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

[Becker]

2 hours 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.

How is it poorly written?

[canuckamuck]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

You and the whole progressive circus are also obsessed with any news about him

Edited September 7, 2018 by canuckamuck

[mtls2005]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

No. Really? I'm shocked, shocked to find out that there's leaking going on in here. 

 

Trump carried handwritten list of suspected leakers: report

 

President Trump has grown increasingly paranoid about individuals within his administration trying to undermine him and carried a handwritten list of suspected leakers for some time last year, Axios reported Thursday.

 

Officials told the news outlet that they agreed with the sentiments expressed by an anonymous senior administration official who blasted Trump in an op-ed in The New York Times and described an effort among some staffers to push back against the president's impulses.

 

Axios reported that Trump has become "deeply suspicious" of administration officials, including some of his own political appointees, and occasionally asks staffers what they think about their colleagues.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/405303-trump-carried-handwritten-list-of-suspected-leakers-report

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You and the whole progressive circus is also obsessed with any news about him

Well I will admit to enjoying the bad news about Trump.

 

Both it’s sordid details confirming what I already thought of him and the sheer quantity of bad news.

 

It’s a constant stream of delighted upon which there is the sweetness of observing illiberals trying ever harder to deny reality.

[lovelomsak]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

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.”

First lady is spot on with this Twitter.

 

 Cowardly gutless people  resort to things like this when the are losing. They cannot stand to be on the losing end and will do what ever it takes to make others look bad. 

 She is so right who ever wrote this does not care about  the welfare of America. They only care about promoting their political agenda. 

[geriatrickid]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

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. 

Careful. The article appeared as an OPINION piece. It is  no different than a letter to the editor. And it is very different from  the confidential information of a reporter. The expectation of confidentiality is different. The opinion section of a newspaper, particularly the large ones like the NYT is separate from the news division. The opinion section is not written by reporters. rather it is  intended to be partisan, hence the use of the term "opinion". It is not held to the same degree of fact checking as a news story. As such, it cannot benefit from the same protections.

A person stating an opinion has to take responsibility for that opinion.  The NYT is on shaky legal ground and may not be able to rely on the 1st Amendment to shield the identity of the person. The 1st is intended to protect the distribution of the opinion. A person who is in the employ of the POTUS is subject to the duty of loyalty to the office of the POTUS, and it is a higher standard than that applied to  John Q. public. THis wasn't whistle blowing about an illegal act. Rather it was an admission of sabotage and betrayal. This isn't going to be protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[Tug]

Trump scares thecr*#@ out of people he runs around attacking helpless children (daca asylum seekers) he stabs our allies and good neighbors in the guts he is a racist  he sucks up to dictators he does his level best to devide us he attacks the Justice system of course there are people in the admin.that try to minimize the damage as far as I’m concerned this is the best news since he has been elected (with help)he is in deep trouble after November things will happen 

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

First lady is spot on with this Twitter.

 

 Cowardly gutless people  resort to things like this when the are losing. They cannot stand to be on the losing end and will do what ever it takes to make others look bad. 

 She is so right who ever wrote this does not care about  the welfare of America. They only care about promoting their political agenda. 

I recommend you read Hans Fallada ‘Alone in Berlin’ for an insight to protest and standing up to tyrrany.

 

If tgat’s Not to your liking try to catch a few episodes of the British sitcom ’Yes Minister’.

[Tug]

I watch alone in Berlin god war sucks a brave man and wife indeed

[JCauto]

9 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Careful. The article appeared as an OPINION piece. It is  no different than a letter to the editor. And it is very different from  the confidential information of a reporter. The expectation of confidentiality is different. The opinion section of a newspaper, particularly the large ones like the NYT is separate from the news division. The opinion section is not written by reporters. rather it is  intended to be partisan, hence the use of the term "opinion". It is not held to the same degree of fact checking as a news story. As such, it cannot benefit from the same protections.

A person stating an opinion has to take responsibility for that opinion.  The NYT is on shaky legal ground and may not be able to rely on the 1st Amendment to shield the identity of the person. The 1st is intended to protect the distribution of the opinion. A person who is in the employ of the POTUS is subject to the duty of loyalty to the office of the POTUS, and it is a higher standard than that applied to  John Q. public. THis wasn't whistle blowing about an illegal act. Rather it was an admission of sabotage and betrayal. This isn't going to be protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

That's possible. 

