Top aides scurry to disavow NYTimes opinion piece, Trump jets to rally

[webfact]

Top aides scurry to disavow NYTimes opinion piece, Trump jets to rally

By Susan Heavey and Makini Brice

 

U.S. President Donald Trump holds a meeting with Republican House and Senate leadership in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. Sept. 5, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senior aides to Donald Trump scrambled on Thursday to disown a New York Times column written by an unnamed administration official that slammed the leadership style of the U.S. president as impetuous, petty and ineffective.

 

As Trump flew to Billings, Montana, for a rally where he was likely to rip into the article, more of his top advisers joined the crowd denying any responsibility for its authorship.

 

The unsigned column drew disavowals from at least 11 advisers to Trump, including Vice President Mike Pence, Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary James Mattis.

 

Trump seethed about the piece and framed it as a jab from critics in denial about his successes, while Washington was consumed with speculation about who wrote the opinion piece.

 

First lady Melania Trump said in a statement on Twitter: “To the writer of the oped - you are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions.”

 

Published on Wednesday, the column appeared days after the release of excerpts from a book by famed reporter Bob Woodward that portrayed Trump as prone to impulsive decision-making. The excerpts said aides sometimes tried to limit what they saw as damaging behaviour by disregarding his instructions.

 

The Times op-ed, and Woodward's book, which is to be published next week, followed many news articles during Trump's 19-month presidency that have depicted turbulence inside the White House under his leadership.

 

The former New York businessman and reality TV star has had an unusually high level of staff turnover and has sometimes publicly criticized his top aides.

 

The critical spotlight on Trump's leadership comes two months before elections in which his fellow Republicans will try to hold their majorities in both chambers of Congress. The November vote will be widely seen as a referendum on Trump.

 

'GUTLESS'

Visibly angry about the Times column on Wednesday at a White House event, Trump called it a "gutless editorial," and in a later tweet, suggested it was treasonous.

 

The Times opinion section said the piece was written by a senior official in the administration and that it was taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous article because disclosing the author's identity would jeopardise the person's job.

 

In a parade of disavowals of the article, Pompeo said on a trip to India that he was not the author, while representatives for Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said they were not the authors either.

 

Nielsen, Pence and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats were among the favourites on Thursday picked by gamblers trying their luck online at guessing the author.

 

A spokesman for Pence said the vice president does not write anonymous opinion columns. "The @nytimes should be ashamed and so should the person who wrote the false, illogical, and gutless op-ed," spokesman Jarrod Agen said on Twitter.

 

Coats said in a statement that speculation that he or his principal deputy wrote the piece was "patently false."

 

WASHINGTON GUESSING GAME

The Times piece called some of Trump's decisions "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless." It said some officials had worked from within to frustrate parts of Trump's agenda and protect the country from his worst impulses.

 

The article cited a tax overhaul, deregulation and a more robust military among the administration's achievements, but added:

"These successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

 

Some of the guess-the-author game centred on whether the author worked in the White House or a federal agency. Language in the article, including the unusual word "lodestar," was the subject of wide online speculation and language searches.

 

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said: “The media’s obsession with the identity of the anonymous coward is recklessly tarnishing the reputation of thousands of great Americans ... Stop," she wrote on Twitter.

 

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told reporters she was not the author. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's spokesman, Tony Sayegh, said on Twitter it was "laughable to think this could come from the secretary."

 

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said through a spokesman that he was not the author, as did Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Huntsman, also through representatives.

 

(Reporting by Susan Heavey and Makini Brice; Additional reporting by Phil Stewart, Roberta Rampton and Yeganeh Torbati in Washington and Maria Caspani and Michelle Nichols in New York; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-07

[MajarTheLion]

How does anyone know this poorly-written opinion piece was written by a Trump official? And if so, what does "senior official" mean? Head janitor?

 

My liberal BS meter is going off the charts. Nonetheless, this latest, desperate "get Trump!" move isn't going to do anything.

[Somtamnication]

This house of cards is slowly crumbling. Love it!

