I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

[Atheist 2020]

Whoever it is, should get a mental for his service to the United States.

 

[OscarLevant]

Jimmy Kimmel pronounced it was VP Pence. Over the use of the word Lodestar. Got to give that ass hat credit, he comes up with some doozies.

https://www.newsweek.com/jimmy-kimmel-says-it-was-mike-pence-who-wrote-trump-op-ed-1108870

No way it's Pence. Pence is the quintessential sycophant, no way would he risk losing favor with the prez, plus he cannot be fired, and the ostensible reason for being anonymous is to protect the writer's job. THe use of the word "lodestar" is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate who the author is. Also, Pence NEVER uses "adults in the room" which is also in the op-ed. The op ed is pastiche style borrowings from others in the WH, designed to fog who the author is. It smacks of being crafted by intelligence. So, either Dan Coates or one of his deputies, or a cabal in that group, is the most likely source.

 

[OscarLevant]

Right on. I'm thinking Coates too.

It's either someone with nothing to lose or someone with everything to gain.

However, Lodestar is a common word used by Pence (also by Coates.) It might be Pence or one of his minions.

I'm curious to find out. And we will. Eventually.

"Adults in the room", is NOT pence, nor would the words "25th amendment ever cross his lips. No, the oped smacks of intelligence trade craft.

There is a cabal in intelligence working against the president, and it's someone prominent. the only one who is a politician, and intelligence, and, at the age of 75, is going to retire and thus has nothing to lose, it all points to Coates. THE doc has been carefully crafted, the work of more than one person, but it could be one of his subordinates, or a group of them.

 

[ultmd]

"Adults in the room", is NOT pence, nor would the words "25th amendment ever cross his lips. No, the oped smacks of intelligence trade craft.

There is a cabal in intelligence working against the president, and it's someone prominent. the only one who is a politician, and intelligence, and, at the age of 75, is going to retire and thus has nothing to lose, it all points to Coates. THE doc has been carefully crafted, the work of more than one person, but it could be one of his subordinates, or a group of them.

I think this is probably close to correct.

But I have no doubt that Pence was made aware of it, if not in on it. He would have to be a part of this endeavor, because he's the benefactor of any 25th Amendment "solution". I think his denial today was part of the plan. I also think this will play out fairly quickly, and "anonymous" will be revealed within the next few months (at the latest).

 

[Robertinfremont]

His reputation for one. As I already explained, Woodward is above reproach. Trump is a proven liar, keep being a sucker, one born every minute.

Woodward quotes sources which is a cowards way out. All he had to do was name names so his story could be checked out.

 

[ultmd]

Woodward quotes sources which is a cowards way out. All he had to do was name names so his story could be checked out.

Nonsense.

Quoting unnames sources is the only way to get insiders to talk. Most people understand that. Even most Trump acolytes-if any are still capable of objective reasoning-understand that.

Unnamed sources are only as reputable as the journalists who quote them. Bob Woodward's unnamed sources are golden. Sean Hannity's would be (and are) mostly trash. One guy is a legitimate journalist. The other guy is just what passes for a journalist in the alt-right community.

 

[jaeger19]

Unfortunately what you describe is not analogous. Your "company" functions as a company not as The Administration of the Government. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for any kind of a shadow government.

Actually.. the constitution is all about checks and balances from the government.. that's the purpose of the constitution.. to limit the government. and particularly one person being a dictator and hurting the US freedoms etc.

 

[jnug]

Actually.. the constitution is all about checks and balances from the government.. that's the purpose of the constitution.. to limit the government. and particularly one person being a dictator and hurting the US freedoms etc.

Though Trump has tried to turn government into business, its not. Point is a business analogy simply does not apply to the US Government. So I don't think what somebody tried to rationalize doing in a business can relate in any way to what somebody might be trying to rationalize in the US Government. The op-ed author and the "trump appointees" have a rationalization I am sure....but its not what somebody in a business would have.

