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

[Sarpedon]

And just as obviously, the real goal is not the stated goal.

You got it right yourself, a few posts ago. A secondary goal is to shore up support among wavering Republicans in the upcoming elections.

 

[barbos]

And just as obviously, the real goal is not the stated goal.

Well, they kinda stated that their goal to inform that "resistance" exist.

You got it right yourself, a few posts ago. A secondary goal is to shore up support among wavering Republicans in the upcoming elections.

LOL, so you think this a republican plot to win elections?

 

[southernhybrid]

So far, Kelly is the only one who hasn't denied he was the one who wrote the article, not that this necessarily means anything. Any of them could be lying. Have any of you considered that a group of them may have written the piece together, but only one went to the NYTimes to ask to have it published? It's just so insane that we still have this mentally disturbed individual trying to run the country and his enablers are telling us not to worry, they have a handle on it. It's just nuts!

Oh, I forgot about Sessions. He hasn't said anything, but he's not a cabinet member.

 

[Sarpedon]

LOL, so you think this a republican plot to win elections?

I said as a secondary goal, yes. I also think they are stupid, so what they think will help them probably won't.

Aside from that, ALL administration officials are Republicans (Most presidents try to appoint a few people from the other party to important posts; Trump didn't, because of his simple minded 'winner take all' attitude), and since they are involved in politics, yes, I think they'd like to win an election. This is factional infighting. The conspirators are members of the largely discredit group of the Republicans that was until recently considered the mainstream. Let's call them the Bush faction. They want to regain control from the Trump faction. They can't remove him before the election, because that would cause Trump supporters to bail on the GOP. They can't do nothing, because that might cause their own voter base (such as it is) to conclude that their faction no longer exists and consider going over to the democrats. So they pull this manuever. After the election, they get rid of Trump and pick up the pieces. Stupid as it is, it makes sense from their point of view.

Just what exactly do you think is controversial here? Why do you think I should accept the 'stated' goal as the real goal?

 

[jonatha]

Oh, I forgot about Sessions. He hasn't said anything, but he's not a cabinet member.

Yes he is.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Text of Tweet that Angry Floof has a screenshot of:

Scott Dworkin
@funder

BREAKING: A Republican lobbyist just told me that "@realDonaldTrump intends to use lie detector tests on his own cabinet and staff members," in an effort to try and uncover who was behind the scathing New York Times op-ed. They also said "he wants them to be arrested when found."

23:49 PM - 6 Sep 2018

A lie detector or polygraph works by monitoring various physiological features, and telling lies is supposed to show up as distinct from saying what one believes to be true. There has been a lot of controversy about how well lie detectors work, if they work at all. One could get a false positive from a test subject being nervous, and a false negative from a test subject staying calm. In fact, lie detectors may work in some cases because of belief that they work -- a test subject who is trying to tell some lie might fear getting exposed by the machine, and the machine would then record the subject's fearfulness.

I suspect that at least some of pResident Trump's suspects may have some familiarity with lie detectors -- enough familiarity to not be scared by them.

Lie detectors work ONLY if the subject believes that they do; And there are recorded instances of police getting confessions from suspects by using a 'lie detector' that consisted solely of a photocopier with the word 'LIE' on the glass, where each time officers suspected a fib, they hit the 'Copy' button, producing a page that read 'LIE'.

Polygraphs are pseudoscience; Only in the USA are they still treated as though they were real by courts of law.

My information (based on recent classified work) is that this impression is outdated, and modern polygraphs are much more effective and sophisticated than this. "Being nervous" is controlled for. I haven't experienced and I wasn't given access to any data, since that isn't within my clearance, but be careful about making blanket statements like this. It may be true, but it's kind of like making a definitive statement on the status of US stealth technology. You simply aren't going to have the data you need to make a claim better than a 'best guess'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lie detectors work ONLY if the subject believes that they do; And there are recorded instances of police getting confessions from suspects by using a 'lie detector' that consisted solely of a photocopier with the word 'LIE' on the glass, where each time officers suspected a fib, they hit the 'Copy' button, producing a page that read 'LIE'.

