NYT op-ed: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

[ideologyhunter]

I was all for Dan Coats as Deepstate Throat, til I read that the op-ed originally ended with:
Zo, zis is my point, after discossing zis wid my har-dressair: I really don't care. Do U? Sank you NewYorrk Timez.

 

[Opoponax]

People, this wasn't an individual talking, it was a group talking.

Agreed. The thing was written with the approval and input of at least several people.

The "lodestar" thing is too obvious and was meant to make people think it was Pence. Thus, it's likely that Pence wasn't in on it.

It's interesting that the piece claimed they discussed the 25th Amendment early on. But how early in the Shitgibbon's administration was this discussed? A month? 6 months? A year? And as Trump has gotten progressively worse, why isn't more of an option now than ever? Trump is clearly unfit to carry out the duties of the office, so it wouldn't be a Constitutional crisis, but an exercise of the proper powers contained within the Constitution. It's never been tested, but that certainly doesn't make it unlawful.

And the line about when Trump is out of office, "one way or another" seems to indicate that they don't think Trump is going to make through his initial term. Out of every line written, that was the most encouraging to me. It may be that once Kavanaugh is confirmed (and he will be), they'll believe they've gotten everything out of Trump they could. Then, come November, when the Dems win the House, and possibly gain a majority in the Senate, that'll be the time to get rid of him.

Sure, Pence is a theocratic fuckstick, but outside of Executive Orders, he'll be a lame duck and likely wouldn't bother to seek election in 2020. If, and it's an enormous "if," the Dems play their cards right, they can so drag the GOP through the mud that we end up with a Democratic President and Congress. Hopefully.

 

[steve_bank]

If the words mot part of the left resistance are correct, I am suspicious. Why use a loaded word that conjures up WWII French resistance to Nazis? The phrasing plays more to Trump's narrative of the deep state out to get him. It does not present the image of a patriot or loyal opposition. The author said they agree with most of Trump's policies.

The op ed does not make sense. It sounds more like a half assed Trump tweet.

Someone in the media said it could be a false flag operation by Trump. All things considered I would not rule that out.

 

[Sarpedon]

Hell, if the republicans lose badly enough, he could be impeached in the lame duck session.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Using the word 'moral' instead of ethical make it seem like Pence too.

These people are defending themselves as much the mandate of the Administration that has just fired its President. They are arguing to the people (conservatives, Trump supporters, independents) to appeal to them about how they would view this. That they use morals in lieu of ethics speaks to the audience they are seeking out.

Sure, Pence is a theocratic fuckstick, but outside of Executive Orders, he'll be a lame duck and likely wouldn't bother to seek election in 2020. If, and it's an enormous "if," the Dems play their cards right, they can so drag the GOP through the mud that we end up with a Democratic President and Congress. Hopefully.

Like I noted, this is about trying to argue that they shouldn't be considered a "lame duck".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hell, if the republicans lose badly enough, he could be impeached in the lame duck session.

This year or 2020? I'm not aware of how the Dems could sweep enough Senate seats to convict on impeachment. Even this year, winning every seat available only gets them to 54ish.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the words mot part of the left resistance are correct, I am suspicious. Why use a loaded word that conjures up WWII French resistance to Nazis? The phrasing plays more to Trump's narrative of the deep state out to get him. It does not present the image of a patriot or loyal opposition. The author said they agree with most of Trump's policies.

The op ed does not make sense. It sounds more like a half assed Trump tweet.

The letter is an odd bit of both sides of the story. Which is why is reads like a bunch of people trying to gain legitimacy for removing Trump from office. They are saying that they support the tax cuts and immigration crap, but they don't support the lunacy and feeble command of Trump. They are also trying to have it both ways... 'we supported the good of Trump, not the bad.' I remember how George W. Bush was thrown under the bus by the right-wingers near the end. 'Oh, I never really supported him... he was a RINO... he didn't do enough on immigration.'

Someone in the media said it could be a false flag operation by Trump. All things considered I would not rule that out.