 

[Fenton]

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



I would have posted this in Breaking News but it really isn't "news" in the classic sense.

Basically, this anonymous high level official has purportedly chosen to provide the world with their interpretation of what is going on in the White House. They imply that there is actually a cabal of individuals seeking to contain and control Trump. Amazingly enough (not really) this release comes at the same time as Woodward's book comes out citing the same concept.

The idea of such a thing occurring isn't new. We've seen "whistleblowers" before.

One might ask, however, what the true purpose of a disclosure such as this really is. If it's to promote some kind of sense to those who oppose Trump that all is truly in good hands does this disclosure do that? Wouldn't someone disposed to an anti-Trump agenda simply prefer that the offending being be dismissed rather than covered up? How should we value the statements of someone who admits to surreptitious behaviors even if their actions are "noble"? What if this is merely the latest in a long line of attempts to discredit an elected official who does not fit the generally accepted model of a politician?

Ultimately, does a disclosure such as this really help the divide we have in this nation or does it exacerbate that divide?

Quite a few red flags here.
First, the OpEd was released in the same week Woodwards book was released and both pushed the same exact same narrative.
Mattis, Kelly, and Dowd's statements showing Woodward lied didn't add any credibility and Carl Bernsteins overt lie about Trump having prior knowledge of the Trump tower meeting and Bernsteins refusal to acknowledge he lied pretty much shows the Media has sold out all integrity for TDS

Next, the OpEd was published in the NYTs. If this really was a high level official, he could have taken his OpEd anywhere, even to a Conservative news outlet. That would have given it instant credibility.

Next, it was published anonymously, and the reason he gave for doing that doesn't add up. He claimed he and other cabinet officials discussed evoking the 25th amendment, but they didn't want to cause a Constitutional crisis.

The overt defiance of the Presidents Constitionally granted authority and subversion of the will of the people by a unelected appointee or cabinet member is the definition of a Constitutional crisis.

Next, there is NOTHING stopping him from going public and providing the evidence necessary to start the process of invoking the 25th amendment. He could call one today.

In fact, it strains credulity that the NYTs would pass on a opportunity to make this into a public spectacle and finally take down Trump, maybe even postpone Kavanaugh's hearing and energize their base right before a critical midterm election.

Next, the OpEd read like someone was trying a little too hard to sound like a establishment Never-Trumper Republican, and this isn't the first time the MSM has used a unnamed or anonymous source close to Trump to push this narrative that he's unfit or unstable

Now he may be some appointee or cabinet member, but that doesn't mean he's telling the truth. If he had evidence, tape recordings, etc, he would have gotten them to the NYTs by now, or he would have followed the legal process spelled out in the 25th Amendment.
But he didn't. He wrote a partisan OpEd and provided zero proof to back up who he said he was, and what he accused Trump of being

 

[Robertinfremont]

No way it's Pence. Pence is the quintessential sycophant, no way would he risk losing favor with the prez, plus he cannot be fired, and the ostensible reason for being anonymous is to protect the writer's job. THe use of the word "lodestar" is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate who the author is. Also, Pence NEVER uses "adults in the room" which is also in the op-ed. The op ed is pastiche style borrowings from others in the WH, designed to fog who the author is. It smacks of being crafted by intelligence. So, either Dan Coates or one of his deputies, or a cabal in that group, is the most likely source.

Be sure to let Jimmy Kimmel know what you believe.

 

[jnug]

Quite a few red flags here.
First, the OpEd was released in the same week Woodwards book was released and both pushed the same exact same narrative.
Mattis, Kelly, and Dowd's statements showing Woodward lied didn't add any credibility and Carl Bernsteins overt lie about Trump having prior knowledge of the Trump tower meeting and Bernsteins refusal to acknowledge he lied pretty much shows the Media has sold out all integrity for TDS

Next, the OpEd was published in the NYTs. If this really was a high level official, he could have taken his OpEd anywhere, even to a Conservative news outlet. That would have given it instant credibility.

