Current Events > Anonymous high-ranking White House official writes Op-Ed about undermining Trump

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
---

It's all CNN is talking abouts.

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.
---

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

Its more of a symbolic op-ed.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.

We are already in a constitutional crisis. Get the fat fuck out of there before he does something permanent.

BLAKUboy posted...

There's also the question of what these people consider "safer and more prosperous". Because neither of those things are true of Trump's America.

---

BLAKUboy posted...

BLAKUboy posted...

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.

We are already in a constitutional crisis. Get the fat fuck out of there before he does something permanent.

BLAKUboy posted...

There's also the question of what these people consider "safer and more prosperous". Because neither of those things are true of Trump's America.

Agreed. I can appreciate the perspective of this guy, and I hardly think it's a reach to say it's almost demonstrably true with how we've seen Trump's cabinet damage control his latest statements a million times over, but the "adults in the room" need to do more.
---

up
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

Given the source, I really would not be surprised if it was 100% fabricated. If there was some legal obligation, maybe, but they're literally saying "us, an outlet that attacks the Trump administration and its members every chance we get, decided to protect a member by anonymizing them". That rings a FUCKTON of alarm bells.
---

It's of little surprise. Trump doesn't even pretend to have principles, and as low as the right can sink some people are eventually going to take umbrage with that
---

DarkTransient posted...

That rings a FUCKTON of alarm bells.

If you're a conspiracy theorist, sure.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

Given the source, I really would not be surprised if it was 100% fabricated. If there was some legal obligation, maybe, but they're literally saying "us, an outlet that attacks the Trump administration and its members every chance we get, decided to protect a member by anonymizing them". That rings a FUCKTON of alarm bells.

It's no surprise Trump supporters are calling it fake, despite loving anon sources when they agree with them.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

Given the source, I really would not be surprised if it was 100% fabricated. If there was some legal obligation, maybe, but they're literally saying "us, an outlet that attacks the Trump administration and its members every chance we get, decided to protect a member by anonymizing them". That rings a FUCKTON of alarm bells.

The person wouldn't allow them to publish this story unless it was anonymous. You're literally not going to get this kind of story without an anonymous source.

The difference is, what publishers do you find is trustworthy, and how consistent are you in critizing publishers?
---

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

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

so it's a bunch of nothing
this is just a move to make them seem more appealing to younger people
---

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

We know that people talked him down from the full Muslim ban which would have failed at the US supreme court. He complained on social media about how others had it watered down. Clearly people are trying to steer him in the right direction.

As much as I hate Trump. The idea that the president is being undermined by his own staff is scary. This guy in the article is essentially saying we have people in the government ignoring the president and doing what they think is right...except the people didn't elect you to implement what u think is right. They elected Trump for better or worse.

This basically admits there IS a deep state. Do we need to go back to when every federal worker was fired at the start of a new administration to bring in political allies.

It's just not right, the American people need to be able to elect someone to do things differently if they are so inclined and people who are deep in power but not elected shouldnt be able to veto the will of the people because...this guy is too different. He literally said he works for the "steady state".

U heard it here folks, nothing can ever change.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

Given the source, I really would not be surprised if it was 100% fabricated. If there was some legal obligation, maybe, but they're literally saying "us, an outlet that attacks the Trump administration and its members every chance we get, decided to protect a member by anonymizing them". That rings a FUCKTON of alarm bells.

It's no surprise Trump supporters are calling it fake, despite loving anon sources when they agree with them.

Not to mention Trump has been literally the most prodigious liar perhaps in American political history. It literally cannot be understated how often Trump lies, misleads, contradicts himself, and fudges the truth. If he talks for 5 minutes he'll contradict his own statements, and I don't mean that as hyperbole. Go read the transcript for his conversation with Woodward. The man stumbles over his owns statements 6 or 7 times about totally pointless assertion. There wasn't even anything worth lying about or backtracking on during the entire conversation and he still manages to pull it off more than you can count on one hand.
---

Ammonitida posted...

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

We know that people talked him down from the full Muslim ban which would have failed at the US supreme court. He complained on social media about how others had it watered down. Clearly people are trying to steer him in the right direction.

That's not the same as undermining Trump, though. Every presidential cabinet has officials who disagree with the president on certain issues.
---

Omega Hunter posted...

except the people didn't elect you to implement what u think is right.