 

My point was in rebuttal to one of the people who believed that the NYT had published the Opinion of a low-ranking functionary whereas I was pointing out that the NYT would certainly have vetted whether this person deserved the distinction of "Senior" or not. 

[JCauto]

19 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

First lady is spot on with this Twitter.

 

 Cowardly gutless people  resort to things like this when the are losing. They cannot stand to be on the losing end and will do what ever it takes to make others look bad. 

 She is so right who ever wrote this does not care about  the welfare of America. They only care about promoting their political agenda. 

As you appear to have missed the point, let me repeat it.

A "Senior Administration Official" is someone who is a Republican, someone who has a Conservative viewpoint and agenda, someone who is on board with the policy and laws enacted via this Republican Congress, someone who has been appointed by Trump to work within his administration. There are no Democrats who are "Senior" within the Administration. Mueller is NOT a Democrat. Rosenstein is NOT a Democrat. Comey was NOT a Democrat. There are NOT "17 Angry Democrats" pursuing the Russia investigation. This is the few remaining Republicans who actually care about preventing a man completely out of his depth from inflicting lasting damage on the USA and their allies. 

Yes, what he described is illegal. But it's what this mess of an administration has come to, its logical conclusion. Republicans in Congress and the White House completely understand that Trump is a disaster and has to be managed like a toddler, even if it means breaking the law. But rather than be responsible lawmakers and invoke the 25th Amendment, they're using him to get what they want while enabling him to stagger around the halls of power destroying anything shiny that catches his eye, usually something he has a personal grievance with. When what he wants to break is too valuable, they distract him with another bauble and he runs off to chase it while forgetting completely about the old one.

[klauskunkel]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

The unsigned column drew disavowals from at least 11 advisers to Trump

I wonder how many vowels they have left to make coherent statements in the future...

[BobBKK]

I loathe 'anonymous sources'  as they mean zilch.  If someone does not have the courage to stand up and be counted and prefers to sneak around in the shadows he/she does not deserve to be in service. I hate all this nonsense mudslinging and cheap shots from the Dems. I just read the 'letter that was removed from Trump's desk' it was a draft. No POTUS would sign a draft it's for information and discussion. All this noise and nothing substantive. 

[Becker]

43 minutes ago, JCauto said:

That's possible. 

 

My point was in rebuttal to one of the people who believed that the NYT had published the Opinion of a low-ranking functionary whereas I was pointing out that the NYT would certainly have vetted whether this person deserved the distinction of "Senior" or not. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/new-york-times-op-ed-donald-trump/index.html

 

"That the decision was made to publish it should tell you that this isn't some disgruntled mid-to-upper manager buried in the bureaucracy. This is a genuine high-ranking official."

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Careful. The article appeared as an OPINION piece. It is  no different than a letter to the editor. And it is very different from  the confidential information of a reporter. The expectation of confidentiality is different. The opinion section of a newspaper, particularly the large ones like the NYT is separate from the news division. The opinion section is not written by reporters. rather it is  intended to be partisan, hence the use of the term "opinion". It is not held to the same degree of fact checking as a news story. As such, it cannot benefit from the same protections.

A person stating an opinion has to take responsibility for that opinion.  The NYT is on shaky legal ground and may not be able to rely on the 1st Amendment to shield the identity of the person. The 1st is intended to protect the distribution of the opinion. A person who is in the employ of the POTUS is subject to the duty of loyalty to the office of the POTUS, and it is a higher standard than that applied to  John Q. public. THis wasn't whistle blowing about an illegal act. Rather it was an admission of sabotage and betrayal. This isn't going to be protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

“A person stating an opinion has to take responsibility for that opinion.”  

 

While I believe people should take rresponsibility for their opinions and that anonymous commenting is often used as a means to promote hate and abuse, I’m not aware of any requirement to take responsibility and clearly such a requirement would undermine legitimate comment and ‘whistle blowing’ under oppressive regimes in public and commercial life.

 

 

“The NYT is on shaky legal ground and may not be able to rely on the 1st Amendment to shield the identity of the person. The 1st is intended to protect the distribution of the opinion”

 

That’s an interesting argument, I’m not sure of its legal merits but I’d love see that before the US Supreme Court.

 

Illiberals frequently site the 1st Ammendment as protection of their ‘right(?)’ to spew racism, misogyny and other forms of hatred.

