his job, and when this administration is finally gone, he wants to announce to the world he led the "resistance" from inside in order to land another cushy job, feted as a hero.

This isn't heroic, it's an insurance policy.

I'm dreading the distraction the Cheeto will unleash to distract from this.

[quote]In the end, this guy wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to keep his job, and when this administration is finally gone, he wants to announce to the world he led the "resistance" from inside in order to land another cushy job, feted as a hero. This isn't heroic, it's an insurance policy.

The above are my feelings exactly. And I don't buy the "hero's" assertion that invoking the 25th Amendment would trigger a Constitutional crisis. The 25th Amendment was written specifically to resolve crazy situations like this, so invoking it would be adhering to our Constitution, not precipitating a "Constitutional crisis." Obviously this "hero" doesn't have the balls to pursue that track so, yeah, he's a coward.

we will get thru this. This was the darkest part the tunnel and we are just beginning to see the light at the end of it. We have been on this road for a long time and are finally reaching the end of it.

It is going to be a new adventure. New changes, new gov't., things that have never been done before. It is like we are getting the chance to create this country like our forefathers did in the beginning. We are creating a new country from the old and it will be better and will last a much longer time. Those behind us will never have to go thru anything like this again. We had been going thru 242 years of growing pains and have reached the end. WE get to make it better for the generations that will be coming behind us. WE are creating history that will be talked about for hundreds of years.

don't give up because we are close to the end and to new beginnings.

We've prosecuted war criminals for just following orders. Just because Trump says to do it doesn't make it legal.

Can't wait for the movie:

Donald Trump: America's Fake President

Oh please, I'm sure Johnny Mathis had nothing to do with this !!

Excellent point, R55, but I doubt Trump has a grasp on any crucial lessons from history.

[quote] He spends his days protecting his own job. A "hero" would be a whistleblower who informs the world DESPITE what it might do to himself or his career.

The whistle has been blown repeatedly. The Republican Congress will not act. Nothing can be done until Congress is controlled by Democrats or Trump is voted out in 2020.

R59, his strategy is going to backfire.No one wants to hire someone who goes behind their back.....

Maybe it's Kelly Anne

Jared?

Get off your high horse DL.

I don't care who this is. The Oped is the small leak in the dam that eventually busts the dam open. It took guts for whoever did it. I don't care what their politics are! This the best thing to happen in a long time. A good number of Trump supporters are really shook up by this. It takes a Republican on the inside to be the canary in the mine in order for those still standing with Trump to even half listen. And some are listening now. (I'm talking about the wealthy assholes. They don't want a crazy President, who in a furious fit, destroys the economy.) It is the crazy accusations that bother them.

The media is upset and all smug and critical because they just got put to the side and claim "but we already knew this." Well maybe they knew it but the right people aren't listening to them. The clock is ticking. Whoever Oped person is, knows the clock is ticking. Trump is dangerous. Opedgate is the portal to viewing the Emperor With No Clothes.

Also whoever the authors are - don't like Pence. Interesting.

What r67 said. While I agree that the author of the OpEd is clearly complicit and has his own tax-cutting/pro-military/ social-services-cutting agenda, he may still be doing more practical good babysitting Mango Mussolini than if he went public and were fired.

Because with the current GOP bootlickers controlling Congress, there is ZERO chance that the 25th Amendment would be exercised before every last Koch Brothers/ 1%er/ court-stacking agenda point is implemented, no matter what any whistleblower says. That has been demonstrated ad nauseam by their inactivity in the face of the litany of impeachable offenses that we already know about.

This will not change unless the Dems take control of both houses in the midterms.

R71 how has he done good by the families ripped apart by Trump's immigration policies? How has he done good watching our environmental regulations gutted? What good did he do while 3,000 Puerto Rican American citizens lost their lives. And their argument that "it could have been much worse" doesn't hold water. The Republican Congress, and anyone who works for the Republican Congress, or this White House is complicit. They are suborning the corrupt misuse of our Constitution.

I dont think he or she is a coward.

If they quit they fear that this pig will ruin us.

At least he or she actually did ONE thing. The senate are a cabal of cowards.

Pence is obsessed with "lodestar" because he's always thinking of taking loads in his balloon-knot/star.

I too am afraid that Pence, whether or not he is the source of this Op-ed, has been studiously keeping his *hands clean* behind the curtains. I have no doubt he is helping to orchestrate this final downfall of Trumps and his inevitable salvation of the Republican party and his final ascension to the presidency. And just like lemmings the Rethug electorate will nod and say, " Of course, it was the stress, it was early-onset dementia. Why didn't we see it all along. Our great leaders were only trying to protect us. Thank God father Pence is here to save us."

To whoever suggested Ivanka — she can barely type a tweet.

Yep, R76, and that's on a good day.

Pence won’t survive either. He championed Trump’s lunacy. He’ll be like Ford. Trump’s Deplorables won’t be pleased with Pence if he’s behind der Leaders ouster.

Remember R72 this person is a repub and believes in Trump's agenda. I think what they are saying is there are a lot of things Trump attempted to do that would have us at war with another country(ies). I also believe at some point Trump wanted to declare Martial Law. We have a madman in Trump, but we also have the scientist that created him running the asylum.

I have it on the word of my good friend in Europe - every member of the administration wrote a sentence of the op ed. That way, no one of them is guilty.

But they are all guilty!

We took America for granted. And now domestic terrorists are taking over America.

R62, we are on the same page...we shall overcome.

As Bill Clinton once said:

[quote]”There is nothing wrong with America that what’s right with America can’t fix.”

We can do this...we have to. It won’t be easy. But neither were the 60s.

I was wondering when someone was going to reference "Murder on the Orient Express"! That was my first impression - a group exercise.

R81, neither were the 30's and the 40's and the 50's.

Can we get Miss Marple on the case?

I’m not suggesting otherwise r83. Just trying to communicate...succinctly.

Most of us know the specific turmoils of America in the 1960s, from the assassinations to street riots & everything in between.

It was a dark decade, but it disrupted the 1950s status quo. It ended government condoned public segregation. It united humanity, & these dark days will too.

It’s unfortunate that humans must learn through pain.

Vairst Letty

Of all times for Vivan Vance to be left off.

The OpEd author is not only a coward, but acts like an abuse victim. Covering up for the abuser. Justifying the abuse. Smoothing everything over to make day-to-day appearances seem "normal." Rationalizing the rightness of their relationship in the middle of the chaos. The real threat is someone else--fellow citizens who are "hellbent on his downfall."

The author(s) confess Trump is amoral, but he's their guy regardless. She's gonna stand by her man--the petty, rage-a-haulic, dictator worshipping, erratic flip-flopper. The writer(s) are part and parcel of the abuse, are playing willingly, and spinning to justify their participation.

"We have sunk low with him an allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility." Willingly, OpEd author, willingly. You've allowed your abuser to groom you to the point that you're protecting him and now trying to involve "we" in your personal behavior. I'm not part of that, so don't preach to me about taking the high road.

You're protecting, enabling and cleaning up behind Trump because you're still getting some dick out of it. A true patriot, a true American would speak the truth, stop the sham and let the fucking chips fall. YOU ARE A COWARD.

Someone compared the paragraphs of the op-ed to tweets posted to timelines by members of the Cabinet.

I really don't expect the Republicans in the Cabinet and Pence to ever launch a 25th amendment ouster of Trump, but I do believe some of them have considered it. What I am wondering is does this OP-ED make it more or less likely they would launch a 25th amendment removal of the President ?

Everyone's favorite Trump administration official has provided a phone number for the NYT to unravel this mystery

I don’t want a revolution. I want a recreation of what we had in the late 60s-early 70s.

Consumer fraud protection

Laws against monopolies

Regulation of polluters

Higher taxes on the rich

Food stamps in amounts that helped families survive

Full time jobs

Not needing govt help when you worked a full time job

Health benefits, sick time & vacation pay,

40 hour week with overtime for anyone who works longer than that,

Govt programs to train people entering the workforce & retrain people who lost their jobs

A functioning mental health system

A return to the military being 100% run by people in the military, not by contractors

Investigative journalism

Laws preventing greedy people from tanking our banks

Jail time for bankers, predatory lenders, hedge fund crooks, pyramid schemes

No member of Congress may ever work as a lobbyist or as a “consultant” for lobbying firms.

No retired generals working for corporations, working as lobbyists, working as foreign agents. If retired generals can’t get by on their pensions & Social Security, let them supplement by working at Walmart or teaching in a college or at a military academy

[quote] Everyone's favorite Trump administration official has provided a phone number for the NYT

according to Andrea Mitchell she gave the wrong phone number.

Get it, Nance

Get rewards for worse

Nancy needs to go. She can barely speak.

Fuck off, troll at R96.

So many stupid news outlets put Melania as a choice. C'mon!

we need a spoof editorial written in Melania's broken english

R97 Fuck off troll. Chuck and Nancy are why we lose.

Actually, r100, the most losses occurred under Obama's watch.

This sounds plausible [36]. Unless the Dems take the house and Senate in November. If that happens Mueller is fully unleashed and all bets are off re Pence.

This guy is heroic like Adolf Eichmann was heroic.

The Trumplodytes are saying this cannot be a trump appointee but a holdover from Obama’s admin.

This is a job for an American, r84. I'm on it....

[bold]9/5/18

CONFIDENTIAL

From: Dean Baquet

To: Copy Desk

Make it work. Oy, D. B.[/bold]

Deer Amerika,

Fetty impurtinence Vite Haus pipplz here! Prezidnt Trump iz fetty, fetty bad. He iz fetty mean and he schmëllz ent hez leetl klobasa. Ve not let him hurt best conchy in USA!

❤️ and hvala vam,

Mike Pence (Fetty Gay Vice Prezidnt) 😀 💄 💋 👠 👙

R101 Obama wasn’t in Congress. Chuck and Nancy are in charge of Dems in the Legislative Branch. Two geezer losers.

