• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anonymous Cannot Be Trusted

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
There's something fishy about the Op-Ed. Last night I wrote out my thoughts about the Op-Ed and I've come to the conclusion that the Op-Ed writer cannot be trusted if it is anybody but Mike Pence. I'm not saying it is Mike Pence. Also this isn't an attack on Anonymous sources even though the NYT is complicit on working with the WH. Thoughts below:

There have been multiple reports about how the White House is even reacting to the Op-Ed. Most reports are claiming that The President is volcanic, explosive, and furious about Anonymous. There are others that are trickling out that says that the witch hunts within the WH to find the leaker, are fruitless. That The President had plans to use Anonymous as a foil at his rallies, and that Anonymous will only be found if they out themselves.

While being seen as a hero to most Americans, the NYT is running anonymous sources here and there saying that the WH is indeed close to finding Anonymous. Multiple media reports are following the NYT that they too believe the WH is close to finding the source. With no evidence.

To be fair, we can’t judge this properly without knowing the identity of Anonymous. There were some early conspiracy theories circling around that The President himself planted the Op-Ed. That changed to it being VP Pence, but then that changed to VP Pence being framed with the keyword Lodestar. Still other names are being floated, like John Kelly who sees himself as the incorrigible hero, Stephen Miller class-A troll, or Jared Kushner.

Would the public trust Kellyanne Conway?:
The most recent scenario is only partially touched upon by MSNBCs Morning Joe in which they speculated that it was Kellyanne Conway: The Queen of Alternative Facts!

It must be pointed out that three out of the four main theories include professional paid liars who have been known to attack the media and bend reality at their will. Whoever Anonymous is knows full well the President’s relentless attacks on the media, and his disdain for anonymous sources themselves. Some critics of the op-ed have called the whole thing a lie and a false flag.

Odd right that the WH response to this so easily fell into motion. Almost like it was designed that way. Yes, that’s because it was! Short of this whole entire thing being a ploy cooked up by the WH, the WH is now currently using the story to further their war on journalism, anonymous sources themselves, and reality.

At first glance you’d think that the WH would want to focus on the Nike Ad, or even mention the jobs report. But what if the communications team figured that those things are going nowhere? That the public already knows the WH’s position on these subjects and they can’t capitalize on those headlines anymore.

The New York Times is complicit:
As things settle down and Anonymous has yet to come forward, one can conclude that the WH sees this as a win! That’s right, let me repeat that. The WH sees the Op-Ed as a win! Remember those conflicting media reports about what is actually happening inside the WH? Remember the conspiracy theories about trollish administration figures Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Miller? Remember that the New York Times has now either agreed to play the WHs game or at the very least Is complicit in covering for them.

It helps the WH too much. It reinforces their idea of a deep state out to get them. It reinforces the idea that the intelligence community cannot be trusted, and it spits in the face of anonymous sources and the media for loving them. What it also does is get a bunch of people to basically publically declare their loyalty to the administration (that is of course if they are telling the truth) and gives way for a purge of anti-trump hold-overs from the Obama administration.

I can’t know if the writer of the Op-Ed is John Kelly who has basically been planning a military coup against the President for at least the last year. Kelly who agrees with most of the President’s policies and the way in which he handles the media attacking him. I cannot know if it is Stephen Miller, who’s trollish antics have been well documented since he was in high school. The guy who was seemingly hired to troll liberals and immigrants. Kellyanne Conway, whose husband is anti-Trump and whose views are nothing short of paid propaganda that she has been quoted saying she doesn’t even believe. I also cannot know that it’s a lower staffer or the President himself.

{cont.}
 
Mike Pence is the only source worth trusting:
The only person who the public would trust is Mike Pence. Who has seemingly purposefully made himself scarce through most scandals that hit the WH. Could it be that easy? Most people don’t think so. Jeff Sessions himself is another hard pill to swallow due to his racist past and SNL persona. But another scenario is that the Op-Ed was written by Sessions with Mueller’s approval.

One thing is for sure, the writer of the Op-Ed has confused the media. Much to the delight of the WH loyalists in particular Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Who armed her army of trolls to go after the Times. Even Trump himself seemed to have had a notion that the writer was female. He said so much at one of his rallies. But if the writer turns out to be Kellyanne Conway will the public forgive her for giving us alternative facts time and time again? If the writer is John Kelly with the support of VP Pence, will the public forgive him for sitting by during scandal after scandal seemingly doing nothing to curtail the President’s itchy twitter thumbs. And I find it hard to believe anyone calling Stephen Miller or Jared Kushner a hero if they come forward as the writer.