Next, it was published anonymously, and the reason he gave for doing that doesn't add up. He claimed he and other cabinet officials discussed evoking the 25th amendment, but they didn't want to cause a Constitutional crisis.

The overt defiance of the Presidents Constitionally granted authority and subversion of the will of the people by a unelected appointee or cabinet member is the definition of a Constitutional crisis.

Next, there is NOTHING stopping him from going public and providing the evidence necessary to start the process of invoking the 25th amendment. He could call one today.

In fact, it strains credulity that the NYTs would pass on a opportunity to make this into a public spectacle and finally take down Trump, maybe even postpone Kavanaugh's hearing and energize their base right before a critical midterm election.

Next, the OpEd read like someone was trying a little too hard to sound like a establishment Never-Trumper Republican, and this isn't the first time the MSM has used a unnamed or anonymous source close to Trump to push this narrative that he's unfit or unstable

Now he may be some appointee or cabinet member, but that doesn't mean he's telling the truth. If he had evidence, tape recordings, etc, he would have gotten them to the NYTs by now, or he would have followed the legal process spelled out in the 25th Amendment.
But he didn't. He wrote a partisan OpEd and provided zero proof to back up who he said he was, and what he accused Trump of being

Some of what you are contending is just speculation not even founded in a logic path from information in the public domain.

Mattis, Kelly, and Dowd's statements showing Woodward lied didn't add any credibility

Kelly and Dowd have no credibility either having lied famously in the service of the Trump and all three of them are smart enough to avoid the Tillerson conundrum. In fact I would credit them for having the good sense to lie instead of backing themselves into the Tillerson conundrum. There are sound and logical reasons for public officials to lie in certain instances. Not acknowledging that would be naive in the extreme.

and Carl Bernsteins overt lie about Trump having prior knowledge of the Trump tower meeting and Bernsteins refusal to acknowledge he lied pretty much shows the Media has sold out all integrity for TDS

There is no evidence that Bernstein lied and actually no evidence that Davis lied. Davis clearly misspoke. But we do not know the nature of his misspeaking. But we can't even say with anything like certainty that Davis lied, let alone Bernstein who still claims to have a corroborating source for his story. Davis misspoke and had to retract. Rudy who has the same job for a different client that Davis has (neither being trial attorneys any longer) misspeaks and retracts five times a day.

Next, the OpEd was published in the NYTs. If this really was a high level official, he could have taken his OpEd anywhere, even to a Conservative news outlet. That would have given it instant credibility.

Like who?....It has the credibility it has. The NYT's is only irritating to a particular segment of the population at large. The emboldened on the NYT's is not even a point.

Next, the OpEd read like someone was trying a little too hard to sound like a establishment Never-Trumper Republican, and this isn't the first time the MSM has used a unnamed or anonymous source close to Trump to push this narrative that he's unfit or unstable

No evidence at all that this is what has happened here. You might have been better served using language like "this might be an instance of"

Now he may be some appointee or cabinet member, but that doesn't mean he's telling the truth. If he had evidence, tape recordings, etc, he would have gotten them to the NYTs by now, or he would have followed the legal process spelled out in the 25th Amendment.
But he didn't. He wrote a partisan OpEd and provided zero proof to back up who he said he was, and what he accused Trump of being

Sheer speculation not supported by anything at all. the emboldened above is just an extrapolation....air pumped into a balloon.

 

[yankintx]

Woodward quotes sources which is a cowards way out. All he had to do was name names so his story could be checked out.

Do you hold Trump to much the same standard with integrity ? Careful with your answer, you would not want to seem hypocritical like most Trump supoorters ?

 

[Grokmaster]

Some of what you are contending is just speculation not even founded in a logic path from information in the public domain.