 

Here today on TVF we have Illiberals ranting about freedom of speech being removed by Twitter.

 

First Ammendment’s protection of ‘opinion’

 

Bring it on!

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, Tug said:

I watch alone in Berlin god war sucks a brave man and wife indeed

The book is gripping and has all the elements of the tyrrany now infesting the WH and the GOP.

[Tug]

The movie I saw was about a man in Germany ww2 who’s son was killed he started to resist in his way was finally caught and killed a courageous man

[helpisgood]

29 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I just read the 'letter that was removed from Trump's desk' it was a draft.

 

A draft? 

 

"According to Woodward, [former top economic adviser Gary] Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk” that the president was intending to sign to formally withdraw the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea."  [Bold added.]

 

33 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

No POTUS would sign a draft it's for information and discussion.

 

Nice try. 

 

From that same article:

 

"It is not normal procedure for a senior-level aide to steal documents off the president's desk."

 

Would you steal -  or to use your spin, even "remove" -  even "a draft" off the desk of the president?  

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a22984425/bob-woodward-donald-trump-aides-steal-off-desk/

 

[joecoolfrog]

2 hours 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 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.

You hit the nail squarely on the head. The trouble is that , as evidenced on this forum , Trump's lapdogs have no interest in addressing the issues that are raised.

We simply get a constant stream of denials , attempts to shoot the messenger , ridiculous ' fake news " claims or references harking back to Clinton and Obama.

In some threads we only get a barrage of emojis , ironic really as the only sad thing is that the contributers are incapable of stringing together any meaningfull rebuttal.

Edited September 7, 2018 by joecoolfrog

[joecoolfrog]

1 hour ago, lovelomsak said:

First lady is spot on with this Twitter.

 

 Cowardly gutless people  resort to things like this when the are losing. They cannot stand to be on the losing end and will do what ever it takes to make others look bad. 

 She is so right who ever wrote this does not care about  the welfare of America. They only care about promoting their political agenda. 

Oh the irony !

[NomadRip]

I just hope we eventually find out if Pence really wrote the piece, or if it was someone who wanted it to look like he did.

[joecoolfrog]

58 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I loathe 'anonymous sources'  as they mean zilch.  If someone does not have the courage to stand up and be counted and prefers to sneak around in the shadows he/she does not deserve to be in service. I hate all this nonsense mudslinging and cheap shots from the Dems. I just read the 'letter that was removed from Trump's desk' it was a draft. No POTUS would sign a draft it's for information and discussion. All this noise and nothing substantive. 

The author is a republican !

[Morch]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

I loathe 'anonymous sources'  as they mean zilch.  If someone does not have the courage to stand up and be counted and prefers to sneak around in the shadows he/she does not deserve to be in service. I hate all this nonsense mudslinging and cheap shots from the Dems. I just read the 'letter that was removed from Trump's desk' it was a draft. No POTUS would sign a draft it's for information and discussion. All this noise and nothing substantive. 

 

But no such outrage expressed when the president issues one of his routine made-up, counterfactual, backed by nothing and no-one accusations, tirades, or conspiracy theories. 

[newnative]

     I hope this brave soul's identity remains hidden--and he remains on the job, along with others, trying to keep the most insane impulses of this lying, unstable, delusional, egotistical, moron somewhat in check.  

[BobBKK]

28 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

A draft? 

 

"According to Woodward, [former top economic adviser Gary] Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk” that the president was intending to sign to formally withdraw the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea."  [Bold added.]

 

 

Nice try. 

 

From that same article:

 

"It is not normal procedure for a senior-level aide to steal documents off the president's desk."

 

Would you steal -  or to use your spin, even "remove" -  even "a draft" off the desk of the president?  

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a22984425/bob-woodward-donald-trump-aides-steal-off-desk/

 

 

Ah you get the point then?  did you READ the letter?   it is a DRAFT it's written all over it at the top (pre-Decisional/Deliberative). No one signs a draft as it was for discussion and was PRE decision.

 

Nice try???  perfect touchdown I'd call it

 

Has this guy admitted he stole a letter?  why would POTUS sign a draft?  this is ALL nonsense!!! 

Edited September 7, 2018 by BobBKK

[Opl]

3 hours 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.

Focus on the message not the messenger - whoever he is, he is not the problem. Trump based his staff choice on supposed loyalty to him . And  everyone had to sign an NDA with financial penalties .