There may be a deep state ‘resistance’ working against the President among WH staffers. It is possible that most WH staffers don’t agree with the President’s antics and as reports claim, are living in hell. But then the question remains, what makes them stay? It’s certainly not the money, or the future career prospects. If there is such a shadow government and we can’t know this for certain without The President’s anti-trump purge or mass resignations, then it is doing a really terrible job keeping things running smoothly.

Basically the writer of the Op-Ed cannot be trusted and has at one time or another helped implement the Swamp’s agenda. Unless it’s Mike Pence, this isn’t really someone the public can prop up as a hero.
 
Nobody (except the NYTimes and the author of the op-ed) has enough practical information to know who the author is and what his motives are.
 
Nobody (except the NYTimes and the author of the op-ed) has enough practical information to know who the author is and what his motives are.

Michael Cohen and Lanny Davis are people that the liberals should look hard at if they want to prop up Anonymous as some sort of hero. That didn't work out too much. Now, CNN did a special with George Papadopoulos. This stuff sickens me just as much as those people being in the WH.
 
There's something fishy about the Op-Ed. Last night I wrote out my thoughts about the Op-Ed and I've come to the conclusion that the Op-Ed writer cannot be trusted if it is anybody but Mike Pence. I'm not saying it is Mike Pence. Also this isn't an attack on Anonymous sources even though the NYT is complicit on working with the WH. Thoughts below:

There have been multiple reports about how the White House is even reacting to the Op-Ed. Most reports are claiming that The President is volcanic, explosive, and furious about Anonymous. There are others that are trickling out that says that the witch hunts within the WH to find the leaker, are fruitless. That The President had plans to use Anonymous as a foil at his rallies, and that Anonymous will only be found if they out themselves.

While being seen as a hero to most Americans, the NYT is running anonymous sources here and there saying that the WH is indeed close to finding Anonymous. Multiple media reports are following the NYT that they too believe the WH is close to finding the source. With no evidence.

To be fair, we can’t judge this properly without knowing the identity of Anonymous. There were some early conspiracy theories circling around that The President himself planted the Op-Ed. That changed to it being VP Pence, but then that changed to VP Pence being framed with the keyword Lodestar. Still other names are being floated, like John Kelly who sees himself as the incorrigible hero, Stephen Miller class-A troll, or Jared Kushner.

Would the public trust Kellyanne Conway?:
The most recent scenario is only partially touched upon by MSNBCs Morning Joe in which they speculated that it was Kellyanne Conway: The Queen of Alternative Facts!

It must be pointed out that three out of the four main theories include professional paid liars who have been known to attack the media and bend reality at their will. Whoever Anonymous is knows full well the President’s relentless attacks on the media, and his disdain for anonymous sources themselves. Some critics of the op-ed have called the whole thing a lie and a false flag.

Odd right that the WH response to this so easily fell into motion. Almost like it was designed that way. Yes, that’s because it was! Short of this whole entire thing being a ploy cooked up by the WH, the WH is now currently using the story to further their war on journalism, anonymous sources themselves, and reality.

At first glance you’d think that the WH would want to focus on the Nike Ad, or even mention the jobs report. But what if the communications team figured that those things are going nowhere? That the public already knows the WH’s position on these subjects and they can’t capitalize on those headlines anymore.

The New York Times is complicit:
As things settle down and Anonymous has yet to come forward, one can conclude that the WH sees this as a win! That’s right, let me repeat that. The WH sees the Op-Ed as a win! Remember those conflicting media reports about what is actually happening inside the WH? Remember the conspiracy theories about trollish administration figures Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Miller? Remember that the New York Times has now either agreed to play the WHs game or at the very least Is complicit in covering for them.

It helps the WH too much. It reinforces their idea of a deep state out to get them. It reinforces the idea that the intelligence community cannot be trusted, and it spits in the face of anonymous sources and the media for loving them. What it also does is get a bunch of people to basically publically declare their loyalty to the administration (that is of course if they are telling the truth) and gives way for a purge of anti-trump hold-overs from the Obama administration.

I can’t know if the writer of the Op-Ed is John Kelly who has basically been planning a military coup against the President for at least the last year. Kelly who agrees with most of the President’s policies and the way in which he handles the media attacking him. I cannot know if it is Stephen Miller, who’s trollish antics have been well documented since he was in high school. The guy who was seemingly hired to troll liberals and immigrants. Kellyanne Conway, whose husband is anti-Trump and whose views are nothing short of paid propaganda that she has been quoted saying she doesn’t even believe. I also cannot know that it’s a lower staffer or the President himself.