They didn't really elect Trump either considering he lost the popular vote.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

Given the source, I really would not be surprised if it was 100% fabricated. If there was some legal obligation, maybe, but they're literally saying "us, an outlet that attacks the Trump administration and its members every chance we get, decided to protect a member by anonymizing them". That rings a FUCKTON of alarm bells.

Wtf do you think journalism is? You've bought way too much into right wing rhetoric over the years calling them biased and fake news. The NYT is one of the more trustworthy organizations in journalism currently and historically, even if they aren't perfect. They are outright stating they were contacted by a senior official and swore to secrecy to get this statement. No legitimate organization could make that up without risking going out of business once it was discovered that it was a lie. Unless you think the NYT is worse than a school newspaper ethically, this isn't a rational view to have.
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

so it's a bunch of nothing
this is just a move to make them seem more appealing to younger people

it seems that way
like the people who only have a problem with Trump because he's boorish and not because they disagree with his policies
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

The Admiral posted...

Ammonitida posted...

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

We know that people talked him down from the full Muslim ban which would have failed at the US supreme court. He complained on social media about how others had it watered down. Clearly people are trying to steer him in the right direction.

That's not the same as undermining Trump, though. Every presidential cabinet has officials who disagree with the president on certain issues.

Let's face it. REALITY undermines Trump on the regular. The idiocy he generates, is it really surprising to you that people in his administration are trying to create a level of sanity?

It's the admiral. He wouldn't know what sanity is.
---

The Admiral posted...

Ammonitida posted...

The Admiral posted...

This is probably some college intern. Don't buy the "high ranking" part at all.

We know that people talked him down from the full Muslim ban which would have failed at the US supreme court. He complained on social media about how others had it watered down. Clearly people are trying to steer him in the right direction.

That's not the same as undermining Trump, though. Every presidential cabinet has officials who disagree with the president on certain issues.

The overall message of the article is that they're trying to control his darker impulses and steer him in the right direction.

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

so it's a bunch of nothing
this is just a move to make them seem more appealing to younger people

Yeah, it's clearly a dishonest article meant solely to give whoever wrote it a chance at a career once Trump is removed from office.
Not to say the claims aren't true, they very likely mostly are. But I don't believe this person is actually part of any "resistance" and is just wanting to not be completely fucked when he's out of his current job.
---

Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media.

Any guesses?

BLAKUboy posted...

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

so it's a bunch of nothing
this is just a move to make them seem more appealing to younger people

Yeah, it's clearly a dishonest article meant solely to give whoever wrote it a chance at a career once Trump is removed from office.
Not to say the claims aren't true, they very likely mostly are. But I don't believe this person is actually part of any "resistance" and is just wanting to not be completely fucked when he's out of his current job.

How would anyone benefit in this way considering its completely anonymous genius?
---

Omega Hunter posted...

As much as I hate Trump. The idea that the president is being undermined by his own staff is scary. This guy in the article is essentially saying we have people in the government ignoring the president and doing what they think is right...except the people didn't elect you to implement what u think is right. They elected Trump for better or worse.

This basically admits there IS a deep state. Do we need to go back to when every federal worker was fired at the start of a new administration to bring in political allies.

It's just not right, the American people need to be able to elect someone to do things differently if they are so inclined and people who are deep in power but not elected shouldnt be able to veto the will of the people because...this guy is too different. He literally said he works for the "steady state".

U heard it hear folks, nothing can ever change.

These people were hand picked by Trump, every one of them. Maybe if you're "surrounded by deep state agents whom you surrounded yourself with", you're actually just an idiot, they're not actually "deep state", and they all think you're a dotard.
---

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1037452503690960896

Not even the WH is claiming fake news.
---

Trump has already basically acknowledged that this report is true and has called the author a coward anders demanded that he resign.
---

Imagine defending trump
---

The media is doing more each day to undermine their own credibility than Trump could ever do to them.

Uh huh. This time what we're saying is real. This time it's the truth. This time we're totally not making shit up. Take our word for it.
Do they know the story of Chicken Little or The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Every day it's the end of the world according to these media outlets. Every damn day the constitution is under attack. It's only a matter of time until they come for you, knocking down your front door to throw you into a camp. Only none of it is true. It's mad hysterics. It's tin foil hat wearing lunacy of the highest degree fueled by bitter emotions that their group think PC belief system got rejected by the country. And when every day is the last according to them. Every day is the end. You stop listening. You stop caring. Because everything they say is such obvious made up bs.
So at this point even if they had a real piece of news to report on. Who would believe them?
---

EternalDivide posted...