R107, Obama is the defacto head of the Democratic Party. Since the beginning of his presidency there has been a loss of over 1000 seats (house, senate, governorships, state and local). It's been well covered in the media and it started well before Nancy and Chuck were in their positions. If anything, Nancy and Chuck are starting to see Democrats take back seats.

Every person on the OP’s list (except Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein, I believe) has denied it was them this am.

r108, better refresh your memory. Nancy Pelosi has been either Speaker of the House, or the House minority leader since 2007, which if I'm not mistaken, is before 2009, when Obama became president.

Not sure when Chuck Schumer became Senate minority leader.

Speaking of Melania, this is as believable as the Amazon review of Jill Zarin's book by "Susan Saunders."

Yawn, I wonder if the people going after Nancy are just freeper trolls. Freepers seem to hate her for no reason.

r110 here, of course I should have remembered when Schumer became minority leader, since it was only in 2017 after Harry Reid retired.

Duh on me.

R108 de facto? That’s all you got? Obama didn’t run the Congress. If he did, he wouldn’t need Chuck and Nancy. They failed him. As they are failing now.

Correction: Jeff Sessions has also denied it was him.

When I hear Pence and lodestar, I immediately think that's the title of his favorite gay porn movie.

Here's a hint r115, one of them is LYING.

What a way to discredit the author of the anonymous op-ed, ask everyone and when it is found out who it is claim they can't be trusted because they lied when asked if it was them.

Just maybe is was Jared or Ivanka. Their way of getting out of Washington DC. Ivanka realized she will never be president.

Another Duh on you, r113, is that the Democrats losing seats under Obama has been well covered by the media.

You and r114 should learn to use Google.

119 wrong thread sorry

The denial is, "I did not write it." Maybe they didn't put pen to paper - or computer - but they are behind it. And I think it's more than one person.

R120 you’re the only idiot that thinks a losing team should keep its coaching staff.

McGahn

It is not Pence - he does not care about Trump's amorality. As a fundie he would rationalize that because that's what fundies do. They would do anything to make abortion and gay sex illegal.

You mean the coaching team that has been winning back seats, r123? That team?

You're either a Bernie Bro or a repug cause Pelosi scares the shit out if them.

The job of getting seats doesn't fall to the minority leader, it's the responsibility of the DNC, DNCC and local democratic chapters. Pelosi's function is legislative -- to get votes (or not get votes in the case of Trump's stupid legislation) and raise funds, and she's done well with both.

The OpEd was written by an Obama-era holdover, under direction from & in close cooperation with, high-ranking Dem operatives, Mueller team members, insiders at the NYT & probably the FBI and/or the CIA.

So obvious.

There are no Obama holdovers that are in senior positions R126.

R127 is right. Jesus shit! If they find one they haven't purged yet he is toast, ya know?

I seriously doubt there are ANY Obama holdovers in the Trump administration.

I can't believe this obsession with how the writer might be instead of what he or she wrote. I don't get it at all. People are acting like this is some whodunit on TV and we should guess the killer. I swear, we're brainwashed to thing about everything as if it were entertainment.

[quote]I swear, we're brainwashed to thing about everything as if it were entertainment.

Welcome to the Trump Reality Show.

Here's a wiki list of Obama holdovers.

The NYT would not have gone along with Obama holdovers. Good grief. Whoever it is, is credible.

I agree, r133. You know that the NYT will already be taking a lot of criticism for publishing the piece anonymously. No way would they open themselves up to assaults on their integrity and credibility by publishing that op-end from an Obama holdover.

They are not senior officials R132.

Also, those are not all Obama holdovers R132. A lot of them were appointed by previous administrations, before Obama, and Obama didn't feel a need to replace them.

Important question that hasn’t been addressed regarding the Woodward book. He says aides are taking papers off Piggy’s desk before he can sign them. This begs the question what were those papers and who was trying to get dangerous shit signed?

Who in that administration would argue based on “first principles” within any reference to divine authority? Who in that administration would even consider publishing in the NYT, the prized tool of the elite liberal enemy?

Someone from NYC area, where religion is absent from the public square and the NYT has credibility.

^ sorry WITHOUT reference to divine authority

"My name's Bennett and I ain't in it."

Did I say that they were, r1335?

R136, are you having trouble picking out those who were appointed by Obama from the column that lists who appointed them? Regardless of who appointed the person, which is clearly listed, if they served under Obama then they are considered an Obama holdover.

Agree R137.

R137 - I would bet that the person who is putting dangerous shit on Trump's desk is Stephen "Pee Wee" Miller.

I don't think an "Obama holdover" would go on about their commitment to conservative principles.

I'll give you an example R141. And like I said, none of them are senior advisors.

Cruz is claiming it is an Obama holdover and the poster is repeating the nonsense R144

R137: "Do the name Stephen Miller strike a familiar note?"

R147 see R143.

Who in that administration would argue based on “first principles” within any reference to divine authority? Who in that administration would even consider publishing in the NYT, the prized tool of the elite liberal enemy?

Someone from NYC area, where religion is absent from the public square and the NYT has credibility.

This would take me back to George Conway again. From NY, conservative, Catholic - who is very upset with his religion right now. Greatly respects John McCain. AND, married to KellyAnne.

R145, I NEVER SAID THEY WERE SENIOR ADVISORS. What word is tripping you up, Hon?

It doesn't matter who wrote it. What matters is what happens next --which I figure will be a further descent into paranoia, incrimination, and decay.

Stop with the "hon" shit R150. Makes you sound like a fem dressed in a caftan.

[quote]Anyone can accuse the Democrat Party's leaders of coming up short on any subject

You realize you out yourself as a freeper troll by my using “democrat party”.? It’s “Democratic Party”, dearie

Actually it does matter R151.

Oops wrong thread. My comment still stands though.

Beats being a control freak, moron like yourself, Hon @r152.

@JeffreyGoldberg

Re: the anonymous Times op-ed: It was Barzini all along. Tattaglia could never write a piece like that.

You're an idiot R156.

Posters were speculating on if it was an Obama holdover so I posted a list of people who served through the Obama administration so people could judge for themselves if any could be the author, r158. And I never said they were senior officials. I simply said "Here's a list of Obama holdovers".

So WTF is your problem, r158? Seriously? You're a fucking control freak, moron.

Name calling is a sign of low intelligence or intellectual desperation. Thus a go-to troll tactic.

I suspect it was a clever DL poster with connections to the NYT go team!

I love the stupid shit the Repugs spew to their brain dead base. Blame Obama or Hillary and their Trump cultists see red.

An Obama hold over wouldn't get anywhere near Mango Mussolini. It's a senior official and a Republican conservative.

Jared or Ivanka. It’s a way to get out of DC.

Neither one has the balls to do it R164.

Or the brains to do it, r165.

I don't care who wrote it - we need to get crazy time Donny out!

This thread is really not a sequel to the original thread which was about the content of the op ed, why change it OP?

More of Dee Plorable from the NY Times comment section:

[quote]The Op Ed is meaningless, has no credible or meaningful data, makes no credible or meaningful points. It's lots of unsupported summary adjectives and no information. If the Op Ed is nearly the worst that can be said about Trump, then the Op Ed establishes that Trump is a world class, squeaky clean, terrific leader. But, easily I can come up with much, Much, MUCH better criticism of Trump: To borrow an adjective from the Op Ed, "clearly" Trump could stand to lose a few pounds. The Op Ed is for what appears to be the target audience of the NYT -- overly emotional, irrational, irresponsible lovers of adjective-heavy fiction that are dedicated and devoted members of some Manhattan Democrat tribe.

And so is being a fucking control freak, moron, r161. TRUTH!

Denials are coming in:

[quote]I wasted my time reading this because an article about it said it was "Scathing", seems pretty lame to me. The author sometimes disagrees with the president. Wow... shocking.

R137 Ryan Lizza has the book and in it is the document that was swiped from Trump’s desk- it’s a letter to the South Korean president stating the US was withdrawing from the US-Korean trade agreement effective immediately. According to the book the letter didn’t go through the appropriate channels but just appeared on Trump’s desk somehow, no one knows how. (It happened in the chaotic early days of the administration when people were wandering in and out of the Oval Office and leaving random shit on his desk.)

Fuck that Mike Pence for trying to shame people. Fuck him!

I can’t believe the overreaction from The White House. Don’t they have better things to do?

[quote]The OpEd was written by an Obama-era holdover, under direction from & in close cooperation with, high-ranking Dem operatives, Mueller team members, insiders at the NYT & probably the FBI and/or the CIA.

Don't forget that Hillary TOLD them to do it.

This is The Big Push. I don’t know if it will work or not. We’re trying to get him out of office with the claims that he is unfit, thus a soft coup has taken place where unelected advisors are running the country. The aim is to get him out & install Pence, avoiding a failed impeachment/conviction attempts,

If it doesn’t work, then the call will be for Trump’s advisors to be removed, since they are not supposed to be undermining the president. Without his top advisors, Trump will descend further into the bowels of hell (i.e, his mind).

Cory Booker just showed the OpEd author (and the country) how its done. Country first, and no hiding behind anything or anyone.

Dan Coats has issued a denial.

I love r152.

I think the author of the piece was aiming to stress Trump to the point that he loses it entirely.

Lie detectors for the staff.

The DM is blazing Melania's denial at the top of its online page as if anyone with an IQ higher than an ant's thought Melania had written the Op-Ed. However, it was brilliant limited-hangout tactic on the part of the DM to snow gullible Dump supporters into further outrage.

To all of those who got suckered into thinking the Vairst Letty was harmless, if not a bit subversive, well, no.

Ooooh.....

The whole Trump administration fiasco is so funny that it should be the premise for Toy Story 4.

Trump could be the Potato. Or the Pig. Or even the beady-eyed T-rex with the tiny hands. They'd just need to paint any of these a sickly orange color and slap a comically bad wig on it.

Kellyanne, of course, is the Frankensteinish arachnoid thingy with the bald doll head from TS2.

I don't know how they could make people take a lie detector test.