  

Edited September 7, 2018 by Opl

[BobBKK]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

But no such outrage expressed when the president issues one of his routine made-up, counterfactual, backed by nothing and no-one accusations, tirades, or conspiracy theories. 

Have you ever been in a senior position?  I used to get drafts across my desk all the time. Drafts are for discussion and debate with managers.

 

No one signs a draft, they are iterative and one waits for the final version to sign. Stealing a draft is nonsense. As stated before I am not a Trump supporter (being pro-choice, pro-environment etc.) but I loathe all these lies (on both sides).

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Have you ever been in a senior position?  I used to get drafts across my desk all the time. Drafts are for discussion and debate with managers.

 

No one signs a draft, they are iterative and one waits for the final version to sign. Stealing a draft is nonsense. As stated before I am not a Trump supporter (being pro-choice, pro-environment etc.) but I loathe all these lies (on both sides).

 

Allow me to doubt you ever held a "senior position". Nothing in your posts recommends such a notion. Another indication would be the inability to focus - as in replying to the point. My post wasn't about your "draft-gate" nonsense, but rather on expressing selective outrage on things related to Trump (while claiming not to be a supporter).

 

 

[spidermike007]

Contrary to what the treasonous president says, outing him is a patriotic duty of a loyal American, who knows what is going on behind the scenes. We must encourage the majority, who oppose this creepy charlatan, to show their disapproval of his administration. Out them in public. This is what a democracy is made of. Trump is attempting to erase American democracy from the face of the earth. Start with the media. Then the opposition. Let us make those who work for tiny don feel exactly how captain chaos makes his opponents feel. Call them out. Every chance we get. We are going to start seeing alot more of this, as opposition to this hucksters plans continue to grow. And it is a good thing, though his supporters will attempt to demonize the movement, and will probably call these people traitors and not patriotic, when the exact opposite is true. Those that call out Trump, and his administration, are defending democracy. 

 

 And why not vilify and demonize Trump? It not only is fun, but it is the correct thing to do. In a democracy, when people really screw up, and this man does over and over again, they deserve our wrath. The wrath of the American people is just starting to show, with people like Nielsen, and Sanders being heckled out of restaurants. Good on those people. We need to see far more of that. And we need to see people calling out the huckster more often. He deserves that. He has earned it with his hatred, division, racist diatribes, support of dictators, alienation of our closest allies, and destruction of our economy. His supporters like to cite the macro economic numbers. Well, unless you are in real estate, or playing the stock market, or in the top 7% of Americans, you are hurting right now. Prices are skyrocketing, despite the fake inflation news from the very white house, and wages are stagnant. Consumer confidence is very, very low. Do not believe the hype. That is all it is. Nothing behind it. 

 

Respect has to be earned, and never freely given. Not for the office, not for the man. He deserves none of our respect.

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal, again. Please learn to control your font size when posting. Am not going to edit anymore.

[helpisgood]

22 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

Ah you get the point then?  did you READ the letter?   it is a DRAFT it's written all over it at the top (pre-Decisional/Deliberative). No one signs a draft as it was for discussion and was PRE decision.

 

Nice try???  perfect touchdown I'd call it

 

Has this guy admitted he stole a letter?  why would POTUS sign a draft?  this is ALL nonsense!!! 

 

 

You failed to address my question. 

And, I am sure you got drafts.  However, you were not the boss at the White House.  Heck, I wouldn't even touch a discarded Big Mac wrapper off of Trump's desk or even my own previous bosses' desks, without their permission.  It's on the president's desk for his imprimatur, not open for "deliberation."  

 

You also failed to mention the following:

 

"Cohn made a similar play to prevent Trump from pulling the United States out of the North American Free Trade Agreement...Under orders from the president, Porter drafted a notification letter withdrawing from NAFTA. But he and other advisers worried that it could trigger an economic and foreign relations crisis. So Porter consulted Cohn, who told him, according to Woodward: “I can stop this. I’ll just take the paper off his desk.”" 

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a22984425/bob-woodward-donald-trump-aides-steal-off-desk/

 

In other words, don't even let the president even get the chance to read it for "deliberation."  They don't seem to have much confidence in this guy.  And yeah, he did steal the letter.  That's the point!  Cohn was willing to steal it because he and others feared Trump advancing such a discussion. 

 

No touchdown.  Illegal procedure.