Polygraphs are pseudoscience; Only in the USA are they still treated as though they were real by courts of law.

My information (based on recent classified work) is that this impression is outdated, and modern polygraphs are much more effective and sophisticated than this. "Being nervous" is controlled for. I haven't experienced and I wasn't given access to any data, since that isn't within my clearance, but be careful about making blanket statements like this. It may be true, but it's kind of like making a definitive statement on the status of US stealth technology. You simply aren't going to have the data you need to make a claim better than a 'best guess'.

It is hard to fail a lie detector if you are a sociopath, isn't it? This White House is full of them.

 

[Copernicus]

NYT Trump column: Linguistic clues to White House insider? - BBC News

The software we used hones in on certain characteristics of writing style, including how often the writer repeats words, when they use rare words, how often and where they use punctuation, how many characters they use in each word, and how long their sentences are.

Compared with most of the official statements and speeches we analysed, the New York Times column had a distinctive style (again, some of this could be down to the editing process).

It has only 19.3 words per sentence, while official statements of the Trump Administration are often around 30 words per sentence.

This is consistent with Mike Pence's 17 - 20 words per sentence in some of his recent speeches -- and some columns written by him in the 1990's.

Also, while official statements seldom use passive voice, Mike Pence's speeches and writings use it more often, as does this NYT op-ed. Like "Although he was elected as a Republican" instead of "Although the American people elected him as a Republican".

So we have three pieces of evidence that point to Mike Pence or an imitator of him:

• The word "lodestar"
• Sentence length
• Use of passive voice

So we have a grammatical feature.

Don Lemon linked "lodestar" to military and hence Kelly. I have never heard that word before.

I don't know what Don Lemon said, but the word "lodestar" is linked to Michael Pence, not John Kelly. That is, Pence has used it quite often in his speeches. Most of the linguistic clues seem to point to Pence's style, and he stands to gain the most from an Article 25 action or an impeachment/conviction of Trump. Also, the tone of the letter suggests a fairly conventional conservative Republican, which matches Pence's way of thinking. I suspect that this letter was written by Pence and his speech writer, possibly in collusion with Dan Coats, who is an Indiana politician and personal friend of Pence. Coats is known to harbor similar attitudes and could likely be the "high official" who "could be fired" that delivered the letter to the times. Pence himself cannot be fired, but his effectiveness and future plans would be jeopardized, if he were discovered to have written the piece. Coats could take the fall for Pence, if he were found out to have delivered the letter.

Anyway, that's my conspiracy theory, and I'm sticking with it. For now.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Lie detectors work ONLY if the subject believes that they do; And there are recorded instances of police getting confessions from suspects by using a 'lie detector' that consisted solely of a photocopier with the word 'LIE' on the glass, where each time officers suspected a fib, they hit the 'Copy' button, producing a page that read 'LIE'.

Polygraphs are pseudoscience; Only in the USA are they still treated as though they were real by courts of law.

My information (based on recent classified work) is that this impression is outdated, and modern polygraphs are much more effective and sophisticated than this. "Being nervous" is controlled for. I haven't experienced and I wasn't given access to any data, since that isn't within my clearance, but be careful about making blanket statements like this. It may be true, but it's kind of like making a definitive statement on the status of US stealth technology. You simply aren't going to have the data you need to make a claim better than a 'best guess'.

It is hard to fail a lie detector if you are a sociopath, isn't it? This White House is full of them.

I've been told (cuz I asked this question!) that this is no longer the case. I'm sure it's not 100%, like some of them would like (us) to think, but I do suspect they've gotten better.

Anyway, I wish the mainstream media would stop focusing on who wrote that awful op-ed, and the content....which is still shitty.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It might be an attempt at a far right extremist coup. This could well be designed to start a purge of what moderates and mainstream conservatives remaining in the Trump administration. The adults in the room. And to get some of those to throw up their hands and bail. To then be replaced with more extreme people with agendas. To eventually create a far right praetorian guard. People who will feed Trump bad ideas designed to appeal to him to implement far right extremist positions with no level heads to deter him from foolishness.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It might be an attempt at a far right extremist coup. This could well be designed to start a purge of what moderates and mainstream conservatives remaining in the Trump administration.