R183, have you watched Death of Stalin (banned by Putin!)? It’s hilarous and probably comes pretty close.

It’s setting the stage for making Kavanaugh’s appointment illegitimate. It’s a long shot, but I hope it works.

R184, it's against the law for private employers to do this. I don't know about the federal government. Lie detectors are rather sketchy scientifically, aren't they?

I wouldn't summit to one for that reason R187.

I love you, R92.

When is the big reveal?

R190, I'm thinking it'll be on the season finale of the Trump Reality Show. But they might do a cliffhanger ending to keep us tuned in for the next season.

I’m gonna need a bigger bag of popcorn perhaps in a few flavors.

Will Ivanka and Jared also have to take a lie detector test? The results could be quite interesting.

On CNN I read the draft letter that Cohn took off of Trumps desk concerning terminating the free trade agreement with South Korea. Someone, obviously not Trump, drafted that letter. Wouldn't the person that drafted the letter wonder why Trump didn't ago ahead with the termination?

Probably not, r193. I believe sociopaths can fool lie detectors quite easily.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I’m reading that Kelly is not among the officials who have issued denials.

Where are you reading that R197?

As Chuck Todd pointed out, Nixon embarked on a similar search for Deep Throat and there were a lot of people issuing public denials. "Not me." Among them was Mark Felt...who was later shown to be Deep Throat.

RawStory reports that Wolf Blitzer notes that Kelly hasn’t issued a denial, r198.

Kelly, Sessions, or Kudlow.

It’s Coats.

Thanks R200.

Why do you say that, R202?

I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that "lodestar" was Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day last week on 8/28. It was tweeted by them on that day. So basically anyone could have had it in their mind. Pence certainly wasn't the author. People should check the White House staffers' Twitter accounts and see who follows Merriam-Webster. That would be a clue.

Anon right now:

Deeply disturbed nut job Jennifer Rubin actually had a good article today analyzing the person who wrote it.

NY Times performed "extensive research" to confirm identity of the op-ed writer.

I hope it is Melania!

From the excerpts I’ve seen, it’s very well written, with some parts downright eloquent...

well r209, r210 has just ruled out Melania.

Bannon, though not in WH anymore. He's fighting with Ivanka now.

Beyond that Kelly & Kudlow.

It was Pence, in the East Wing, with a kitchen knife.

Raj Shah has NOT issued a denial either. He retweeded Sanders' "coward" tweet.

CNN just aired a graphic of the most recent list of denials. I'm trying to find a link to it.

I wish there were more discussion about the content of the piece rather than the identity of the author.

This is very deep throat. It's going to be anyone who doesn't issue a denial because NYT would know if they were lying or not. And it will come out sooner or later. It always does.

Here it is

I wonder if Nike is happy or mad about the timing of this?

No Kelly in list at r217...

R218 Nike had it's 24 hours. That is so yesterday's news. Seriously when they use to say the 24 hours news cycle and we'd all laugh tongue in cheek? Now it absolutely is . Look at all the mass shootings. Forgotten.

I didn't see Kelly's name on that list R219. I saw where pushed back on Woodward's book.

*he pushed

The op ed was written by Hillary's emails.

Read the attached article. The NYT op-ed editor says they conducted a background check to verify the author of the piece was who he was claiming.

What a fucking farce: if Pence or Kelly or Mattis had written the piece, why would NYT have to do a background check. Sounds like this is some low level bureaucrat with a very important sounding title but with little actual authority. I think the NYT got suckered big times with this fiasco.

Prepare for the backlash, bitches.

R199 The difference between Mark Felt and this situation is that the NYT knows who it is. With Deep Throat no one knew but Mark Felt.

I thought Woodward and Bernstein figured it out R225.

So when's the very special edition of Maury where everyone (but Cheeto) takes lie detector tests?

I think it's Jared. Maybe he thinks if Cheeto leaves, he won't be facing charges? Delusional, but he's out to save his own ass.

"...a Roman emperor...he should remember that [their own men often assassinated them].

R55, I'd rather he didn't remember that.

I'm assuming this was done by phone or private email account. Would you R224 just take the word of someone telling you they are x person? I would want to make damn certain I knew who I was talking to.

[quote]Prepare for the backlash, bitches.

It makes zero difference who wrote this piece. The sentiment and the ideas behind it have been corroborated by numerous sources within the WH.

R224, even if I were staring Kelly—or who ever—iN the face, I would verify he was who he said he was. R229 is right, they probably conversed via email first.

if I were the Republican leaders in Congress, I would assume Trump is being ousted before the end of his first term. If that is the case, then the most important question for Republicans is only to ascertain the best time to do dump him. Pence would probably become President, so Republican policies would not be greatly changed.

For example, if it is likely that Pence will also be removed from office, and it remains likely that the Dems will take the House, then it is critical to remove Trump before the new Congress is seated in January. Otherwise, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, could become the next President.

Maybe they want to wait to see how the midterm elections go, and oust Trump during the lame duck session between the election and January, when the new Congress is seated.

If I were them, I’d have a tiger team assembled to map this all out, in secret, and be revised daily to reflect the most recent news and polls, until that day comes when Trump is ousted.

[quote]What a fucking farce: if Pence or Kelly or Mattis had written the piece, why would NYT have to do a background check.

The NYT has indicated that the op-ed was set up with them through an intermediary. So they had to check to see if the person who the intermediary claimed to represent would acknowledge to them that they were the true author.

i say it's kelly. he knows his time is almost up.

Even if he is impeached R232 the democrats, even after this election, would not have the two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict Trump. The 25th Amendment is not an easy way to get him out of office either.

R225/226, Woodstein figured out who Deep Throat was because he was their source!

Dems most definitely have the 2/3 vote when the majority of Republicans drop this farce of backing Trump's presidency. They will turn on him in a heartbeat when the time is ripe.

[quote] This person, IMO, was triggered by the way Trump behaved towards McCain in the months and days leading up to his death. That is what provoked him to publish.

Don’t forget how petty and childish it was for Trump to prematurely raise the WH flag from half-staff, to full-staff, in the days after McCain died.

Not if their constituents still back Trump R237.

R237 I agree. The dam is beginning to break.

Woodward was meeting with Felt in an underground parking garage in Arlington, VA. So, of course, he knew who Deep Throat was. I don't know if he ever told Carl Bernstein or not.

Now that they have the corporate tax cuts, 2 supremes and a bevy of federal lifetime judgeships, Republicans consider fearless leader expendable...

R226 Mark Felt outed himself as Deep Throat some years back, shortly before he died (he was in his nineties.) He got in touch with Bob Woodward and arranged it through him. Woodward and Bernstein kept it a secret all those years at his request.

Gen Kelly has not submitted a statement. And neither has Kelly Anne. I assume Gen Kelly is with Trump in Billings, Montana.

Kavanaugh's stance on abortion could sway Collins and Murkowski to not vote for him R242.

R244 Kellyanne has denied it was her.

Especially since he lied to them, r245.

Here’s the 2006 Vanity Fair article where Mark Felt admits to being Deep Throat. He died 2 years later, at 93.

Melania did it.

And that bitch called the author a coward. She should have called the author a cheap, slutty SerboSlavokianCzech Whore.

Seems like he has lied about a lot of things R247.

[quote]What a fucking farce: if Pence or Kelly or Mattis had written the piece, why would NYT have to do a background check. Sounds like this is some low level bureaucrat with a very important sounding title but with little actual authority. I think the NYT got suckered big times with this fiasco.

NYT said it was a senior administration official. That is very stretchy. It could be someone from DoD or State for example, not even from the WH.

R234, I say it's a group effort, like the collective murder in SPOILER "Murder on the Orient Express."

I have no problem with this being published anonymously.

The journalistic custom is to acquire at least two independent sources before publishing. And anonymous sources are protected by the First Amendment. This isn’t anything new.

How many of you need your job? I mean, really need it. Is it really that strange that this source also needs to keep his job?

Plus, we want Trump to be surrounded with people who will vote for his removal via Amendment 25. Otherwise, Trump would just stack his cabinet with syncopates who would not vote to oust Trump.

Finally, how would a resignation by the OpEd author result in anything of consequence? Why should he be expected to lose his job and the influence it provides, if nothing will change as a result?

One person wrote the op-ed and many people in the Trump administration feel the same way he/she does. How would you even go about figuring out who would be on your side? We know for a fact one of them would have to have access to the Oval Office since they took a draft about terminating the free trade deal with South Korea. The all seem to be backstabbers so I don't think you could put feelers out to see which way they go.

Loved Bob Corker’s response....

[quote]I don't know how they could make people take a lie detector test.

It wouldn't matter if they did, since lie detectors do not work and are easily beaten. There are all sorts links online telling you how to beat a lie detector test, even if it's administered by an expert.

What puzzles me is what the author really intended for this op-ed? If you take it at face value, it seems like it was intended to do two things. The first is to reassure everyone that there was an internal "resistance" in the executive branch keeping Trump in check and blocking him from acting on his worst impulses. "Don't worry; we got this." The second is to paint themselves as something of a hero for their selfless actions in reining in Trump and keeping things from spiraling out of control.

The problem is that I don't think anyone, Democrat or Republican, right, left, or center, buys into either of those. We aren't reassured by that op-ed. If anything, it's making everyone more nervous. And I really don't think that anyone buys into any sort of nonsense about how heroic that author is. The author is getting attacked on all sides.

If those were the intentions and they didn't happen, what actually was the result? The Trump administration gets even more paranoid than it was before. Between Omarosa's recordings, the details in Woodward's book, and this op-ed, everyone in the executive branch is looking over their shoulders, looking for leakers, doing self-serving leaks of their own, stabbing each other in the back, etc. And Trump is now even less likely to trust anyone, less likely to allow himself to be reined in, more likely to ramp up the chaos, fire everyone, and hire only boot-licking sycophants.

