What was the purpose of the anonymous NYTimes op-ed?

[Cardinal]

After I had a little over an hour to digest the anonymous White House official's article today in the New York Times, it occurred to me that in spite of my initial impression, I really had no idea at all what its purpose was.

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

Some of the options I've seen or considered:

1) A letter that's really aimed at the President in order to appeal to his better nature.
2) An effort to reassure the public that in spite of all appearances, they can sleep easy knowing there are adults in the room restraining the President's worst impulses.
3) An insurance policy to salvage the reputation of the Republican Party after things go to hell in a handbasket.
4) A public relations stunt to reduce the demand for Congressional oversight, since Republicans will argue that adults are in charge of the White House anyway.
5) An attempt by White House trolls (perhaps even Trump himself) to reinforce the narrative of a "deep state" that needs purging.

In order to prevent the poll results from being skewed by Trump supporter conspiracy theories, there is no "other" option.

 

[Winston]

After I had a little over an hour to digest the anonymous White House official's article today in the New York Times, it occurred to me that in spite of my initial impression, I really had no idea at all what its purpose was.

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

Some of the options I've seen or considered:

1) A letter that's really aimed at the President in order to appeal to his better nature.
2) An effort to reassure the public that in spite of all appearances, they can sleep easy knowing there are adults in the room restraining the President's worst impulses.
3) An insurance policy to salvage the reputation of the Republican Party after things go to hell in a handbasket.
4) A public relations stunt to reduce the demand for Congressional oversight, since Republicans will argue that adults are in charge of the White House anyway.
5) An attempt by White House trolls (perhaps even Trump himself) to reinforce the narrative of a "deep state" that needs purging.

In order to prevent the poll results from being skewed by Trump supporter conspiracy theories, there is no "other" option.

This is some 5 dimensional chess **** that I need explained to me :lamo

 

[Winston]

After I had a little over an hour to digest the anonymous White House official's article today in the New York Times, it occurred to me that in spite of my initial impression, I really had no idea at all what its purpose was.

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

Some of the options I've seen or considered:

1) A letter that's really aimed at the President in order to appeal to his better nature.
2) An effort to reassure the public that in spite of all appearances, they can sleep easy knowing there are adults in the room restraining the President's worst impulses.
3) An insurance policy to salvage the reputation of the Republican Party after things go to hell in a handbasket.
4) A public relations stunt to reduce the demand for Congressional oversight, since Republicans will argue that adults are in charge of the White House anyway.
5) An attempt by White House trolls (perhaps even Trump himself) to reinforce the narrative of a "deep state" that needs purging.

In order to prevent the poll results from being skewed by Trump supporter conspiracy theories, there is no "other" option.

I think we can safely rule out option #1. It is common knowledge that Trump (who doesn't read the New York Times) will not heed advice or appeals from the NY Times.. or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Cardinal]

I think we can safely rule out option #1. It is common knowledge that Trump (who doesn't read the New York Times) will not heed advice or appeals from the NY Times.. or anyone else for that matter.

The only reason I added #1 is Susan Hennesy proposed it, though I think it's logically defunct since, if we take the op-ed at face value, the author already considers the President unmoored by any principle.

The current meltdown by the President suggests that #5 may not be very likely either, at least insofar as the idea that it was released by Trump personally. That still doesn't rule out any of the other dozen trolls in the White House.

"Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037485664433070080

 

[The Mark]

After I had a little over an hour to digest the anonymous White House official's article today in the New York Times, it occurred to me that in spite of my initial impression, I really had no idea at all what its purpose was.

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

Some of the options I've seen or considered:

1) A letter that's really aimed at the President in order to appeal to his better nature.
2) An effort to reassure the public that in spite of all appearances, they can sleep easy knowing there are adults in the room restraining the President's worst impulses.
3) An insurance policy to salvage the reputation of the Republican Party after things go to hell in a handbasket.
4) A public relations stunt to reduce the demand for Congressional oversight, since Republicans will argue that adults are in charge of the White House anyway.
5) An attempt by White House trolls (perhaps even Trump himself) to reinforce the narrative of a "deep state" that needs purging.

In order to prevent the poll results from being skewed by Trump supporter conspiracy theories, there is no "other" option.