[Samui Bodoh]

"...while Washington was consumed with speculation about who wrote the opinion piece..."

 

In the olden days, the author's identity might have remained hidden for years or even decades, but if I were a betting man, I'd say we know the identity by early next week. In the era of computers, the Net and digital footprints, I don't think much will stay secret very long anymore...

 

I am very much of two minds about this.

 

I LOVE to see Trump getting screwed over; It just makes me smile and laugh. Yes, it is true, I do NOT like the man.

 

That said, Trump is the legal, duly constituted President whose instructions often carry the weight of law. And the member(s) of the 'Resistance', if they are to be believed, have decided that they do not need to follow the lawful orders of a President. Yes, it might be for good reason, and yes, I might applaud their actions in preventing stupid decisions, but when people decide that their viewpoint is more important that the duly elected person's viewpoint... well, that is what coup plotters believe. I loathe and despise the coup plotters here in Thailand; it is hard to agree with people who act the same basic way in the US.

 

The problem here is that Trump is such a malignant, vile, idiotic figure that it is impossible for a decent person to support him, but if you believe in the rule of law, you sort of have to give him his rights.

 

Perhaps the best solution here would be for the member of the 'Resistance' to stand up, declare that they wrote the piece, and publicly demand the right to testify before Congress. It would be hard for the spineless Congressional Republicans to say 'no' under those circumstances. As badly as I would like to see the end of Trump, it is vital that processes be followed; done properly those processes are strengthened. Done improperly, everyone loses.

 

I have said it before and (sadly) need to say it again;

 

Donald Trumpo is an ever-expanding cloud of toxic waste that defiles everything it touches.

 

God help us all.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[MajarTheLion]

5 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

This house of cards is slowly crumbling. Love it!

I agree. It's slowly crumbling. By 2021 or 2025, it will be completely collapsed.

[canuckamuck]

4 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

This house of cards is slowly crumbling. Love it!

Yes the Dems do seem desperate. Now they are passing anonymous notes around so they won't get caught by the teacher.

[Boon Mee]

This is bad news for the Democracy. I fear lie detector exams coming next. 

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

How does anyone know this poorly-written opinion piece was written by a Trump official? And if so, what does "senior official" mean? Head janitor?

 

My liberal BS meter is going off the charts. Nonetheless, this latest, desperate "get Trump!" move isn't going to do anything.

Because it is in "the newspaper of record", the New York Times. These guys have a reputation to protect and there's no way this is anything other than someone very senior who's name would be widely known if it came out rather than some junior functionary. Following on from Woodward's book (is he another journalistic hack?), and Wolff's book painted the same picture - an impulsive narcissist with little intelligence, no real knowledge or understanding of the world, no curiousity and one where nobody who works with him has his respect. If you read that opinion piece, you will note that this is not the writing of a Democrat bent on opposing conservative policies. It's a conservative who is committed to the cause trying to prevent an idiot so far out of his depth he is essentially a bad-tempered and ill-intentioned Chauncey Gardener from causing enormous damage to the USA and the world at large. 

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

The problem here is that Trump is such a malignant, vile, idiotic figure that it is impossible for a decent person to support him, but if you believe in the rule of law, you sort of have to give him his rights.

Well thats nice, so without knowing anything about somebody, you conclude they arent decent simply because they voted for Trump?

 

The disdain for others theirin exhibited says it all....

 

Deplorables!

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Well thats nice, so without knowing anything about somebody, you conclude they arent decent simply because they voted for Trump?

 

The disdain for others theirin exhibited says it all....

 

Deplorables!

Your catagorical assertions, in the face of all the evidence, that Manafort was innocent and would never be convicted suggest you too have a problem judging character.

 

[DoctorG]

If the writer (if he/she exists) is so repulsed by working with The President, they should resign, otherwise they have no morals and are no better than those they despise.

Edited September 7, 2018 by DoctorG

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Yes the Dems do seem desperate. Now they are passing anonymous notes around so they won't get caught by the teacher.

Anonymous Op-Ed written by a senior member of Trump’s White House team.