As for the electorate, those of us on the left already knew this about Trump and this didn't surprise any of us at all. And those on the right are already decrying it as "fake news" or using it to fuel their own conspiracy theories. "See, we told you there was a 'deep state' conspiracy to overthrow Trump! QAnon was right!"

So what did the op-ed author think was going to happen and what did they intend to happen? I've actually seen one conspiracy theory floated that this was a deliberate "false flag" campaign designed to enrage Republican voters and get the more energized to vote this fall. I think the likelihood of this is pretty damn small but, honestly, I can't rule it out. And I fucking hate that I cannot rule it out, given the way that this administration and the Republican Party operate.

So was the author just a garden-variety, self-deluding idiot? Or something more sinister? And what will be the eventual result of this?

Any chance this might be an Omarosa Big Brother plot? Maybe she recruited another low-level nobody still on staff for a bit of ghostwriting.

Since everyone in this shitshow is a sociopath, there is endless material. It's not hard to dispute the author's claims because everyone knows Trump is deranged. And even more delicious:

1) no one needs to publicly confess;

2) everyone has a motive;

3) everyone also has the alibi of denial/anonymity; and

4) everyone will enjoy watching him implode (even his sociopathic spawn).

Triple fuck the trump voters who either didn't care that he'd be a shit show or were too stupid to know it would happen.

Gotta be Pence. He has no loyalty to Trump. And he knows Donald is a buffoon and ruining the chances for a Repub candidate in the future.

Probably not a name we'd know. I "know" a couple of people from the place I work (a global concern) that went to work for the administration in one of the cabinet departments. I don't know them socially but enough for polite greetings and small chat. Both are in fairly high up positions, and I just don't think either of them was a Republican, and definitely not a Trumpian. Now maybe they were myopic enough to jump at the chance to serve in a presidential administration, pretending that Trump's was as much of an honor and crowning career glory as a real president's. But there's an off chance one may have done it for religious/ethical reasons, to see what he could do from the inside. That would also make sense from what I've seen of him and know of him.

There has been people that worked in the Trump administration R261 that complained about finding jobs. I just don't think working for this administration would be a notch on ones belt.

"...religious/ethical reasons..."

Hahahahahagahshahahhahahahahahahahahagah. Ha.

Very subdued rally in Montana. Trump looks tired and weary. Trump attacking Tester.

Tom Steyer of needtoimpeach.com just makes my day each time one of his commercials airs (just saw him on MSNBC during TRMS)! He seems patient and extremely persistent, but so serious. I am sure that Tom makes tRump's blood boil because he does not have the wealth that Tom has.

Remember that anon quoted someone else in the west wing. If it was a direct quote and the speaker remembers to whom s/he was speaking, then at least two people in the WH know the identity of the author. It will come out.

[quote] I don't know how they could make people take a lie detector test.

Waterboard them! Torture works!

[quote] I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that "lodestar" was Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day last week on 8/28. It was tweeted by them on that day. So basically anyone could have had it in their...

Also, once one person uses, or overuses, a certain word, others pick up in it. Remember when Pres. Bill Clinton used the word “disabuse”, just the one time? After that, I kept hearing numerous newsreaders and others using the word over the next many years. Not so much these days.

Let them be distracted and not realize who is really is the anonymous deep throater of today.

[quote]he is a died in the wool, bona fide Republican

Oh Dear! poor lamb, RIP, sad

Yup, lodestar was indeed M-W's word of the day on August 28th.

It's probably Ayers or someone like that. I think we'll be disappointed when we find out the identity. Here's the thing. I lost all respect for the NYT during the 2016 election . Most of the time they were all up Trump's ass, tongues hanging out. Now they're publishing this like 24 hours after Woodward's book comes out. So instead of talking about Bob Woodward and the most recent scoops from the Washington Post, and you know the Post has dominated to news coverage of this Russia mess etc for the past two years.

The point is, by the NYT publishing an anonymously sourced op ed piece regurgitating crap we already knew, the Times has rolled the dice on a very risky play with this, and knocked the Post & Woodward off the front page. Even better, the NYT has dominated the news ever since they broke with the Op Ed. All anyone can talk about is who it could be. IMO this is bullshit. I don't deny the content of the op ed piece. I just am very suspicious about how it all came about.

The Department of Homeland Security has made a rule change allowing them to keep children and their parents in detention centers indefinitely. Indefinitely. Brett Kavanaugh is going through some brutal hearings, and has probably lied under oath and the proof is building that his mission, his agenda is to expand Presidential powers and to overturn Roe V. Wade. There's also other important news out here.

Something about the NYT ploy stinks IMO. I think we need to take a second look at the way this is playing out. What I'm suggesting is the Times has no ethics.

[quote]I think we'll be disappointed when we find out the identity.

Then God help the New York Times, because its reputation will take a major hit. This thing is a shit storm in many respects. If they fudged anything....

Maybe a dumb question here, but If no one but the NYT knows the writer's identity, how do we know the Times itself hasn't made the whole thing up?

E.J. Dionne is saying more than 50% of the news coming out of the Trump administration is abut Trump. It's not abut what this administration is ding. That is important to reflect upon.

Yes, R273, I suspect the NYT's reputation has already taken a hit and is trying to resurrect itself with this ploy. It is shitty journalism and something the Washington Post wouldn't do. The Time's news judgement is really flawed. I don't know who makes the editorial decisions or what their master plan is for the paper but they have been fucking up most of the time for the past two or three years at least.

Rod Rosenstein

[quote]I think we'll be disappointed when we find out the identity.

Probably. I doubt the author is in the top tier. It's probably someone in the 2nd or 3rd tier.

R274, the reputation of the newspaper. The New York Times hasn't gotten everything right but they're not the National Enquirer.

R274, why would they do that? It makes no sense.

I think he NYT sucks is so many ways but I don't think they made this up. If that came out it would destroy the paper. It would be shuttered almost immediately.

Which circles back to whoever this is, is better be a true indisuputable "I see that," said Helen Keller senior administration official. The Times has staked a lot on this.

There are NO SECRETS in this digital day and age. It will be revealed....FOR SURE!

Trump is at the rally insisting that it isn't Melania, Pence or Sessions.

R274, you might want to try using your own judgment now and then. If the NYT made that story up, they'd be toast. Do you really think they'd risk going that route, knowing that the truth would eventually come out? Risks vs. rewards, think about it.

Yes, newspapers compete to be accurate, and be first. That can be a bit of a trade off at times.

In a rush to be the first to get the story out there can be inaccuracies R283. In this case, we have no reason not to believe the NYT, looks like they did a thorough job of vetting the person to make sure they were who they said they were.

Trump sounds drunk at that rally.

It really is disturbing that he says the author of the OP/ED piece is a threat to national security and democracy itself.

I only pretend to be “special needs”.

R257 asks a good question. The writer submitted this during the McCain memorials and before the Woodward book story broke.

During those several days, statesmen, past presidents and even the deceased’s family bemoaned Trump and the state of America. Our “greatness” and norms are being dragged into the gutter. They expressed sadness, resolve, anger, and faint hope. The country’s not being led, its being jerked around.

Most Americans have little experience dealing with someone’s mental incapacity. The writer was moved to say all is not lost. Traditional (conservative) values ultimately will be upheld. That there is a group within the WH that has recognized the sickness and is moving to address it. The references to the 26th amendment and Trump’s passing from the scene suggests many others are aware (Woodward’s book confirms) and that the President’s stay may not be as long as he imagines.

I read The Guardian. The best.

ANOMANOUSH

He can't pronounce anonymous.

p.s. He’s defending his sanity at the rally.

R287

Where is the rally thread?

I want to point and laugh

[quote]ANOMANOUSH

KOVEFEFE!

Trump is such a louse and unless the person comes forward, I will be long dead when the truth comes out. Most people who have even half a brain...knew all of this stuff for almost 2 years.

Yup, it's been self-evident that Trump is a laughable cretin and grifter since the '80s when the Village Voice and Spy magazine regularly made fun of him.

How do you think Burt Reynolds feels, R294.

Yoo Hoo! Mister OP! You forgot me!

Yes, Me! Senatrice of the South!

Daniel Dale is the go-to guy for Trump rallies, if you want to hear the insanity fact-checked. Apparently, Trump is trying out a new line:

[quote]Trump with a curious new line about Democrats: "They're going to hurt your Social Security so badly. And they're killing you on Medicare. I'm going to protect your Social Security." "...they're going to end up taking it away from you."

That ranks up there as one of the dumbest lies that Trump has ever perpetrated. Other than that, apparently the Wyoming rally is fairly low-energy and is just Trump's usual litany of bullshit claims.

R294, as someone observed earlier today, it's not what the source is saying, it's that they are saying it now. This is the sound of the Republican party trying to triangulate away from Trump.

How long before his rallies are attended mainly by people pointing at him and laughing? Shit, that's just a wet dream.

This op-ed is not going to change his core supporters. I think this might be the first of many to try to sway the repubs in both houses to do something. I'm not saying we're going to get a bunch of anonymous op-ed's. More like more leaks to his mental instability.

The op-ed is also sketches out what will be the Republicans' defense of their actions during the Trump administration: "It only looked as though we were enabling him and helping him destroy democracy. Actually, we were incredibly heroic and brave and saved the country by blunting his absolutely worst impulses." This will be their version of "I was only following orders."

The gy who wrote this was compelled to write it because of the way Trump treated Mccain. McCain is all over this piece. The guy probably was disgusted with the nasty behavior of Trump in the weeks and months leading u to Mccain's death.

[quote]The New York Times hasn't gotten everything right but they're not the National Enquirer.

give us some time, please

Beware. R286 link is an automatic download on Mac.

"Who's the "Anonymous" source in the NY Times Op-Ed piece?"

DJK, himself: This is yet another distraction from the Mueller investigation and the inevitable clink-clink in his future.

According to the President, the correct pronunciation is "Anomus"

Trump also guessed that the author is a “she” rather than a “he” and suggested that Times reporters investigate the author of the op-ed.

Hmmm....

He guessed it was a she but then went on to call her "he."