{cont.}
I thought reporters relied on anonymity .
If not no one would ever tell them anything
 
I thought reporters relied on anonymity .
If not no one would ever tell them anything

They do, but they let a senior level WH Staffer write an article in their paper, while they tell the world that the President is so dangerous that they are scared to come forward, and that there is a shadow government protecting the country from total destruction.
 
Mike Pence is the only source worth trusting:
The only person who the public would trust is Mike Pence. Who has seemingly purposefully made himself scarce through most scandals that hit the WH. Could it be that easy? Most people don’t think so. Jeff Sessions himself is another hard pill to swallow due to his racist past and SNL persona. But another scenario is that the Op-Ed was written by Sessions with Mueller’s approval.

One thing is for sure, the writer of the Op-Ed has confused the media. Much to the delight of the WH loyalists in particular Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Who armed her army of trolls to go after the Times. Even Trump himself seemed to have had a notion that the writer was female. He said so much at one of his rallies. But if the writer turns out to be Kellyanne Conway will the public forgive her for giving us alternative facts time and time again? If the writer is John Kelly with the support of VP Pence, will the public forgive him for sitting by during scandal after scandal seemingly doing nothing to curtail the President’s itchy twitter thumbs. And I find it hard to believe anyone calling Stephen Miller or Jared Kushner a hero if they come forward as the writer.

There may be a deep state ‘resistance’ working against the President among WH staffers. It is possible that most WH staffers don’t agree with the President’s antics and as reports claim, are living in hell. But then the question remains, what makes them stay? It’s certainly not the money, or the future career prospects. If there is such a shadow government and we can’t know this for certain without The President’s anti-trump purge or mass resignations, then it is doing a really terrible job keeping things running smoothly.

Basically the writer of the Op-Ed cannot be trusted and has at one time or another helped implement the Swamp’s agenda. Unless it’s Mike Pence, this isn’t really someone the public can prop up as a hero.

You should probably get this moved to the CT forum.
 
You should probably get this moved to the CT forum.

CTs are mainstream now but I wouldn't consider this a conspiracy theory. I never said it is Mike Pence who wrote it. I said Mike Pence is the only person the public would trust. If it's anybody else in the administration, they'll end up being another Michael Cohen with extreme trust issues.
 
CTs are mainstream now but I wouldn't consider this a conspiracy theory. I never said it is Mike Pence who wrote it. I said Mike Pence is the only person the public would trust. If it's anybody else in the administration, they'll end up being another Michael Cohen with extreme trust issues.

CT's, even those pushed by the mainstream, are nothing more than CT's.

There's a place for them...and it's not in political discussion.
 
CT's, even those pushed by the mainstream, are nothing more than CT's.

There's a place for them...and it's not in political discussion.

Where is the place for your birtherism and your Qanon conspiracy theory?
 
CT's, even those pushed by the mainstream, are nothing more than CT's.

There's a place for them...and it's not in political discussion.

CT? NO. Gossip? Hell yeah. Note. I didn't explain who wrote the OP-Ed. I only speculated about who the likely culprits were, and why they shouldn't be trusted.

CTs usually try to pin the event on some type of shadowy group. And that the person exposing the CT should be trusted rather than the official story.

So once again, you are wrong.
 
I trust the bias of the NYT. They wouldn't bend over backwards to allow the anonymous op-ed if they thought it might help Trump. They wouldn't bend over backwards to allow the anonymous op-ed if they didn't find the source credible.

I trust them to have accurately characterized the status of the author.


I don't think it would be Mike Pence. His soul is bought and paid for by the Prince of Orangeness. That would be pretty amazing if it were Pence -- but I just don't believe it. And I don't think Trump's outrage is an act.



Anyway, I trust the NYT and I trust that they interrogated the source to learn their motives, and so I trust the source to a significant degree.
 
There's something fishy about the Op-Ed. Last night I wrote out my thoughts about the Op-Ed and I've come to the conclusion that the Op-Ed writer cannot be trusted if it is anybody but Mike Pence. I'm not saying it is Mike Pence. Also this isn't an attack on Anonymous sources even though the NYT is complicit on working with the WH. Thoughts below:

There have been multiple reports about how the White House is even reacting to the Op-Ed. Most reports are claiming that The President is volcanic, explosive, and furious about Anonymous. There are others that are trickling out that says that the witch hunts within the WH to find the leaker, are fruitless. That The President had plans to use Anonymous as a foil at his rallies, and that Anonymous will only be found if they out themselves.

While being seen as a hero to most Americans, the NYT is running anonymous sources here and there saying that the WH is indeed close to finding Anonymous. Multiple media reports are following the NYT that they too believe the WH is close to finding the source. With no evidence.