This would be like playing with radioactive material. The NY Times knows the identity(-ies) of the author(s). For this to be a false flag by Trump, this would require faking a dissent from inside the White House, writing a letter, and going to the NY Times to get it published through a person that says they are against the Leader of the administration they work for.

 

[phands]

Which is why is reads like a bunch of people trying to gain legitimacy for removing Trump from office.

Which is why Pence, or someone very close to him is a candidate.

 

[Sarpedon]

The lame duck session is the session of the old congress that meets after the election but before the new people take office. I am suggesting the republicans themselves could impeach him this year in late november or december. The republicans who might be for it:
1. Those who lost their seat and blame Trump.
2. Those who lost their seat and might get an appointment from Pence.
3. Those who won and dislike Trump but are too chickenshit to do anything about it until after the election.
4. Those who still have their seat don't want to have to face the 2020 elections with Trump on the ballot with them.

Add those numbers to the Democrats and you might have the necessary majority, if the republicans lose badly enough to make them think that getting rid of Trump is the only way to salvage the party.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The lame duck session is the session of the old congress that meets after the election but before the new people take office. I am suggesting the republicans themselves could impeach him this year in late november or december. The republicans who might be for it:
1. Those who lost their seat and blame Trump.
2. Those who lost their seat and might get an appointment from Pence.
3. Those who won and dislike Trump but are too chickenshit to do anything about it until after the election.
4. Those who still have their seat don't want to have to face the 2020 elections with Trump on the ballot with them.

Add those numbers to the Democrats and you might have the necessary majority, if the republicans lose badly enough to make them think that getting rid of Trump is the only way to salvage the party.

Duh... I completely crapped out in my brain on that one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Someone in the media said it could be a false flag operation by Trump. All things considered I would not rule that out.

This would be like playing with radioactive material. The NY Times knows the identity(-ies) of the author(s). For this to be a false flag by Trump, this would require faking a dissent from inside the White House, writing a letter, and going to the NY Times to get it published through a person that says they are against the Leader of the administration they work for.

I don't see why that would be any less likely than Pence haven written this trying to stop Trump.

 

[Opoponax]

This would be like playing with radioactive material. The NY Times knows the identity(-ies) of the author(s). For this to be a false flag by Trump, this would require faking a dissent from inside the White House, writing a letter, and going to the NY Times to get it published through a person that says they are against the Leader of the administration they work for.

But it's not impossible. I didn't want to bring it up, but I'm glad someone else did. While it's not likely, it's plausible given what Republicans have done. They ginned up false evidence to go to war with Iraq. Projecting what they do onto political opponents and gaslighting the nation has been routine practice since 2000 when the Presidency was stolen from Al Gore by a conservative SCOTUS. They unlawfully denied Obama his final SCOTUS pick. There willingness to completely subvert the law in order to gain and/or maintain power is well documented. Etc.

So why would a false flag operation be so out of the question?

Conservatives hate the free press, and they make little effort to state otherwise. If, for example, this was used to declare some kind of state of emergency wherein certain Constitutional protections were suspended, which could include shutting down media outlets, the NYT would be completely silenced and its staff likely arrested. Thus, the person(s) behind the letter would actually benefit, rather than be harmed by this.

Yes, that's a very dark, even paranoid scenario, but it's within the realm of possibility.

Republicans either face defeat in November, or finding some other way to hold onto power. They've done everything else, so why not this step?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This would be like playing with radioactive material. The NY Times knows the identity(-ies) of the author(s). For this to be a false flag by Trump, this would require faking a dissent from inside the White House, writing a letter, and going to the NY Times to get it published through a person that says they are against the Leader of the administration they work for.

But it's not impossible. I didn't want to bring it up, but I'm glad someone else did. While it's not likely, it's plausible given what Republicans have done. They ginned up false evidence to go to war with Iraq. Projecting what they do onto political opponents and gaslighting the nation has been routine practice since 2000 when the Presidency was stolen from Al Gore by a conservative SCOTUS. They unlawfully denied Obama his final SCOTUS pick. There willingness to completely subvert the law in order to gain and/or maintain power is well documented. Etc.

So why would a false flag operation be so out of the question?