Mattis, Kelly, and Dowd's statements showing Woodward lied didn't add any credibility

Kelly and Dowd have no credibility either having lied famously in the service of the Trump and all three of them are smart enough to avoid the Tillerson conundrum. In fact I would credit them for having the good sense to lie instead of backing themselves into the Tillerson conundrum. There are sound and logical reasons for public officials to lie in certain instances. Not acknowledging that would be naive in the extreme.

and Carl Bernsteins overt lie about Trump having prior knowledge of the Trump tower meeting and Bernsteins refusal to acknowledge he lied pretty much shows the Media has sold out all integrity for TDS

There is no evidence that Bernstein lied and actually no evidence that Davis lied. Davis clearly misspoke. But we do not know the nature of his misspeaking. But we can't even say with anything like certainty that Davis lied, let alone Bernstein who still claims to have a corroborating source for his story. Davis misspoke and had to retract. Rudy who has the same job for a different client that Davis has (neither being trial attorneys any longer) misspeaks and retracts five times a day.

Next, the OpEd was published in the NYTs. If this really was a high level official, he could have taken his OpEd anywhere, even to a Conservative news outlet. That would have given it instant credibility.

Like who?....It has the credibility it has. The NYT's is only irritating to a particular segment of the population at large. The emboldened on the NYT's is not even a point.

Next, the OpEd read like someone was trying a little too hard to sound like a establishment Never-Trumper Republican, and this isn't the first time the MSM has used a unnamed or anonymous source close to Trump to push this narrative that he's unfit or unstable

No evidence at all that this is what has happened here. You might have been better served using language like "this might be an instance of"

Now he may be some appointee or cabinet member, but that doesn't mean he's telling the truth. If he had evidence, tape recordings, etc, he would have gotten them to the NYTs by now, or he would have followed the legal process spelled out in the 25th Amendment.
But he didn't. He wrote a partisan OpEd and provided zero proof to back up who he said he was, and what he accused Trump of being

Sheer speculation not supported by anything at all. the emboldened above is just an extrapolation....air pumped into a balloon.

Hilarious; the ACTUAL PEOPLE WOODWARD LIED ABOUT, "have no credibility" in regards to what they, themselves sadi, but the "UNNAMED SOURCES" of Woodward's crap pile,.. and the FICTICIOUS NY Times Op-Ed author, are "credible."

Leftgoofythink at its finest.



View attachment 67239809

 

[jnug]

Hilarious; the ACTUAL PEOPLE WOODWARD LIED ABOUT, "have no credibility" in regards to what they, themselves sadi, but the "UNNAMED SOURCES" of Woodward's crap pile,.. and the FICTICIOUS NY Times Op-Ed author, are "credible."

Leftgoofythink at its finest.



View attachment 67239809

I am not contending that we can take as gospel the Woodward material. I will tell you that Woodward was roundly attacked during his investigation of Watergate. How did that work out? I will also tell you that without question Woodward has corroborated his material with multiple sources on each of the characterizations in his book. That is just what the guy does. Should he still be open to some degree of caution on the substance....without question.

As for the op-ed piece, the NYT's has a good deal on the line here. They know the identity of the anonymous source. The source is only anonymous to us...not them. The decision to go to print I am sure went all the way up to the Publisher as no Editor makes that decision unilaterally. The Publisher may have had to go to his Board for permission to go to print. All by way of saying a good many high level people including people from the business likely had to review the material and the source before they decided to go to print. None of which prevents some degree of caution in that case as well.

However, the NYT's and the credible end of print media is still the best and frankly ONLY place were investigative journalism is done. The 24/7's spend all day pulling down pieces from the NYT's, WAPO and the LA Times and WSJ and blathering on about them all day ad all night till it comes out your ears. THAT is all they do, including Fox News. Facebook and the Internet blogosphere and podcast world generally are laughable news sources....comical really.

Dowd and Kelly have already lied through their teeth publicly and verifiably in the service of Trump and all three of them have the good sense to lie before boxing themselves into the Tillerson conundrum IMO.

 

[OscarLevant]

I think this is probably close to correct.