Trump's Cabinet serves at his pleasure. He wants to fire people, he can. A far right wing coup would be complicated by a GOP controlled Congress that would insist on professionalism and qualifications of his nominees.

Excuse me for a moment.

Show

Just kidding.

It is of interest, the "lodestar" term which up to this point of my life, I had never heard before. When writing an "anonymous" Op-Ed, it is usually best to exclude words no other person has ever heard before. So it'd seem like it was either a speechwriter who put it together who loves the word, a letter of poor anonymity (Pence isn't the brightest guy out there... and gives me images of My Fellow Americans), or maybe even a misleading "clue".

But why try and put Pence under the bus? There is only one person who benefits from Pence going under the bus.

Paul Ryan.

 

[Bronzeage]

Don Lemon linked "lodestar" to military and hence Kelly. I have never heard that word before.

I don't know what Don Lemon said, but the word "lodestar" is linked to Michael Pence, not John Kelly. That is, Pence has used it quite often in his speeches. Most of the linguistic clues seem to point to Pence's style, and he stands to gain the most from an Article 25 action or an impeachment/conviction of Trump. Also, the tone of the letter suggests a fairly conventional conservative Republican, which matches Pence's way of thinking. I suspect that this letter was written by Pence and his speech writer, possibly in collusion with Dan Coats, who is an Indiana politician and personal friend of Pence. Coats is known to harbor similar attitudes and could likely be the "high official" who "could be fired" that delivered the letter to the times. Pence himself cannot be fired, but his effectiveness and future plans would be jeopardized, if he were discovered to have written the piece. Coats could take the fall for Pence, if he were found out to have delivered the letter.

Anyway, that's my conspiracy theory, and I'm sticking with it. For now.

Lodestar is a term used by navigators who are using a start, the lodestar, as a reference point. In the northern hemisphere, the North Star is the preferred lodestar.

Fun fact: Lodestone is a magnetic iron mineral which is attracted to the lodestar.

Anyone with military navigation training would be familiar with the term lodestar. Mike Pence has attracted a lot of attention because he uses the word as a metaphor in speeches. That is a strange coincidence, if it is a coincidence.

The fatal flaw in the Pence dunnit scenario is, one has to assume that Mike Pence would leave irrefutable evidence of his treachery in the hands of the New York Times. I don't see that happening.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don Lemon linked "lodestar" to military and hence Kelly. I have never heard that word before.

I don't know what Don Lemon said, but the word "lodestar" is linked to Michael Pence, not John Kelly. That is, Pence has used it quite often in his speeches. Most of the linguistic clues seem to point to Pence's style, and he stands to gain the most from an Article 25 action or an impeachment/conviction of Trump. Also, the tone of the letter suggests a fairly conventional conservative Republican, which matches Pence's way of thinking. I suspect that this letter was written by Pence and his speech writer, possibly in collusion with Dan Coats, who is an Indiana politician and personal friend of Pence. Coats is known to harbor similar attitudes and could likely be the "high official" who "could be fired" that delivered the letter to the times. Pence himself cannot be fired, but his effectiveness and future plans would be jeopardized, if he were discovered to have written the piece. Coats could take the fall for Pence, if he were found out to have delivered the letter.

Anyway, that's my conspiracy theory, and I'm sticking with it. For now.

Lodestar is a term used by navigators who are using a start, the lodestar, as a reference point. In the northern hemisphere, the North Star is the preferred lodestar.

Fun fact: Lodestone is a magnetic iron mineral which is attracted to the lodestar.

Anyone with military navigation training would be familiar with the term lodestar. Mike Pence has attracted a lot of attention because he uses the word as a metaphor in speeches. That is a strange coincidence, if it is a coincidence.

The fatal flaw in the Pence dunnit scenario is, one has to assume that Mike Pence would leave irrefutable evidence of his treachery in the hands of the New York Times. I don't see that happening.