Conservatives hate the free press, and they make little effort to state otherwise. If, for example, this was used to declare some kind of state of emergency wherein certain Constitutional protections were suspended, which could include shutting down media outlets, the NYT would be completely silenced and its staff likely arrested. Thus, the person(s) behind the letter would actually benefit, rather than be harmed by this.

Yes, that's a very dark, even paranoid scenario, but it's within the realm of possibility.

Republicans either face defeat in November, or finding some other way to hold onto power. They've done everything else, so why not this step?

If they were caught, and knowing the dissent that does exist, it would come out, the Democrats could very likely close Congress.

Someone in the media said it could be a false flag operation by Trump. All things considered I would not rule that out.

This would be like playing with radioactive material. The NY Times knows the identity(-ies) of the author(s). For this to be a false flag by Trump, this would require faking a dissent from inside the White House, writing a letter, and going to the NY Times to get it published through a person that says they are against the Leader of the administration they work for.

I don't see why that would be any less likely than Pence haven written this trying to stop Trump.

I would doubt that the NY Times would publish an anonymous Op-Ed from the VP. The write-up is a prelude to the removal of Trump from office.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There is software used to examine writings for example, to uncover plagiarism. There are subtle (or less than subtle) habits writers use that can be used as fingerprints to allow us to gauge if they wrote a given work, if long enough. I suspect now any number of suspects are going to be so examined by the white House to uncover the culprit.

Stay tuned. More explosive diarrhea from the White House to come.

 

[repoman]

There is software used to examine writings for example, to uncover plagiarism. There are subtle (or less than subtle) habits writers use that can be used as fingerprints to allow us to gauge if they wrote a given work, if long enough. I suspect now any number of suspects are going to be so examined by the white House to uncover the culprit.

Stay tuned. More explosive diarrhea from the White House to come.

It is also possible that the NYT was given permission to alter the style while maintaining the meaning of the letter. That would stymie any attempt of using those techniques.

 

[Elixir]

There is software used to examine writings for example, to uncover plagiarism. There are subtle (or less than subtle) habits writers use that can be used as fingerprints to allow us to gauge if they wrote a given work, if long enough. I suspect now any number of suspects are going to be so examined by the white House to uncover the culprit.

Stay tuned. More explosive diarrhea from the White House to come.

It is also possible that the NYT was given permission to alter the style while maintaining the meaning of the letter. That would stymie any attempt of using those techniques.

Yeah - It may bave been carefully constructed to that end by the NYT or the entire cabal (if there is one) that produced the document. I know that if I was part of that effort, I'd have had the thing re-written, part by part, by different individuals for exactly that purpose. I also consider it likely that "lodestar" was a plant, or a red herring. But it would be a delicious disaster if Pence was shown to be the author.

 

[Sarpedon]

I doubt the NYT would be participating in the crafting of this document. That it was probably created by a cabal is most likely, but I would bet that no more than one person delivered it to the NYT. The NYT's statement said 'high ranking official who's identity we know.' I can't believe the NYT would expose itself to the danger of giving a false statement here, nor of altering such an explosive document. Altering the document would move it from 'reporting' to 'conspiracy.' I also can't believe that a secretive cabal would risk revealing more than one of its members for this purpose.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is also possible that this whole thing is a work, by someone other than anybody in the white house or connected to Trump. Why are we giving the New York Times so much credit? They could be fooled. Did they actually meet face to face with the source? They could also be in on it, though that's less likely.

 

[Sarpedon]

What the NYT is saying is that they got this from a known Trump administration official, and that person asked them to publish it as their words. Whether it was actually written by them is immaterial, so long as they vouched for the content.

I trust the NYT because anything less than complete honesty here opens them up to criminal charges from a vengeful President who has no respect for the institutions of the press. Due diligence suggests they made sure it came from that known person.

This is hot stuff. I am certain they are wearing their oven mitts.

 

[repoman]

I just saw this ad on a totally non political video. I thought it was made this week.

This is where the country is in the culture war? Lunacy.



cant find the original video...

Saboteurs!!!

lol