Trump is, per usual, confused and unable to maintain a consistent point of view even within the span of a single sentence.

The two people I have in mind can always go back and work for the entity they left. And one is pushing sixty anyway, and at this point I'm sure is capable of retiring. Believe me, both are well connected and wouldn't be pariahs after leaving the administration. Neither is a cabinet head, or high profile in terms of TV, so we're not talking that type of pariah.

Why won't you name them R310?

wait, so how many are there? one or two?

[quote] I can't believe this obsession with how the writer might be instead of what he or she wrote. I don't get it at all. People are acting like this is some whodunit on TV and we should guess the killer. I swear, we're brainwashed to thing about everything as if it were entertainment.

I don't think that's necessarily a new thing, though. I suspect people feverishly speculated about Deep Throat's identity in the 70s.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Koch brothers paid an official to write this. I'm still betting on Kelley as the writer.

Raj Shah is from the NY area, isn’t he? If it’s a name anyone has ever heard before, he seems like a good bet. Clearly no affection between him & the braying orange ass, per WaPo report on phone call w Woodward re book.

[quote]I think we'll be disappointed when we find out the identity.

Not me. I don't give a damn. It's time for the press to stop asking officials whether they wrote the op-ed and start asking them if they believe it's accurate.

If it had been signed, it would be all about the person who wrote it and not the content, or the content would be filtered through what is known about the person. I have no problem with it being anonymous, anominous, amommymus......cofeve!...

What r316 said.

Who wrote the piece is ultimately irrelevant, what matters is that someone in the WH and/ or in Congress grows some balls (or a conscience) and ACTS on this.

I love you R62!

[bold]Book, op-ed show how some Trump aides work to curb his instincts: ‘A never-ending cycle’[/bold]

This week’s revelations of a purported “resistance” force of senior government officials acting as guardrails against President Trump — manipulating him, infantilizing him and ignoring his directives — raised the specter of a shadow administration.

“Who’s in charge at the White House?” a reporter shouted at Trump on Thursday as he departed for a rally in Montana.

The president did not answer.

An anonymous op-ed in the New York Times, from someone identified only as a senior official, and a new Bob Woodward book, “Fear,” detail efforts at the highest levels of the government to contain Trump’s impulses and, in the most extreme cases, defy and even undermine his orders.

The successive disclosures crystallized what has long been evident throughout the Trump presidency — a cadre of administration officials alarmed by the whims and wishes of a chief executive they view as mercurial and impetuous working to curb his instincts on a range of issues, including national security, trade and immigration.

Beginning just after dawn Thursday, more than two dozen top officials and Cabinet members raced to issue forceful statements denying they were the anonymous author of the Times op-ed. They read as public declarations of loyalty to an audience of one — the media-obsessed president, who was gratified to see the statements as aides kept him abreast.

Trump especially liked the statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to a senior administration official, who like many other current and former officials interviewed for this report spoke on the condition of anonymity to share candid accounts. While traveling in India, Pompeo criticized the “liberal newspaper” and described the anonymous editorial as “a disgruntled, deceptive, bad actor’s word.”

The administration’s fierce pushback centered on the official’s insistence on anonymity and the Times’ decision to publish the column without the author’s name, but Trump’s aides challenged little of the column’s substance.

Senior officials have long acted to slow-walk or stymie some of the president’s ideas and directives. When he was White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus had a favored strategy, according to his colleagues — tell the president that he would execute an order, or a firing — but not until “next week.” By then, Trump often would have forgotten.

Before some lawmakers, such as Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) or Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), went golfing with Trump, White House legislative aides would prep them on helpful messages they were trying to share or “disasters they were trying to divert,” according to a former senior administration official. A current senior administration official defended the practice as “standard staff work in any White House.”

In his new book, Woodward chronicles multiple episodes in which aides deployed subterfuge against their boss. In one of those instances, Trump had a letter drafted to withdraw the United States from its trade agreement with South Korea. Gary Cohn, then Trump’s chief economic adviser, took it from the president’s Resolute Desk so the he could not sign it.

Trump also wanted to completely cut military aid to Pakistan because he felt it was not doing enough to fight terrorism and extremism, and in August 2017 the administration said it would defer more than $250 million in aid.

For months, U.S. diplomats and military officials managed to delay further action, all the while working to reassure nuclear-armed Pakistan, which for years had been a top recipient of foreign aid. But the strategy only dragged out the inevitable, one former official conceded.

(continued below)

Trump blindsided his staff on New Year’s Day when he angrily accused Pakistan of “lies & deceit” in a tweet and called for an end to U.S. aid. The message prompted a mad scramble, even as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson continued to warn that cutting off aid could be destabilizing, according to former officials and congressional aides.

The State Department announced three days later it was suspending at least $900 million, or nearly all, of the remaining military aid, but managed to preserve hundreds of millions of dollars in economic assistance and military financing.

In the summer of 2017, Trump suggested to then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster that the United States invade Venezuela to remove its autocratic president, Nicolás Maduro. McMaster did his best to dissuade Trump — and thought he had succeeded — until Trump raised the possibility publicly at a media appearance and in a meeting with Latin American leaders at the U.N. General Assembly.

“My people tell me this is not a good idea, but . . .” Trump said in the private meeting before raising the possibility of an invasion or regime change in Venezuela, according to officials.

Said one senior White House official on why Trump kept bringing it up: “Even when the staff says no, I think he holds out hope that he’ll find someone who thinks it’s a good idea.”

Trump’s imagined invasion never occurred.

Aides also routinely slow-walked his trade ideas. The president would demand executive orders from Cohn or former staff secretary Rob Porter imposing tariffs or otherwise punishing China. But officials said the duo often ignored him in an effort to avert what they believed was bad policy, in hopes that if they paused the process the president would move on to another topic.

“He would be like, ‘Do this, do that, slap a tariff on this country or that country, let’s blow everything up, let’s go to war,’ ” a former White House official said. “Then we would come back the next week and Trump would say, ‘What happened with X?’ And he would get mad that no one had done it. And it was a never-ending cycle.”

Ultimately, though, the administration implemented some of the tariffs — a precipitating factor in Cohn’s departure earlier this year.

Trump has proved persistent in other areas as well. He blasted Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in May during a Cabinet meeting over a surge in illegal border crossings — a meltdown that went on for a half-hour — and demanded she “close” the border, according to a person with knowledge of what transpired.

Nielsen’s department proceeded to implement a harsh crackdown at the border that included separating parents from their children. But amid public outcry, Trump reversed course, frustrating Department of Homeland Security officials who had defended a policy that many of their friends and family members considered monstrous.

Trump’s advisers say he is impatient with bureaucracy and wants to see action or results immediately, which sometimes puts him in conflict with his staff or the processes they manage.

Graham said such staff efforts to manage Trump are routine in politics.

“There are people in my office who bring me back from the brink every day,” Graham said. He added: “Trump can be a handful, right? But, bottom line, the people around him are making him a successful president. . . . Trump sausage-making is difficult to watch, but in my view it makes results that benefit the country.”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), another Trump confidant, agreed: “Listen, that happens every day on Capitol Hill. Even some within my own staff think that one idea I have is great and another one is not so great.”

(continued)

Trump’s mood this week has varied from volcanic anger to disappointment, and he has been “hellbent,” in the characterization of a senior official, to root out the anonymous author of the Times op-ed and hold him or her accountable for betraying the president.

In Oval Office huddles Thursday, White House chief of staff John F. Kelly, national security adviser John Bolton, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and senior adviser Jared Kushner, among other aides, tried to convince the president that he could trust them and others in his inner circle. They argued that the author was probably a lower-level employee, according to the senior official.

The twin bombshells also underscored a vexing reality for Trump — that some in his employ do treat him as an adolescent in need of chaperoning inside a White House that Corker memorably once described as “adult day care.”

But the conspiratorial and at times paranoid Trump felt a slice of vindication reading the Times column, seeing it as justifying his belief that the “deep state” and other enemies within are seeking to undercut him, according to two former White House officials briefed on the president’s private conversations.

“The functional effect of it all is for him to become more insulated, viewing the presidency more and more as a one-man band,” said one of those officials. This person characterized the president’s view as: “These people are here. Sometimes I need them to do stuff. But the presidency is not an institution. The presidency is me.”

Some of Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill argued that the tactic of sounding an alarm anonymously would backfire politically.

“Up here, anonymity is very common among the cultured, cosmopolitan, D.C. insider crowd who live in the condos with the high ceilings and the important art on the walls,” said Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.). “To the average American, their attitude is, ‘If you’re going to make an allegation like that, have the oranges to put it on the record.’ ”

The Times column describes a “two-track presidency” in which Trump makes public pronouncements while his administration, in open view, works at cross-purposes. “It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room,” the author writes. “We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.”

The Justice Department historically has had a measure of independence from the White House, and while Attorney General Jeff Sessions has dutifully implemented some of the most controversial parts of Trump’s agenda, he and those working for him have at times resisted direction from the president.

Trump has tweeted mercilessly about the department turning over documents to Congress on the Russia investigation and the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. While the department has turned over hundreds of thousands of pages of material, officials apparently have not produced all of what Trump’s conservative allies are seeking, prompting the president to continue to vent on Twitter.

Trump recently tweeted his displeasure with Sessions for allowing the department to bring charges against two of his Republican House allies ahead of the midterm elections. So far, at least, that frustration has not changed the way Justice Department prosecutors have handled the cases.

Thursday offered fresh evidence of the divergent courses set by the president and the Justice Department. In the morning, Trump tweeted praise for North Korea’s leader: “Kim Jong Un of North Korea proclaims ‘unwavering faith in President Trump.’ Thank you to Chairman Kim. We will get it done together!”

Hours later, the Justice Department announced criminal charges against Park Jin Hyok for allegedly being part of a North Korean government hacking team that crippled Sony’s computer systems, stole $81 million from a Bangladesh bank and unleashed far-reaching malware.

/end

R13, NOTHING was established in the first thread. Stop playing hall monitor, please.