The media is doing more each day to undermine their own credibility than Trump could ever do to them.

Uh huh. This time what we're saying is real. This time it's the truth. This time we're totally not making shit up. Take our word for it.
Do they know the story of Chicken Little or The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Every day it's the end of the world according to these media outlets. Every damn day the constitution is under attack. It's only a matter of time until they come for you, knocking down your front door to throw you into a camp. Only none of it is true. It's mad hysterics. It's tin foil hat wearing lunacy of the highest degree fueled by bitter emotions that their group think PC belief system got rejected by the country. And when every day is the last according to them. Every day is the end. You stop listening. You stop caring. Because everything they say is such obvious made up bs.
So at this point even if they had a real piece of news to report on. Who would believe them?

Your brain is Trump's science fair project. They've made you deny reality reflexively as fake news. Embarrassing.
---

You'd think there would be a point where he'd just quit. Whether you think he's right or wrong, he's 72 years old and a billionaire--does he really want to spend the rest of his life dealing with these things every week when he could be doing almost literally anything else?
---

jpenny2 posted...

You'd think there would be a point where he'd just quit. Whether you think he's right or wrong, he's 72 years old and a billionaire--does he really want to spend the rest of his life dealing with these things every week when he could be doing almost literally anything else?

His ego would never let him quit.
---

jpenny2 posted...

You'd think there would be a point where he'd just quit. Whether you think he's right or wrong, he's 72 years old and a millionaire--does he really want to spend the rest of his life dealing with these things every week when he could be doing almost literally anything else?

fix'd
---

The article seems entirely plausible, but will no doubt be called "fake news" by Trump and his toadies.
---

I already knew before I clicked on the topic that alt-righters would be attacking the "anonymous" part
---

Lmao https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037456816601485316?s=20
---

Fake news

#MAGA

Slurp slurp
---

Omega Hunter posted...

How would anyone benefit in this way considering its completely anonymous genius?

Whoever wrote it revealed their identity to the NYT. If someone were to come forward they would be corroborated
Think it through
---

Ah more trump shitposts with no reply
---

That was a beautiful essay and a really interesting perspective.
---

Not that I doubt it's legitimacy, but since when did legitimate news sources start to use anonymous sources? That's been irking me for the past ten years. There's a difference between protecting your source by not naming it and actually not knowing your source and trusting it's legitimate.

The Rolling Stone UVa piece went up in flames because the author never bothered to fact check her source.
---

Looking like it might be Pence setting himself up for a Trump impeachment.

https://twitter.com/danbl00m/status/1037428190166347776
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Not that I doubt it's legitimacy, but since when did legitimate news sources start to use anonymous sources? That's been irking me for the past ten years. There's a difference between protecting your source by not naming it and actually not knowing your source and trusting it's legitimate.

The Rolling Stone UVa piece went up in flames because the author never bothered to fact check her source.

Someone didn't read the article.

We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Not that I doubt it's legitimacy, but since when did legitimate news sources start to use anonymous sources? That's been irking me for the past ten years. There's a difference between protecting your source by not naming it and actually not knowing your source and trusting it's legitimate.

The Rolling Stone UVa piece went up in flames because the author never bothered to fact check her source.

Someone didn't read the article.

We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.

Ugh, why do they call it anonymous when it isn't? It used to be called "unnamed source"
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Not that I doubt it's legitimacy, but since when did legitimate news sources start to use anonymous sources? That's been irking me for the past ten years. There's a difference between protecting your source by not naming it and actually not knowing your source and trusting it's legitimate.

The Rolling Stone UVa piece went up in flames because the author never bothered to fact check her source.

What the fuck is even this post?
You realize anonymous sources have been around forever in journalism, right? Little thing called Watergate happened because of Deep Throat i.e. anonymous source.

And yes, there is a difference between protecting your source by not naming them and not knowing the source. That's why the credibility of the journalist matters, because you have to trust that they vet the sources.

You really do like to fulfill the stereotype of a doctor knowing fuck all outside their area of expertise.

Edit: Turns out you're just taking issue with them calling them Anonymous sources. L O fucking L
So really, 1 - did you even read the article? And 2 - where the hell where you in History class and why do you think it's only been happening for ~10 years?