But I have no doubt that Pence was made aware of it, if not in on it. He would have to be a part of this endeavor, because he's the benefactor of any 25th Amendment "solution". I think his denial today was part of the plan. I also think this will play out fairly quickly, and "anonymous" will be revealed within the next few mon
ths (at the latest).

There is no way such a cabal would have alerted Pence for Pence would have alerted the president.

 

[OscarLevant]

Be sure to let Jimmy Kimmel know what you believe.

Nah, I'll let you do that for me

 

[ultmd]

There is no way such a cabal would have alerted Pence for Pence would have alerted the president.

You give Pence much more credit for integrity and loyalty to the president that I do.

I think Pence wants to be POTUS; and as he's demonstrated under Trump for the last 2 years, he's clearly not tightly moored to any ethical or moral convictions, himself. I also remember well the things he had to say about then-candidate Trump before Trump became the GOP front-runner. He's also Dan Coat's closest friend from the Senate, where both served together as the senators for the state of Indiana.

If Coats is indeed the author of the Anonymous Op/Ed, I don't think he does it without getting Pence to sign off on it first. Otherwise, (if Coats is the author and Pence was not aware), then Coat clearly tried to frame Pence for it by using some of Pence's favorite rhetoric terms in the column.

 

[Threegoofs]

Oh my god, people!

There are clear clues right in the text of the editorial!

 

[Fenton]

Some of what you are contending is just speculation not even founded in a logic path from information in the public domain.

Mattis, Kelly, and Dowd's statements showing Woodward lied didn't add any credibility

Kelly and Dowd have no credibility either having lied famously in the service of the Trump and all three of them are smart enough to avoid the Tillerson conundrum. In fact I would credit them for having the good sense to lie instead of backing themselves into the Tillerson conundrum. There are sound and logical reasons for public officials to lie in certain instances. Not acknowledging that would be naive in the extreme.

and Carl Bernsteins overt lie about Trump having prior knowledge of the Trump tower meeting and Bernsteins refusal to acknowledge he lied pretty much shows the Media has sold out all integrity for TDS

There is no evidence that Bernstein lied and actually no evidence that Davis lied. Davis clearly misspoke. But we do not know the nature of his misspeaking. But we can't even say with anything like certainty that Davis lied, let alone Bernstein who still claims to have a corroborating source for his story. Davis misspoke and had to retract. Rudy who has the same job for a different client that Davis has (neither being trial attorneys any longer) misspeaks and retracts five times a day.

Next, the OpEd was published in the NYTs. If this really was a high level official, he could have taken his OpEd anywhere, even to a Conservative news outlet. That would have given it instant credibility.

Like who?....It has the credibility it has. The NYT's is only irritating to a particular segment of the population at large. The emboldened on the NYT's is not even a point.

Next, the OpEd read like someone was hard to sound like a establishment Never-Trumper Republican, and this isn't the first time the MSM has used a unnamed or anonymous source close to Trump to push this narrative that he's unfit or unstable


Sheer speculation not supported by anything at all. the emboldened above is just an extrapolation....air pumped into a balloon.

First, CNN has become a joke. If journalist integrity is the Titanic, CNN is the Iceberg

Lanny Davis admitted he was the source for a Carl Bernstein story that claimed Michael Cohen was going to tell Mueller Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting before hand.

The original Carl Bernstein story claimed Lanny Davis " declined to comment " and Lanny Davis also changed his story and said Michael Cohen has no knowledge of Trump knowing in advance about the Trump tower meeting

So you would expect any News outlet or Journalist ( Carl Bernstein ) with a ounce of integrity to run a correction. Nope. They refuse to admit they lied, and ran with Fake news

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...s-admits-he-lied-cnn-caught-ryan-saavedra?amp

And the OpEd never had any credibility. When it came out the hate Trump crowd was thrilled, and literally thought Trump was on his way out. Now, the stories dead in the wate and only the most obsessive and desperate Tump haters are talking about it

People realized pretty quick that the OpEd and Woodwards book was just Fire and Fury Part Deux. The MSM has run out of ideas so their rehashing old narratives and hoping no one notices. They really do think their viewers are imbeciles

Eventually even people on the Left started demanding that this " High Level Trump appointee " reveal himself. They called him a coward, selfish. Did he reveal himself ?? Nope, because in all likelihood he doesn't exist.