R274: Your words not mine but, yes, it is dumb to suggest NYT authored a fictious essay. The 2003 Jason Blair scandal nearly destroyed the Gray Lady, and in the aftermath of that scandal The Times no doubt uses every means to ascertain the source and accuracy of every published piece. The phone call, i.e. this anonymous article, was not made from within the Times Building, and to believe otherwise is absurd.

Omarosa says she thinks anonymous NY Times op-ed came from Pence's office

Well, if Omarosa says it...

Haha! Jared's though bubble: "Will somebody open the FUCKING door?!"

Like R316 said, at this point it doesn't matter who wrote this. What matters is who believes this op-ed. If you believe it, what are you going to do about it? Senator Corker flippantly blew it off saying "who wouldn't write it." Trump's an idiot, but I am very concerned about the author of some of these executive orders he is signing or, per the op-ed, we are lucky some of these executive orders or letters to foreign powers never saw daylight.

Jared is the male equivalent of Omarosa.

Does someone in the upper echelon really have time to know what the word of the day is? Sounds like the op-ed is someone lower than that. Maybe Miss Barkley in the dictation room.

And.....

Someone will pull that investigation request off his desk before he can sign it, R331.

Please, please, please let it be Melania.

Donald Trump

Uh oh. What if that op-ed was written by Lindsey Graham!

Calling for the DOJ to probe the NYT over an anonymous op-ed, because "national security". Is anyone keeping a list of these crazy pronouncements?

You know there HAS been a vast right wing conspiracy for years and it started with the Clintons, Ken Starr, etc. It's call FOX News and the revolving door between the GOP and FOX.

He is not in the Trump administration R335.

Bob Woodward always knew who Mark Felt was. He used to sit & talk to him in an outer office in the WH while waiting to give their intelligence briefings, Felt from the FBI & Woodward from the Navy. And Woodward referred to My Friend rather than Deep Throat.

[bold] M [/bold] y

[bold] F [/bold] riend

[bold] M [/bold] ark

[bold] F [/bold] elt

Would Sessions write it to blow Trump’s mind? Trump’s been dogging Sessions, maybe sessions wants to dog back

Justice Department spokesman said it wasn't Sessions R340.

Yeah, but Jeff Sessions is such a great actor. Now, where have I seen him before? Oh, yeah, I remember...

That's uncanny R342.

Sessions doesn't work out of the WH. And because of the bad blood between he and Trump, Sessions doesn't frequent the WH. When he is there the press covers it. This would have to be someone whose presence in the WH is normal and being in the Oval Office around Trump's desk would rraise suspicion.

He was also great in this role, R342:

You mean his current role, r345?

So Granny cashed in her Texas Tea proceeds and hauled off to the East Coast? Well now it all makes sense. Daisy May Moses done always have a huge crush on that mean ol' Mr. Drysdale!

R339, the nickname "My Friend" was one of the things that tipped Nora Ephron off as to Deep Throat's identity. She was married to Bernstein and it drove her crazy that he refused to tell her who it was.

Jared looks about seventeen in R327's video. It's unsettling.

[quote]Trump with a curious new line about Democrats: "They're going to hurt your Social Security so badly. And they're killing you on Medicare. I'm going to protect your Social Security." "...they're going to end up taking it away from you."

The Dems should actually learn from Trump's tactics. I don't mean to start spewing idiotic lies.

I mean they should take on board the scare tactic and really go out to scare the voters that GOP will take away their SS and Medicare. The GOP has shown that the scare tactics work - in their case because they lie and lie and lie and are never ashamed of lying. Their voters are conditioned to be scared and lied to about "your enemies, the libruls, are gonna eat your babies".

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I believe Slate is speculating Huntsman. That’s a good guess. Nikki Haley’s op ed in wapo today was interesting.

Huntsman has said it is not him. I don't understand how he can work in the Trump administration. Maybe it is the long distance that helps.

Huntsman is an ambassador and doesn't spend much time in the WH. He scope is also limited to Russia and wouldn't be involved in economic policy etc.

Y'all realize that a denial to the press is meaningless, right? The entire point of anon's piece is that he believes he's acting in the interest of the country and will not jeopardize that role by outing himself. I believe the author has already disavowed the op-ed publicly.

r355, do y'all realize that once you use that ridiculous word we stop listening?

Has Kelly denied yet?

FUCK OFF, R356.

The Slate article saying it's Jon Huntsman is quite convincing. It's based a lot on Huntsman's writing style.

And Huntsman issued a non-denial denial.

R272, a LOT about the NY Times is shifty. Not only were they up Trump's ass and CONSTANTLY on the "shadows" (i.e., OPTICS) patrol with Hillary, they rushed that "No link between Russia and Trump" story into the on line edition hours after it broke and was gaining steam (Harry Reid had written a letter, David Korn was breaking the story in Mother Jones). When the Times shat on it, the large television outlets dropped it. But of course when Comey reported the big NOTHING that was Huma's laptop, it was splattered all over the Times front page and above the fold. The Times is died in the wool misogynist, I know this. They resent the Clintons like most conventional media resents them. But after the election, they went hat in hand to Trump voters with "We want to hear from you" as if no other voters existed, and the Russia thing STILL stinks. Why did they do that? Why did they want that story shut down?

Is that the royal “we”, r356? You type like a queen...

R360, attacking the New York Times at the same time Trump is attacking the New York Times? No, that’s not suspicious at all . . .

Maybe Jared's brother wrote it on behalf of Jared. That way he doesn't get caught. And Jvanka blamed Kelly to deflect.

Maybe someone mentioned this already but I don't have the stomach to read through this whole thread. I've never heard anyone use the word "Lodestar" and since Pence uses it a lot I'd say it's either him or more likely, someone who wants us to think it's him. Who has the most to gain by pointing fingers at Pence?

I think it’s Coats. I think the whole Russia presser was a bitch slap to Coats and the entire intelligence community. Of course, as spineless, immoral Rethugs, they will continue to back DT publicly to push their hate agenda and shitty policies.

Whoever wrote it is clearly CYA for some sort of post-Trump life and is no hero or “resister.”

It was well written...

Mark Felt’s attorney just said on CNN that it’s Jon Huntsman. He’s very sure of it, said he knows it for a fact. And Huntsman’s statement was a non-denial denial, quote:

“Come to find, when you’re serving as the U.S. envoy in Moscow, you’re an easy target on all sides,” Huntsman said in a statement tweeted out by his spokeswoman, Andrea Kalan. “Anything sent out by me would have carried my name. An early political lesson I learned: never send an anonymous op-ed.”

Basically comes down to “it wasn’t sent out by me,” not “I didn’t write it.”

R367, he may be relying on a column written by Slate's William Saletan.

I am pretty sure that Pence does not have the ability to write that op-ed. I also doubt that Coats could have written it either, but it's been a few decades since I was closely exposed to him (I remember him from before he was a senator).

The first few days since this article was published, i was convinced that it was Coats. Now, however, I am leaning most strongly to Nick Ayers. There are certain attitudes in the letter that point to a more “youthful” less experienced person, someone who hasn’t lived through much, someone who is not street wise, hardened by battle, and maybe even someone who has lots of faith in God that this will all work out if they just “stay strong.” One example of youth is saying that “there are adults in the room.” This persons attitude points to a level of naïveté that is more likely someone younger - Nick Ayers is 36. Another term that points to youth is the word “resistance.” I’m a Gen Xer, and while I am de facto a member of the Resistance, just saying that out loud always feels silly too me, like I’m playing good guys and bad guys, pretend time. I’ve just noticed that more younger people use it — though undoubtedly ALL ages call themselves members of the Resistance. I’m only pointing out that I think it’s become a word used more frequently by the younger generations, again supporting my theory the writer is say under 40.

I definitely think it’s a man. Why? Look at how few women Trump has!!! Also, the writing style is very succinct, which is less typical of how women write. Writing and speaking are two different things, but I think the choppy style and shorter sentence structure is more likely a man.

In addition, I keep pondering the motivation. Who would benefit MOST from the damage this article is causing? Pence. In fact, there really is not anyone else who benefits — only Pence does. Perhaps Ayers, being the good church boy, is SO loyal to Pence that he decided to shake things up to get Pence into the Oval Office. And IF I’m right, that also means that there is a HIGH probability that Pence KNOWS it is Nick. Pence may be complicit in the whole thing, he could have even come up with the idea, and Nick is being a loyal solider.

Another thing to consider.....who was this author trying to reach and why? DEFINITELY not Trump’s base. This person wanted to go to what he views as the Bible for liberals — the NYT’s. WHY? Does this person have sooooo much compassion and empathy for our fears, our worries, our stress? Hell no. So WHY is the writer targeting anti-Trumpers? I find it hard to believe the writer is trying to calm our fears. Instead, I think he’s trying to shift opinion and rally support. Support for what? Some type of change, and the only change I can imagine that would be huge is benching Trump.

I could keep going, but these are my biggest clues. I think many posters are correct, we are losing the importance of the message by playing guessing games. But another way to look at it is to keep asking WHY did he write this letter and WHO benefits most???? The more that I think about it, those two questions matter quite a bit. If I’m right, this really could mean we are witnessing a coup by Team Pence. Which is HORRIFYING.

[quote]The Times is died in the wool misogynist,

Oh Dear! then surely better than in a merkin for that little hater

Well? Who wrote it?????

Huntsman is in the American Embassy in Moscow most of the time.

O'Donnell went through a whole list of possibilities and said it's Coats.

John Bolton? Bolton and Pence staff together? Read something suggesting it.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The Republican party ran Trump as President, an idiot and unhinged psycho, and are running the country. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

It is bizarre OP-Ed because the person(s) are bragging about it.

VOTE ALL REPUBLICANS OUT OF OFFICE!

IT IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

The Op-Ed proves the RNC and Republicans in power are refusing to remove Trump from office.

And they too are running the country, unconstitutionally.

This is ANTI-Democracy.