To be fair, we can’t judge this properly without knowing the identity of Anonymous. There were some early conspiracy theories circling around that The President himself planted the Op-Ed. That changed to it being VP Pence, but then that changed to VP Pence being framed with the keyword Lodestar. Still other names are being floated, like John Kelly who sees himself as the incorrigible hero, Stephen Miller class-A troll, or Jared Kushner.

Would the public trust Kellyanne Conway?:
The most recent scenario is only partially touched upon by MSNBCs Morning Joe in which they speculated that it was Kellyanne Conway: The Queen of Alternative Facts!

It must be pointed out that three out of the four main theories include professional paid liars who have been known to attack the media and bend reality at their will. Whoever Anonymous is knows full well the President’s relentless attacks on the media, and his disdain for anonymous sources themselves. Some critics of the op-ed have called the whole thing a lie and a false flag.

Odd right that the WH response to this so easily fell into motion. Almost like it was designed that way. Yes, that’s because it was! Short of this whole entire thing being a ploy cooked up by the WH, the WH is now currently using the story to further their war on journalism, anonymous sources themselves, and reality.

At first glance you’d think that the WH would want to focus on the Nike Ad, or even mention the jobs report. But what if the communications team figured that those things are going nowhere? That the public already knows the WH’s position on these subjects and they can’t capitalize on those headlines anymore.

The New York Times is complicit:
As things settle down and Anonymous has yet to come forward, one can conclude that the WH sees this as a win! That’s right, let me repeat that. The WH sees the Op-Ed as a win! Remember those conflicting media reports about what is actually happening inside the WH? Remember the conspiracy theories about trollish administration figures Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Miller? Remember that the New York Times has now either agreed to play the WHs game or at the very least Is complicit in covering for them.

It helps the WH too much. It reinforces their idea of a deep state out to get them. It reinforces the idea that the intelligence community cannot be trusted, and it spits in the face of anonymous sources and the media for loving them. What it also does is get a bunch of people to basically publically declare their loyalty to the administration (that is of course if they are telling the truth) and gives way for a purge of anti-trump hold-overs from the Obama administration.

I can’t know if the writer of the Op-Ed is John Kelly who has basically been planning a military coup against the President for at least the last year. Kelly who agrees with most of the President’s policies and the way in which he handles the media attacking him. I cannot know if it is Stephen Miller, who’s trollish antics have been well documented since he was in high school. The guy who was seemingly hired to troll liberals and immigrants. Kellyanne Conway, whose husband is anti-Trump and whose views are nothing short of paid propaganda that she has been quoted saying she doesn’t even believe. I also cannot know that it’s a lower staffer or the President himself.

{cont.}

Look, I don’t want to burst any bubbles here or anything but it’s looking more and more like Trump and his staff wrote the memo and leaked it to the Times just to troll Woodward and the media as a whole.
 
I trust the bias of the NYT. They wouldn't bend over backwards to allow the anonymous op-ed if they thought it might help Trump.

That part.
 
Look, I don’t want to burst any bubbles here or anything but it’s looking more and more like Trump and his staff wrote the memo and leaked it to the Times just to troll Woodward and the media as a whole.

Citation?
 
Deep Throat 1.0 denied ��*♂️ it for decades.

Opining, I’d say Coats or Kelly, with co-signers.

If Trump used the weight of the White House to troll, that's probably worse than having an anonymous Op-ed talk crap.
 
Look, I don’t want to burst any bubbles here or anything but it’s looking more and more like Trump and his staff wrote the memo and leaked it to the Times just to troll Woodward and the media as a whole.

Most bosses have some jackass working under them who'd like a shot at 15 minutes of boss bashing time. That's not really a big deal, especially as long as it's anonymous and presumably exaggerated.

The President using the weight of the White House to troll Americans? I don't think that's cool. It's below the office and offensive.
 
I trust the bias of the NYT. They wouldn't bend over backwards to allow the anonymous op-ed if they thought it might help Trump. They wouldn't bend over backwards to allow the anonymous op-ed if they didn't find the source credible. I trust them to have accurately characterized the status of the author.

I don't think it would be Mike Pence. His soul is bought and paid for by the Prince of Orangeness. That would be pretty amazing if it were Pence -- but I just don't believe it. And I don't think Trump's outrage is an act.

Anyway, I trust the NYT and I trust that they interrogated the source to learn their motives, and so I trust the source to a significant degree.

Good recap by CNN on the 25th. Majority of the 15 Cabinet members AND Pence. When trump denies it, Cabinet votes 🗳 again. Then 2/3 of each chamber.