Personally I think it's either Corey Booker, or the ghost of John McCain.

 

[OscarLevant]

You give Pence much more credit for integrity and loyalty to the president that I do.

I think Pence wants to be POTUS; and as he's demonstrated under Trump for the last 2 years, he's clearly not tightly moored to any ethical or moral convictions, himself. I also remember well the things he had to say about then-candidate Trump before Trump became the GOP front-runner. He's also Dan Coat's closest friend from the Senate, where both served together as the senators for the state of Indiana.

If Coats is indeed the author of the Anonymous Op/Ed, I don't think he does it without getting Pence to sign off on it first. Otherwise, (if Coats is the author and Pence was not aware), then Coat clearly tried to frame Pence for it by using some of Pence's favorite rhetoric terms in the column.

Crossing Trump would end all of his chances to be president.
Pence's only hope to become president or at least run for president is if for some reason Trump does not run in 2020. Striking Trump's ire would be political suicide, because without
the support of Trump's base there's no way he'll be nominated let alone become president. Writing such an op-ed would definitely strike him out with Trump's base there just simply no way he wrote it. The Who benefits argument doesn't work here.

Why would a cabal within the intelligence Community need Pence's approval? it makes no sense. Pence is not a cabal oriented subversive oriented clandestine oriented guy.
It's simply not who he is.

It's not that Coates tried to frame Pence by using the term lodestar, the op-ed piece is Pastiche borrowing of many phrases all over the place whose sole purpose is to obfuscate authorship. The op-ed piece has Intelligence tradecraft written all over it. The Intelligence community would not in any way shape or form want to deal with Pence he is not trustable, simply because he's a trump Lackey, a quintessential sycophant.

 

[jaeger19]

Though Trump has tried to turn government into business, its not. Point is a business analogy simply does not apply to the US Government. So I don't think what somebody tried to rationalize doing in a business can relate in any way to what somebody might be trying to rationalize in the US Government. The op-ed author and the "trump appointees" have a rationalization I am sure....but its not what somebody in a business would have.

Actually its a good analogy for the situation. Actually its more likely in a government situation because you know that if you can wait long enough.. the boss will change.

In business.. I might not have been able to buy enough time with delay. And had to simply resign...

 

[jnug]

First, CNN has become a joke. If journalist integrity is the Titanic, CNN is the Iceberg

Lanny Davis admitted he was the source for a Carl Bernstein story that claimed Michael Cohen was going to tell Mueller Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting before hand.

The original Carl Bernstein story claimed Lanny Davis " declined to comment " and Lanny Davis also changed his story and said Michael Cohen has no knowledge of Trump knowing in advance about the Trump tower meeting

So you would expect any News outlet or Journalist ( Carl Bernstein ) with a ounce of integrity to run a correction. Nope. They refuse to admit they lied, and ran with Fake news

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...s-admits-he-lied-cnn-caught-ryan-saavedra?amp

And the OpEd never had any credibility. When it came out the hate Trump crowd was thrilled, and literally thought Trump was on his way out. Now, the stories dead in the wate and only the most obsessive and desperate Tump haters are talking about it

People realized pretty quick that the OpEd and Woodwards book was just Fire and Fury Part Deux. The MSM has run out of ideas so their rehashing old narratives and hoping no one notices. They really do think their viewers are imbeciles

Eventually even people on the Left started demanding that this " High Level Trump appointee " reveal himself. They called him a coward, selfish. Did he reveal himself ?? Nope, because in all likelihood he doesn't exist.

Personally I think it's either Corey Booker, or the ghost of John McCain.

Yup I had not followed this Davis story past his original retraction although Bernstein is still standing by his story. Stopped looking for the Davis story after the original retraction. I have to cop to that.