What I'd like to know is how the fuck do all these alt-right trolls and hired bots in Russia have permission to post on DL. You have to visit tons of times to post or pay money, right? So are they hanging out here regularly so they can chime in when anything political arises?

Sheesh.

Instead of impeaching Trump/Pence or 25 amendmenting them, they are ripping up papers.

HOW THE FUCK is this even a thing?

THIS is not in the US Constitution.

This is ANTI DEMOCRACY.

R379, it doesn't take that long, nor that much money, to get permission to post here. As for whodunnit, the speculation at the link is that it may not be the household name that people are hoping for.

[quote]Hmmm 3, and this is the biggest one of all: Dao told Michael Barbaro on The Times' podcast, "The Daily" that on the "senior administration official" terminology, "All I can say is I feel that we followed a definition that has been used by our newsroom in the past." Whoa! A former (actual) senior administration official instantly phoned me to say what a red flag that is: Journalists are notoriously liberal in their definition of who constitutes a "senior administration official."

It's Coats or Gen Kelly.

Isn't it easier to expose one person than nine or ten? Wouldn't it be a slight matter to throw one person whom none of the general public recognizes under the bus? I'm convinced this was a committee-written memo, released to benefit at least one senior WH official.

R381 makes me nervous re. 'senior administration official'... if the NYT fucks us over... those imbeciles think they're all that stands between the world and anarchy. If they gilded the lily that's a huge problem.

Kind of reminds me of the Agatha Christie novel Murder on the Orient Express.. (SPOILER ALERT).

Where ALL of the passengers murdered the victim, giving them each plausible deniability. This could well have been a group effort, with the final responsibility, I suppose, going to the person who pressed "Send" on his computer.

The culprit will be - drumroll please - Jeff Sessions!!!!

So Trumpee will simply HAVE to fire him. You can't possibly keep somebody who has behaved in such a manner.

OF COURSE Mueller has nothing to do with it.

It's a setup, y'all.

Lodestar is a red herring.

Agreed, r387.

Mattis and John Kelley know Trump is batshit crazy and a danger to national security, especially after the Putin Helsinki press conference disaster. Trump's flip-flopping tweets about Pompeo's trip to NK was very alarming and insane. But they wouldn't pen an Op-Ed piece, they would work with Mueller, high-ranking members of Congress or cabinet members.

Pence was on TV this morning and said he would take lie detector test and denies he even had talks about the 25th amendment.

George Papadopoulos said his testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller's team could help prove collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia

Linda G said there was money behind it. My theory is that it was paid for by the Koch brothers who now hate Trump most of it was written by one of Pence's speech writers because of the usage of the word lodestar with collaboration by others in the WH.

I agree it’s a Murder on the Orient Express scenario, among Trump’s closest, regular WH visiting advisors.

Heck, by now even Bolton realizes he’s crazy.

[quote]Pence was on TV this morning and said he would take lie detector test and denies he even had talks about the 25th amendment.

Imagine the control questions: "Do you like having sex with your wife?" "Have you ever said: Faster! Harder! Fuck my tight hole!?"

Henry Kissinger said "honour was John's lodestar" at McCain's memorial service, shortly before the op-ed was published. Maybe the author just ripped the word off Kissinger.

As an aside: how depressing is it that we live in a world where Kissinger has lived to be 95 and Bobby Kennedy was assassinated at 42?

Former Trump Campaign advisor Michael Caputo told CNN he had an idea who it is and mentioned "she".

This has Smellyanne written all over it.

It's Barron.

It would be hilarious if it turned out Barron is a wunderkind and wrote the whole thing himself. It's no more far-fetched than any of the other craziness that's happened over the past three years or so.

Let's not forget Barron is THE EXPERT.

I think it was all of them!

Puty

It's nobody and everybody, because they instigated it themselves. They've been babbling about it nonstop ever since.

The NYT was anti-Hillary. And they've interviewed Trump numerous times, so they are in collusion. The NYT sells copies; Trump & Co. gets to play victim... it's win-win.

"it was paid for by the Koch brothers who now hate Trump"

Riiight. He's doing everything they wanted, why would they hate him? Just another lie to try and prove Trump isn't part of the "swamp". When they've all been grooming him to be Celebrident for over a decade.

R396 Don't say it's Hope Hicks!

^^ From ironing Trump's pants while he's still wearing them to writing an Op-Ed piece for the NYT.

I think it is more important to focus on the content of the Op-ed. The republican party knows Trump is a nutjob, but are not impeaching or removing him via the 25th amendment clause in the US Constitution.

The author mentions that the Republicans are doing this because they are running a shadow, illegal government inside the white house. The author mentioned 2 policies that he and his republican colleagues are proud of: (1)Tax cut and (2) gutting the EPA (deregulation policy). Both policies are VERY UNPOPULAR with the American people, and are unhinged, dangerous and disturbing outright.

THIS IS BAD!

VOTE ALL REPUBLICAN OUT OF OFFICE!

Steaming, r406....

Senior would be a top staff members including WH officials, VP, advisors, cabinet members, Joint Chiefs members in the military, and perhaps may encompass ambassadors to major nations, if interpreting it liberally. Doubtful it is anyone below second tier in the Justice, Defense, State, and Homeland Security Departments. The NYT would know this could be explosive, and would not take the risk on someone obscure or low-level in the pecking order.

The WH hasn't held a press conference in over two weeks.

R408, her hot breath?

Maybe Suckabee Sanders is the authoress.

Li'l Spicey

UDATE: The White House is making progress in ID'ing the anomanush source!

"At a White House press briefing, Sanders slammed the book "Fear," from veteran journalist Bob Woodward, as "careless and reckless."

Do you want to know what is actually careless and reckless, Sarah?

I think it's Pence's butt-boy. If so, Pence is going to be chewed-out.

Pence is too much of a kool-aid drinking bot to buck Trump.

Putz Jr...

how come no hackers hack this info yet?

I love that donald's people still don't know who it is.

Omarosa has got to know who it is. That bitch has receipts for everything.

Omarosa's big mistake now is she isn't dumping all she knows. The drip, drip, drip only last for awhile until people don't give a shit about your drips.

[quote]Omarosa's big mistake now is she isn't dumping all she knows. The drip, drip, drip only last for awhile until people don't give a shit about your drips.

That hasn’t stopped Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti from trying to make careers out of her ONE encounter of fucking Trump.

Omarosa is in this for the longhaul. She’s got way more than she’s dripped so far.

If you notice interest in the Stormy Daniels story has waned R423. Avenatti is even reinventing himself by hinting he might run for president.

[quote]If you notice interest in the Stormy Daniels story has waned [R423].

Stormy and Avenatti are working overtime to stay relevant and in the news cycle.

r30 More people are gradually arriving at the possibility John McCain inspired or influenced the op-ed. I'm positive the op-ed's first draft was written while McCain was alive and lucid.

It's an amanuensis source

I had that once, r427. It wasn't pretty.

That's what happens when you poke your nose into other people's...business.

It's an Hieronymus sauce…Hieronymus...

Anne O'Nemiss sass

[quote] Don Jr. says today “perhaps it’s a disgruntled person...”

I’d like to speak for all the disgruntled American people and say, there’s nothing wrong with being disgruntled. We should all be disgruntled. It is unnatural, not to be disgruntled. Obviously, if you read the OP/ED piece, you can see the author is disgruntled.

So often, that term is used as an accusation. It doesn’t mean that the person is a liar, or unreasonable.

Is there such a thing as....gruntled?

OMG. there IS. Gruntled means pleased, satisfied, and contented.

But that is not the meaning he meant R434.

My bet is that it's Nikki Haley.

That may be, r435, I was merely expressing my astonishment that gruntled was a word.

Haley is not in the White House.

R433, and there's "effable," "combobulated," and "plussed."

Maybe it was McCain who specified to publish it x days after his death?

To say nothing of "sheveled," R439.

Don Jr.’s attack is like saying:

“The person who wrote that assault on the President’s character and personality is simply someone who thinks poorly of him!”

Damn, that’s a harsh takedown! (Not!)

R440, I thought of that, too. But, the Times would not attribute it to a member of the administration if it was McCain.

I voted Pence cause it seems the funniest scenario to me

Kuntyanne Conway seems most suspect to me.

I say SHS her defense of Trump is the perfect cover.

Haley's close enough, ambassador to the UN. She communicates with The Orange on a regular basis.

And if she has presidential ambitions all the more so R447.

R408 lol. I thought it was ironing. Steaming is just as bad.

R434 You're the reason I come to DL. Gruntled! I intend to be gruntled all day. Reminds me of a happy pig.

That would be "heveled," r441, not "sheveled."

I'm leaning towards Pence's 36 year old Chief of Staff, Nick Ayers. He's ultra wealthy and ultra Evangelical Christian.

Can't find the article i found this in, but based on the analysis of the text they were leaning towards someone male and younger with ties to Pence.

Not quite, r449. She would have been really able to go for some second-degree burns with an iron!

That’s what Omarosa says, r452

It’s what I’ve said too. It’s definitely one of the DL queens in the Pence sphere. That’s why it’s so critical we find out the name — it will damage Pence even more, and the NYT will NOT leak it. So it’s got to either come from the author (it won’t) or one of the few people who the author confided in. We need a campaign of public pressure of complete guilt-tripping of this person.

“No REAL Christian could keep this a secret. No REAL American would keep this a secret. No REAL Republican/Conservative would keep this a secret.” Lower the boom, one them will break.

I applaud whoever did it.

Me too, R456. I think that those who want the person to resign are idiots. Also, it’s easy to say when it’s not you.

We need good people around the President to oust him via Amendment 25. How else would we do so, if his appointees didn’t think he was incompetent?

Help me, DataLounge. Why would anyone write an OP/ED like this? I don’t think it was just to assure the populous. I’m too cynical to believe that. I think there’s another reason. Maybe to rattle Trump?

It seems odd that a republican would do this two months before the elections. It's hard to believe a republican would put country before party.

Are there any legs to the theory that McCain drafted it while still lucid?

