- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 25,357
- Reaction score
- 11,557
- Location
- Post-Trump America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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.
I thought reporters relied on anonymity .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
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
Donald Trump said:"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
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.
If Trump used the weight of the White House to troll, that's probably worse than having an anonymous Op-ed talk crap.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?