One analysis indicated that a few bits of the terminology used was that which would be expected by someone in the military. In other related news, John Kelly has not publicly denied authoring the letter.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is a famous case of stylistic detective work. The  Donation of Constantine. That Roman emperor supposedly granted the popes sovereignty over the western part of the Roman Empire in exchange for a pope curing him of leprosy. The document's first known appearance was in the year 778, and it figured in controversies like who has the right to appoint Church officials, Church leaders or secular ones.

Though its authenticity was generally accepted in the Middle Ages, some people had doubts, like Emperor Otto III (980 - 1002) of the Holy Roman Empire. But it was in the Renaissance that some people went further. Nicholas of Cusa (1401 - 1464), Lorenzo Valla (1407 - 1457), and Reginald Pecock (1395 - 1461) all decided that the DoC was a fake. Lorenzo Valla made a strong case, a case that still stands today. He pointed to several anachronisms in that document, things that are much more typical of the 8th century than the 4th century.

 

[Angry Floof]

We're going to find out the names of the authors very soon. End times zealots aren't the best at keeping secrets.

 

[repoman]

Trump has the NSA at his disposal, supposedly.

Can he not just have them sort through the whole country's messages that they still gather despite denying it?

Even a well run method of giving the letter to the NYT might not stand up to having the NSA fully focused on this. But what the legality of doing this would be..?

Example, even if both the official and the reporter used burner phones and email accounts there still could be data which can indicate who the people were. The burner phone may have been on next to the regular cell phone for too long. The burner email may have been used on the same laptop or phone as the regular email and some data may be in common.

Granted, these were not dummies who sent and received the letter. But I would not be 100% confident that they are in the clear.

 

[jonatha]

It will eventually occur to him that the simplest thing to do is fire everybody and restock...

(At which point he will probably discover Melania wrote it...)

 

[Copernicus]

...

The fatal flaw in the Pence dunnit scenario is, one has to assume that Mike Pence would leave irrefutable evidence of his treachery in the hands of the New York Times. I don't see that happening.

I can imagine lots of reasons why the author would have chosen the "failing New York Times", especially if he were trying to drive Trump closer to the edge of a meltdown.

However, my scenario has Coats, not Pence, delivering the letter. Recall that Coats had very publicly criticized Trump after his disastrous July meeting with Putin in Helsinki. At that time, Coats was interacting with journalists and clearly had opinions that resonated well with the content of the op-ed letter. He was quite open about it. So he would have fit the description of the person that the Times said gave them the letter. That doesn't mean that Coats himself wrote the letter, so he might easily be able to deny that he was the author. OTOH, he is a close associate of Pence. If it were revealed that he was the source of the letter, he would naturally be fired, but that would somewhat deflect blame from falling on Pence. And Coats is very old and clearly at the end of his long career anyway. So he might be inclined to act as a shield for Pence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It will eventually occur to him that the simplest thing to do is fire everybody and restock...

(At which point he will probably discover Melania wrote it...)

Didn't you see?
[quote="Melania Trump" Statement]To the writer of the op-ed -- you are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions.[/quote]

 

[Elixir]

...

The fatal flaw in the Pence dunnit scenario is, one has to assume that Mike Pence would leave irrefutable evidence of his treachery in the hands of the New York Times. I don't see that happening.

I can imagine lots of reasons why the author would have chosen the "failing New York Times", especially if he were trying to drive Trump closer to the edge of a meltdown.

However, my scenario has Coats, not Pence, delivering the letter. Recall that Coats had very publicly criticized Trump after his disastrous meeting with Putin in Helsinki. At that time, Coats was interacting with journalists and clearly had opinions that resonated well with the content of the op-ed letter. He was quite open about it. So he would have fit the description of the person that the Times said gave them the letter. That doesn't mean that Coats himself wrote the letter, so he might easily be able to deny that he was the author. OTOH, he is a close associate of Pence. If it were revealed that he was the source of the letter, he would naturally be fired, but that would somewhat deflect blame from falling on Pence. And Coats is very old and clearly at the end of his long career anyway. So he might be inclined to act as a shield for Pence.

Get real folks - it's Kellyann!