None of this will happen until McConnell gets kavanaugh first. The Kavanaugh Court could easily sit on the Mueller Report. McConnell must realize that GOPs would be better off in 2020, even 2018, with Pence/Kasich.

Kasich will bring back Suburban GOPs and many Independents, just for starters. They would be tough to beat in 2020. Pence would keep the Evangelicals, even this year, as he’s currently doing on the stump.
 
I can’t know if the writer of the Op-Ed is John Kelly who has basically been planning a military coup against the President for at least the last year. Kelly who agrees with most of the President’s policies and the way in which he handles the media attacking him. I cannot know if it is Stephen Miller, who’s trollish antics have been well documented since he was in high school. The guy who was seemingly hired to troll liberals and immigrants. Kellyanne Conway, whose husband is anti-Trump and whose views are nothing short of paid propaganda that she has been quoted saying she doesn’t even believe. I also cannot know that it’s a lower staffer or the President himself.

I hope you don't believe some anonymous soul simply called up the NYT and they published. It doesn't work that way.

For the NYT to publish this, there had to be a good number of vetting sessions. The title :senior White House official" is probably spot-on.

The Times knows exactly who this is and it's not someone's flunky assistant or an employee working in janitorial.

Usually, the moniker "anonymous" is agreed upon if publishing will (A) Put the person's life in danger or (B) Put their job in danger.

This Opinion piece is in total harmony with at least four expose books on Trumps White House that have been published, the latest from Bob Woodward.

The revelations by Anonymous converge with revelations published by others. When there is a convergence, the authenticity of a claim is strengthened.

Donald Trump said:
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."

If you'd rather believe Donald Trump ..... then that's on you. Unless proven otherwise though, I'll believe that the Times did its best due diligence here and then some.
 
Look, I don’t want to burst any bubbles here or anything but it’s looking more and more like Trump and his staff wrote the memo and leaked it to the Times just to troll Woodward and the media as a whole.

1) It's an op-ed, not a memo.

2) The Times is literally aware of the identity of the source/author. You don't just write a random article from Trump's desk, submit it to the NYT, and be like "Oh, this is Dan Coats and I wrote a pretty essay." They actually vet that ****.

3) How is it trolling Woodward? The op-ed literally lines up almost exactly with Woodward's portrayal of the White House. How the hell is this trolling when it's agreeing with him?

4) How exactly do you get the feeling that "it looks like this"? I'm genuinely curious. From my point of view everything is what it seems. The White House is an absolute circus and in DC it's an open secret that the President is as incompetent and clueless as he is corrupt, and people in this administration are gutlessly setting themselves up to be the heroes who saved the world from Trump when it's all said and done.

Edit: I should also add, if this was all a "setup" by the Trump administration, why do they seem so intent on rooting out the identity of the anonymous author? And why was President Trump's reaction to it so visceral? Your feelings about the situation make very little sense given what we know.
 
Last edited:
If Trump used the weight of the White House to troll, that's probably worse than having an anonymous Op-ed talk crap.

Speaker Ryan said trump was trolling on Security Clearances. OOPS 🙊

Security Clearance Info drops ☔️ on Democratic Candidates continue from these Republicans.

GOP Voter Suppression in key states and districts is well underway, multi-faceted.
 
I hope you don't believe some anonymous soul simply called up the NYT and they published. It doesn't work that way.

For the NYT to publish this, there had to be a good number of vetting sessions. The title :senior White House official" is probably spot-on.

The Times knows exactly who this is and it's not someone's flunky assistant or an employee working in janitorial.

Usually, the moniker "anonymous" is agreed upon if publishing will (A) Put the person's life in danger or (B) Put their job in danger.

This Opinion piece is in total harmony with at least four expose books on Trumps White House that have been published, the latest from Bob Woodward.

The revelations by Anonymous converge with revelations published by others. When there is a convergence, the authenticity of a claim is strengthened.

If you'd rather believe Donald Trump ..... then that's on you. Unless proven otherwise though, I'll believe that the Times did its best due diligence here and then some.

When push comes to shove with any Republican, it will always be about their 20-year war on the Constitution to control the Federal Judiciary for the next Three Decades. Windfall tax cuts funneled back through Citizens Divided is next.

After that, Surburban GOPs will be the first to come back with ‘reasonable’ presenters like Pence/Kasich. Democrats still don’t see that coming for 2020. They never do.
 
If you'd rather believe Donald Trump ..... then that's on you. Unless proven otherwise though, I'll believe that the Times did its best due diligence here and then some.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion reading my post...
 
Back
Top Bottom