I have complained mightily here in this forum that we actually have no way to deal with so called attorneys who are not really trial lawyers but are PR representatives representing their "clients" to the press because there is no way to ignore them and no way to truly vet them. You cannot really vet the comments of an attorney representing a client even when you know he is really a PR agent with a law degree. Hence, Rudy's endless string of comments and retractions, comments and retractions.

The comments must be heeded. Yet there is no way to vet them as you run into the attorney/client privilege wall and then the retractions have to be accepted. Rudy is a bit disadvantaged in that he is forced into this role almost daily. In this case, Davis was relied upon to corroborate a story CNN had but there was no real way to vet Davis as he IS a named attorney for Cohen. Again all of us are unable to do more than accept these PR Attorneys at face value. Likely the only reason Davis was outed was because somebody at CNN was torqued off at Davis for having lied as the anonymous corroborator. Nobody could have had the story to tell to the other news outlets other than somebody at CNN unless we are suggesting that Davis outed himself.

However Davis was a corroborator for Bernstein, not (according to Carl) the original source and Bernstein is still sticking to his story. However, I don't see the connection between Carl and Woodward's book whether Bernstein's reporting is accurate or not. They have not been partners for years. Nor do I see any linkage to the NYT's op-ed. I have to admit that Bernstein was the more aggressive of the two during Watergate...constantly pushing the ploddingly slow Woodward to submit a story to the Editor before Woodward was comfortable.

As for the op-ed story losing interest...I don't see that at this point at all. It is still the hottest story of even this news cycle.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Do you hold Trump to much the same standard with integrity ? Careful with your answer, you would not want to seem hypocritical like most Trump supoorters ?

I do.

 

[jnug]

Actually its a good analogy for the situation. Actually its more likely in a government situation because you know that if you can wait long enough.. the boss will change.

In business.. I might not have been able to buy enough time with delay. And had to simply resign...

But you are talking about people stepping way across the line of conspiring against the Government of the United States and possibly having to face the music for it. Those that want to call this Treason would have a hard/impossible time making that case. But Conspiracy would not be hard to get to. Were you anywhere near conspiring against the Government of the United States?

 

[Robertinfremont]

I am not contending that we can take as gospel the Woodward material. I will tell you that Woodward was roundly attacked during his investigation of Watergate. How did that work out? I will also tell you that without question Woodward has corroborated his material with multiple sources on each of the characterizations in his book. That is just what the guy does. Should he still be open to some degree of caution on the substance....without question.

As for the op-ed piece, the NYT's has a good deal on the line here. They know the identity of the anonymous source. The source is only anonymous to us...not them. The decision to go to print I am sure went all the way up to the Publisher as no Editor makes that decision unilaterally. The Publisher may have had to go to his Board for permission to go to print. All by way of saying a good many high level people including people from the business likely had to review the material and the source before they decided to go to print. None of which prevents some degree of caution in that case as well.

However, the NYT's and the credible end of print media is still the best and frankly ONLY place were investigative journalism is done. The 24/7's spend all day pulling down pieces from the NYT's, WAPO and the LA Times and WSJ and blathering on about them all day ad all night till it comes out your ears. THAT is all they do, including Fox News. Facebook and the Internet blogosphere and podcast world generally are laughable news sources....comical really.

Dowd and Kelly have already lied through their teeth publicly and verifiably in the service of Trump and all three of them have the good sense to lie before boxing themselves into the Tillerson conundrum IMO.

Remember the book The Perfect Storm. i loved the movie and own it. But since the ship sailed off with no witness returning, it is just a good speculative book.

I classify Woodward in that same category no matter how well he did in nailing Nixon.

A lot of speculation happened in the movie the Perfect Storm and due to the way Woodward backs his book up, I would call it speculation all over the place.

I recall well when Nixon was in office and Bernstein and Woodward selling the book. But prior to that, they had fast developing articles in a paper that the Editor kept a heavy hand on both of them.