 

For those of us living in the reality based universe, that would be a Republican 

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

This is bad news for the Democracy. I fear lie detector exams coming next. 

I suspect a psychological assessment and hopefully sometime soon.

[DoctorG]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Anonymous Op-Ed written by a senior member of Trump’s White House team.

 

For those of us living in the reality based universe, that would be a Republican 

Glad to see Chomper that the placed your usual sad/confused face on another of my posts. I think you missed one last week. You should go back and check.

 

To the above. If it was anonymous why are you so certain that it was actually written by someone from the WH? You cannot be certain and it is just another of your usual posts.

[helpisgood]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

The article cited a tax overhaul, deregulation and a more robust military among the administration's achievements, but added: 

"These successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

 

Okay, maybe Trump's leadership style may be scary.  However, from what the letter implies by mentioning that papers to be signed were taken off his desk, it is scarier that Trump seems to not recall that there was some important papers that he had needed to sign. 

 

Oh yeah, and that one or more of his staff reliably knew that he/she or they could get away with it. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by helpisgood
added last sentence

[canuckamuck]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Anonymous Op-Ed written by a senior member of Trump’s White House team.

 

For those of us living in the reality based universe, that would be a Republican 

Not really admissible as evidence if they won't put a name to it. Smells like more gutter tactics from a once respected organization.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Glad to see Chomper that the placed your usual sad/confused face on another of my posts. I think you missed one last week. You should go back and check.

 

To the above. If it was anonymous why are you so certain that it was actually written by someone from the WH? You cannot be certain and it is just another of your usual posts.

Three things:

 

The NYT is staking it’s reputation on what is a huge scoop. You wish to believe they didn’t confirm the source before publishing, I believe they will have done so.

 

The White House response indicates the Op-Ed is true and was written by a senior member of the Trump administration.

 

The response of individuals mentioned in the Op-Ed, including Trumpindicates the Op-Ed is true and was written by a senior member of the Trump administration.

 

I normally give a confused emoji when the content of the post is confused nonsense, I gave you a laughing out loud this morning because you served it.

 

You perhaps should not have let me know my emojis are hitting their mark.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Not really admissible as evidence if they won't put a name to it. Smells like more gutter tactics from a once respected organization.

It’s not ‘evidence’ to be ‘submitted’, it’s an Op-Ed piece.

 

Go research the difference between the two.

[ballpoint]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Smells like more gutter tactics from a once respected organization.

Yes, the White House.

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not ‘evidence’ to be ‘submitted’, it’s an Op-Ed piece.

 

Go research the difference between the two.

Evidence is alluding to something that could be accepted by a court. Since trump is being tried daily by the court of public opinion. I think my use of the word is applicable.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Evidence is alluding to something that could be accepted by a court. Since trump is being tried daily by the court of public opinion. I think my use of the word is applicable.

So are his constant lies ‘Perjury’ before the ‘Court of Public Opinion’?

 

Stop digging.

[DoctorG]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Three things:

 

The NYT is staking it’s reputation on what is a huge scoop. You wish to believe they didn’t confirm the source before publishing, I believe they will have done so.

 

The White House response indicates the Op-Ed is true and was written by a senior member of the Trump administration.

 

The response of individuals mentioned in the Op-Ed, including Trumpindicates the Op-Ed is true and was written by a senior member of the Trump administration.

 

I normally give a confused emoji when the content of the post is confused nonsense, I gave you a laughing out loud this morning because you served it.

 

You perhaps should not have let me know my emojis are hitting their mark.

 

 

See, you can do a reasonable post after all. I quite liked it. You still cannot be certain but you set out a good case for it being so.

Regardless of what I say some anti-Trumpster will attach one of those emojis. I just find it amusing.

I just thought that your smiley today was just the usual, so I apologise for jumping to that conclusion.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

34 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

If the writer (if he/she exists) is so repulsed by working with The President, they should resign, otherwise they have no morals and are no better than those they despise.

 Contrary to your view, perhaps the author is a true patriot who believes that they have an obligation to continue working to do the best for, and protect, the interests of the nation, and to do their best to protect the nation from the destructive, counterproductive, ignorant whims of its would-be dictator.