I'm not sure it's any of these.

It might just be an insurance policy for the specific staff member who wrote it.

Or even actually an individual who is concerned by the way things are.

 

[Winston]

The only reason I added #1 is Susan Hennesy proposed it, though I think it's logically defunct since, if we take the op-ed at face value, the author already considers the President unmoored by any principle.

The current meltdown by the President suggests that #5 may not be very likely either, at least insofar as the idea that it was released by Trump personally. That still doesn't rule out any of the other dozen trolls in the White House.

"Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037485664433070080

Dear God, this is going to drive him mad!

 

[Cardinal]

I'm not sure it's any of these.

It might just be an insurance policy for the specific staff member who wrote it.

Or even actually an individual who is concerned by the way things are.

Or an effort to provoke the President into doing something truly stupid.

There is so little to truly know about the motives for the op-ed that I'm almost in agreement with the idea that we should know who the author is. It seems more inspired to cause chaos than anything.

 

[Cardinal]

Dear God, this is going to drive him mad!

Yes, an option I regrettably left out.

 

[Captain Adverse]

After I had a little over an hour to digest the anonymous White House official's article today in the New York Times, it occurred to me that in spite of my initial impression, I really had no idea at all what its purpose was.

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

Some of the options I've seen or considered:

1) A letter that's really aimed at the President in order to appeal to his better nature.
2) An effort to reassure the public that in spite of all appearances, they can sleep easy knowing there are adults in the room restraining the President's worst impulses.
3) An insurance policy to salvage the reputation of the Republican Party after things go to hell in a handbasket.
4) A public relations stunt to reduce the demand for Congressional oversight, since Republicans will argue that adults are in charge of the White House anyway.
5) An attempt by White House trolls (perhaps even Trump himself) to reinforce the narrative of a "deep state" that needs purging.

In order to prevent the poll results from being skewed by Trump supporter conspiracy theories, there is no "other" option.

What happened to "a letter designed to show there are 'resistance' supporters working to undermine the Administration, and provide more grist for the 'impeach Trump' efforts" option?

No one should be surprised by this "revelation," which is no new "news" at all.

There were "anonymous former and current members of government" leaking any and everything they thought would damage the Administration almost from the moment Trump was sworn into office. RINO's included.

Small wonder the President was becoming "a bit" concerned about being able to trust people who were hired or assigned to work for/with him almost from day one.

 

[Winston]

Yes, an option I regrettably left out.

Literally troll him the way a senior in high school would pull a prank.

 

[Cardinal]

Literally troll him the way a senior in high school would pull a prank.

A hilarious prank that could lead to a marathon of firings and my generation's first, bona fide Constitutional crisis.

 

[hanger4]

After I had a little over an hour to digest the anonymous White House official's article today in the New York Times, it occurred to me that in spite of my initial impression, I really had no idea at all what its purpose was.

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

Some of the options I've seen or considered:

1) A letter that's really aimed at the President in order to appeal to his better nature.
2) An effort to reassure the public that in spite of all appearances, they can sleep easy knowing there are adults in the room restraining the President's worst impulses.
3) An insurance policy to salvage the reputation of the Republican Party after things go to hell in a handbasket.
4) A public relations stunt to reduce the demand for Congressional oversight, since Republicans will argue that adults are in charge of the White House anyway.
5) An attempt by White House trolls (perhaps even Trump himself) to reinforce the narrative of a "deep state" that needs purging.

In order to prevent the poll results from being skewed by Trump supporter conspiracy theories, there is no "other" option.

The timing with the release of Woodward's book should be considered also.

 

[Cardinal]

I've now come around to thinking that the op-ed did much more harm than good.

 

[DaveFagan]

After I had a little over an hour to digest the anonymous White House official's article today in the New York Times, it occurred to me that in spite of my initial impression, I really had no idea at all what its purpose was.

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

Some of the options I've seen or considered:

1) A letter that's really aimed at the President in order to appeal to his better nature.
2) An effort to reassure the public that in spite of all appearances, they can sleep easy knowing there are adults in the room restraining the President's worst impulses.
3) An insurance policy to salvage the reputation of the Republican Party after things go to hell in a handbasket.
4) A public relations stunt to reduce the demand for Congressional oversight, since Republicans will argue that adults are in charge of the White House anyway.
5) An attempt by White House trolls (perhaps even Trump himself) to reinforce the narrative of a "deep state" that needs purging.