McCain was mostly in Arizona for the last year R460. I seriously doubt it would be him, but if it were I would love to see Trump's face when he heard that.

Not McCain. The Times would not have published it by a Trump appointeee, if it wasn’t.

R458, this was an attempt by an administration figure to justify himself to history. That's why it was sent to the New York Times. The op-ed not written for "the base" or even for suburban Republicans who might be on the fence about Trump. It was meant to be read by the elite, the commentariat, the people who are going to be the historians of this era and are going to pass judgment on it.

Yeah, it's gotta be somebody who thinks after November 6th, this administration is going down and wants to jump ship before the rush.

If it's young Ayers, what if he's so stupidly naive he really believes he's reassuring us that everything's ok. I can imagine a privileged Christian kid being that out-of-touch with reality.

I think it is someone older, retirement age or older. If it comes out who it is doubtful they will have a career anywhere. Remember, people that have left the Trump administration thinking they were going to have great job opportunities are finding out no one wants to hire them.

Ann Coulter thinks Jared wrote it.

There is no reason to believe that Jared has any awareness, analytical ability or patriotism.

Ann Coulter thinks a bridle is a fashion accessory.

It's just Maggie Haberman was trying her hand at what she thinks is fiction.

I hope Coulter's commentary causes Turnip to turn on Jared. That'll be fun to witness.

I love your reference to Turnip, R471.

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if it was Javanka??????? But I still think it’s Ayers.

"If you look at him wrong, he spends the next hour looking at you strangely" staff report.

“Trump Believes There’s a Coup”: Freaked by the Times Op-Ed, the President Is Seeing Enemies Everywhere.

With Anonymous still on the loose and the “administrative state” unchecked, the last person Trump trusts is Stephen Miller.

As Hurricane Florence bears down on the Carolinas, Donald Trump’s West Wing is still struggling to recover from yet another deluge of horrible news. Yesterday, Bob Woodward’s publisher Simon & Schuster announced that Woodward’s new book, Fear, has sold more than 750,000 copies and is on its way to a ninth printing. A CNN poll released this week showed Trump’s approval rating plummeting to 36 percent. With the midterm elections less than two months away, the West Wing is girding for Republicans to lose the House and even the Senate, sources said. Ivanka Trump is even worried about impeachment, a source close to her told me. “It’s just horrible,” a former White House official said.

As the parade of former allies and employees who’ve turned on him gets longer, Trump is increasingly embittered. According to sources, Trump has been furious at former economic adviser Gary Cohn and staff secretary Rob Porter for their apparent cooperation with Woodward’s book. “Trump thinks he took Gary in and gave him a job when he was going nowhere at Goldman,” a Trump adviser told me. According to the adviser, Trump let it be known to Cohn and Porter that he would attack them publicly if they didn’t disavow the book. (On Tuesday, they both did.) “The president has had it,” a former West Wing official said. “When books like this come out, he tends to shut down and calls up people he sees on TV saying good things about him.”

But Trump’s anger over Woodward’s book is dwarfed by his continuing fixation on the anonymous New York Times op-ed. Sources told me Trump is “obsessed,” “lathered,” and “freaked out” that the leaker is still in his midst. His son Don Jr. has told people he’s worried Trump isn’t sleeping because of it, a source said. Meetings have been derailed by Trump’s suspicion. “If you look at him the wrong way, he’ll spend the next hour thinking you wrote it,” a Republican close to the White House said. Much of what’s fueling Trump’s paranoia is that he has no clear way to identify the author. One adviser said Trump has instructed aides to call the anonymous author a “coward” in public to shame him or her. “He’s going to continue to shame this person,” a person close to Trump said. “The author will break under pressure or will eventually say, ‘fuck it, it’s me.’” Plans to administer polygraph tests to staff have seemingly died. “Nobody knows who it is,” a former official said.

Besides family, one of the only people Trump continues to trust is Stephen Miller. “The op-ed has validated Miller’s view, which was also Steve Bannon’s, that there’s an ‘administrative state’ out to get Trump,” a Republican close to the White House said. “There is a coup, and it’s not slow-rolling or concealed,” Bannon told me. “Trump believes there’s a coup,” a person familiar with his thinking said. Trump’s relationship with Secretary of Defense James Mattis, which was already strained, has become almost nonexistent, a former official said.

(continued)

continued:

As Hurricane Florence bears down on the Carolinas, Donald Trump’s West Wing is still struggling to recover from yet another deluge of horrible news. Yesterday, Bob Woodward’s publisher Simon & Schuster announced that Woodward’s new book, Fear, has sold more than 750,000 copies and is on its way to a ninth printing. A CNN poll released this week showed Trump’s approval rating plummeting to 36 percent. With the midterm elections less than two months away, the West Wing is girding for Republicans to lose the House and even the Senate, sources said. Ivanka Trump is even worried about impeachment, a source close to her told me. “It’s just horrible,” a former White House official said.

As the parade of former allies and employees who’ve turned on him gets longer, Trump is increasingly embittered. According to sources, Trump has been furious at former economic adviser Gary Cohn and staff secretary Rob Porter for their apparent cooperation with Woodward’s book. “Trump thinks he took Gary in and gave him a job when he was going nowhere at Goldman,” a Trump adviser told me. According to the adviser, Trump let it be known to Cohn and Porter that he would attack them publicly if they didn’t disavow the book. (On Tuesday, they both did.) “The president has had it,” a former West Wing official said. “When books like this come out, he tends to shut down and calls up people he sees on TV saying good things about him.”

But Trump’s anger over Woodward’s book is dwarfed by his continuing fixation on the anonymous New York Times op-ed. Sources told me Trump is “obsessed,” “lathered,” and “freaked out” that the leaker is still in his midst. His son Don Jr. has told people he’s worried Trump isn’t sleeping because of it, a source said. Meetings have been derailed by Trump’s suspicion. “If you look at him the wrong way, he’ll spend the next hour thinking you wrote it,” a Republican close to the White House said. Much of what’s fueling Trump’s paranoia is that he has no clear way to identify the author. One adviser said Trump has instructed aides to call the anonymous author a “coward” in public to shame him or her. “He’s going to continue to shame this person,” a person close to Trump said. “The author will break under pressure or will eventually say, ‘fuck it, it’s me.’” Plans to administer polygraph tests to staff have seemingly died. “Nobody knows who it is,” a former official said.

Besides family, one of the only people Trump continues to trust is Stephen Miller. “The op-ed has validated Miller’s view, which was also Steve Bannon’s, that there’s an ‘administrative state’ out to get Trump,” a Republican close to the White House said. “There is a coup, and it’s not slow-rolling or concealed,” Bannon told me. “Trump believes there’s a coup,” a person familiar with his thinking said. Trump’s relationship with Secretary of Defense James Mattis, which was already strained, has become almost nonexistent, a former official said.

The West Wing is bracing for the climate to worsen. The increasing likelihood that Democrats will make big gains in the midterms is frustrating the White House’s efforts to get nominations confirmed in the Senate. According to a source, Johnny DeStefano, who’s in charge of personnel, has complained that Mitch McConnell’s staff will only focus on confirming judges before the midterms, leaving many important appointments, such as ones in the Export-Import Bank, unfilled. Ivanka and Jared Kushner, meanwhile, continue to agitate for Trump to replace Chief of Staff John Kelly with a more pliable manager. Ivanka recently asked a friend about Republican political adviser and former lobbyist Wayne Berman, a source briefed on the conversation said. Another name Ivanka has discussed is former federal prosecutor Matt Whitaker, who’s serving as Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s chief of staff (Axios reported Whitaker is also a candidate to replace White House counsel Don McGahn).

The Op-Ed was clearly and obviously written to pave the way for Trump's removal and the ascension of Pence to the Presidency. That is the only important strategic purpose it could possibly serve. Even if 60% of the people posting on DL can barely stumble through their own lives, powerful people in D.C. think strategically.

If it was written and submitted by Ayers or by some other well placed lackey, who cares? It probably does not matter. What counts is that it came from someone under Pence's sphere of influence who is loyal to Pence. Not Trump. It obviously has Pence's approval, else it would not have been submitted to the NY Times. As a practical matter, it came from Pence, regardless of which Pence subservient it came through.

Forget the 25th Amendment, it is not going to happen. The only way to remove Trump is with impeachment.

As much as I like to see Trump ripped apart this has the potential to get very scary very fast. The prospect of impeaching Trump, putting Pence at the helm is legitimately terrifying. The man knows exactly what he is doing and has the foresight to implement some real horrors to the people of this country. He could easily do more damage in two years than Trump could dream of doing in 8 (I hate that I'm even defending this megalomaniac but he's too ego-centric and lazy to do any real damage). I really hope that Trump is able to stay afloat in office until the next election. Any repercussions to Trump at this point could possibly put that maniacal sociopathic Pence in the POTUS position, martial law wouldn't be too far off from his inauguration.

Fuck Trump. Burn him in his Oval Office chair.

And Fuck Pence. Bring the bitch on and watch him melt like the Oz witch after the Democrats control the House this November. He'll have no power over us.

R478, I disagree. Not saying I don’t despise Pence or think he’s dangerous— he’s both. But you lose me at martial law. I don’t think he has the potential for violence that Trump does.

Either way, Pence will be Neutered (capitalized purposely). Midterms are coming. It all sucks yes, but face your fears man.

Why would the military support Pence, R478? He's a vapid Trump bootlicker, and we know what the military thinks of Trump. No, people who argue that Pence would be worse than Trump are trying to bolster Trump. Fear of Pence is their last argument for keeping Trump in office.

[quote]Ann Coulter thinks

Please stop pretending that this is true.

[quote]Sarah Westwood Verified account @sarahcwestwood 2 hours ago: President Trump is in the White House residence right now watching TV coverage of the Manafort plea deal, a source tells @jeffzeleny

Someone should Tweet this to Trump to let him know that "Anonymous" is in the room! LOL

Whether pence is worst than trump is irrelevant, the law and constitution are what is important.