 

[DoctorG]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 Contrary to your view, perhaps the author is a true patriot who believes that they have an obligation to continue working to do the best for, and protect, the interests of the nation, and to do their best to protect the nation from the destructive, counterproductive, ignorant whims of its would-be dictator.

 

On both sides there are people who consider themselves as patriots. Who can say who is correct? Misguided patriots can do great harm, so, nah, just morally weak to not resign and just whiteant.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Rather than all the hubbub and focus on just who wrote the Op-Ed piece, perhaps everyone and the nation would be better served by focusing on the content of the Op-Ed itself...

 

That the U.S. has an amoral, ignorant, narcissistic president whose own Cabinet members (at least some of them) discussed the prospect of having him removed under the Constitutional provisions for incapacity to hold the office. And that the president has a penchant for ill-informed, dangerous decision making to the extent that adults in the room have to protect the country from his worst excesses.

 

THAT'S that the focus of attention and discussion should be -- not which of the many people who despise Trump for who he is and how he operates penned the article.

[mtls2005]

There was nothing in this op-ed piece which came as a shock to anyone who's been following the tRUmp administration since day 1. There have been many, many, many, many, many supporting stories, all based on leaks from inside the WH for ages alluding to these very happenings.

 

I mean, having the president call up some guy at the NPS to photo-shop the inauguration crowd size on day 2 should set off alarms.

 

The "Steady-State" is manned by Republicans and is working with the blessings of Congressional Republicans, who understand the "mercurial" nature of tRUmp. Reining in the idiocy of POTUS might seem scary to some, but those holding the reins are doing a great service to tRUmp himself, and the Country.

 

 

 

If there was no truth to this op-ed piece, then it would be ignored, and the administration would move on with their agenda. That they've required everyone to issue statements only gives the charges credence. tRUmp won't let this die and will tweet about it endlessly, and bring it up in his rallies. Only when he has a very public melt-down will Republicans act.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by mtls2005

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

On both sides there are people who consider themselves as patriots. Who can say who is correct? Misguided patriots can do great harm, so, nah, just morally weak to not resign and just whiteant.

 

Trump's only interest is in doing what he thinks is best for him and his ego, business and fortune.

 

Fortunately, there apparently are others still serving in his government who are committed to serving and protecting their country -- not enriching themselves and being sycophants to a would-be dictator.

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[mtls2005]

11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Rather than all the hubbub and focus on just who wrote the Op-Ed piece, perhaps everyone and the nation would be better served by focusing on the content of the Op-Ed itself...

 

That would require critical thought, self-examination, and humility. And admitting that "Washington, we have a problem".

 

Screw that, we don't care if the President is cray-cray, we just want to know who wrote it, and if we should burn all our Nike gear at once, or a little each day.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

This below is why the Op-Ed's author presumably feels the obligation to continue working in their job and doing their best for the country -- because those in Congress who ought to be dealing with the Trump problem have steadfastly refused to do so.

 

Quote

 

That Trump has long been Trump has not gone unnoticed in Washington. As Republican Sen. Bob Corker said in response to the op-ed, “this is what all of us have understood to be the situation from day one.”
 

Corker’s statement was meant to be a damning indictment of Trump, but it’s actually a damning indictment of Corker and his colleagues, who have done little to check Trump save complain to the press. They have known the situation was this bad since day one, and they have done nothing about it.
 

Corker, at least, speaks out. The rest of his party has studiously avoided the subject, actively protected Trump from investigation and oversight, and constantly excused the president’s outbursts. Privately, they gripe that they know this president is unfit for office, but they don’t want to imperil their tax agenda, judicial nominees, or reelections by actually acting on that judgment.

 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/6/17825406/trump-woodward-op-ed-nyt-anonymous-impeachment

Edited September 7, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Chomper Higgot]

Imigine if you will What the atmosphere around Trump must be like  right now.

 

We know he’s obsessed with loyalty and we know he’s glued to any news about himself.