In order to prevent the poll results from being skewed by Trump supporter conspiracy theories, there is no "other" option.

First Priority. Establish the motive of the specific MSM source. The NYTimes is the favored disinformation/misinformation font of the NeoCons/MIC/Intelligence Agencies. Now assess the article content related to those interests. Perhaps to instill confidence that the Deep State is a good thing and doing its' job, because it's not a good thng and this is not its' job. Somehow relate it to the agenda narrative that is being promoted. Then let logic rule the day.
/

 

[Zyphlin]

I think 2 and 3 most likely

 

[Rexedgar]

#2 is my thought; although the fact that the op-ed is not owned makes it lose some steam. I think Twitter will be busy the next 24hrs.....

 

[Lursa]

"None of the above"


To get out in front of things and seem heroic before the book comes out and actually names him.

(If he cant hide, he can step forward on his own first)

 

[Roadvirus]

None of the above.

Some asshat helping Bob Woodworm promote the spam he calls a book.

 

[Cardinal]

"None of the above"


To get out in front of things and seem heroic before the book comes out and actually names him.

(If he cant hide, he can step forward on his own first)

What we're witnessing firsthand is the price for electing entirely malevolent human beings to the White House, and why the total destruction of the President's credibility is a problem. The op-ed is spawning theories faster than rabbits in Australia, and everybody knows that the center of the story, the White House itself, can't be trusted to settle the matter. This, right now, is the purest picture of chaos that Russia could have dreamed up for us.

This sucks.

 

[DaveFagan]

When I first read it, I thought Kelly or Mattis, knowing that this individual has faith in the Deep State. Then I remembered Pompeo and there is no bigger fish in the Deep State.
/

 

[Cardinal]

None of the above.

Some asshat helping Bob Woodworm promote the spam he calls a book.

Just think: if Trump hadn't lied 4713 times since inauguration, there might have been the chance that the official White House response might settle matter or at least pour some cold water over the op-ed.

That boat has sailed.

 

[Cardinal]

"It's long been obvious that a defining trait of the Trump presidency is the president’s inability to do anything about senior officials who ignore his wishes and guidance and instead follow their own agenda.

So it's not surprising that (as the resistance op-ed says) “many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” That's been true since the first year of the administration."

"The op-ed will enhance the credibility of “deep state” conspiracy theories. The obviousness of this consequence, combined with the anonymous senior official's failure to offer any credible comfort about who’s really in charge, makes me wonder about his or her real agenda."

-Jack Goldsmith, Professor Harvard Law

https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/1037497807081484288

 

[Parrish]

"None of the above"


To get out in front of things and seem heroic before the book comes out and actually names him.

(If he cant hide, he can step forward on his own first)

Perhaps to provide cover for those in the administration and the GOP leadership who have used POTUS to further their own agendas. 45 is their useful idiot. That they have been witnesses to his rantings, instability and ineptitude and forgot the oaths they took to the Constitution just to hold on to their power is a travesty.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I just don't know.

 

[marke]

After I had a little over an hour to digest the anonymous White House official's article today in the New York Times, it occurred to me that in spite of my initial impression, I really had no idea at all what its purpose was.

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

Some of the options I've seen or considered:

1) A letter that's really aimed at the President in order to appeal to his better nature.
2) An effort to reassure the public that in spite of all appearances, they can sleep easy knowing there are adults in the room restraining the President's worst impulses.
3) An insurance policy to salvage the reputation of the Republican Party after things go to hell in a handbasket.
4) A public relations stunt to reduce the demand for Congressional oversight, since Republicans will argue that adults are in charge of the White House anyway.
5) An attempt by White House trolls (perhaps even Trump himself) to reinforce the narrative of a "deep state" that needs purging.

In order to prevent the poll results from being skewed by Trump supporter conspiracy theories, there is no "other" option.

Trump is no doubt asking his close staff how this confidence con man got into the White House.