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

[EvoUK]

I had to share this. Naturally the whole thing is being poo poo'd in conservative circles, but the sheer stupidity of this comment made me want to share:

Sure, you can try spinning it like that if you want, but the fact is, both Pence and Coats have denied writing it; therefore, if either of them did write it then that makes one of them a bald faced liar which would destroy their credibility.

As for Deepthroat, how much of what he said was independently verified? I've not done any deep dive into the Watergate reporting, but considering some of the stuff that has come out recently about how Woodward and Bernstein continue to use sketchy sources and will even lie to protect them makes me question their credibility as journalists. The fact that they've won a Pulitzer is no guarantee of truth or accuracy. In my time as a news videographer, I knew a few of people who won journalism awards despite the fact that their stories contained blatant inaccuracies. The problem is that the people judging the entries weren't familiar with the subject matter and judged based on style rather than substance.

There you go. If someone is 'undercover' and don't admit to being so when asked, then whatever they say can be thrown out as they're clearly liars. I must admit my mind boggled.

That he went on to say that Watergate is in question was merely the icing on the cake.

No one in the thread necessarily agreed with him, but also no one shouted out the absurdity of what he said either. They tend not to when there are unbelievers in the room.

 

[blastula]

that maga guy lost me at "bald faced liar."

 

[Copernicus]

I had to share this. Naturally the whole thing is being poo poo'd in conservative circles, but the sheer stupidity of this comment made me want to share:

Sure, you can try spinning it like that if you want, but the fact is, both Pence and Coats have denied writing it; therefore, if either of them did write it then that makes one of them a bald faced liar which would destroy their credibility.

As for Deepthroat, how much of what he said was independently verified? I've not done any deep dive into the Watergate reporting, but considering some of the stuff that has come out recently about how Woodward and Bernstein continue to use sketchy sources and will even lie to protect them makes me question their credibility as journalists. The fact that they've won a Pulitzer is no guarantee of truth or accuracy. In my time as a news videographer, I knew a few of people who won journalism awards despite the fact that their stories contained blatant inaccuracies. The problem is that the people judging the entries weren't familiar with the subject matter and judged based on style rather than substance.

There you go. If someone is 'undercover' and don't admit to being so when asked, then whatever they say can be thrown out as they're clearly liars. I must admit my mind boggled.

That he went on to say that Watergate is in question was merely the icing on the cake.

No one in the thread necessarily agreed with him, but also no one shouted out the absurdity of what he said either. They tend not to when there are unbelievers in the room.

And this kind of thing is said in defense of Donald Trump, whose credibility remains intact.

(BTW, can you provide a link to your source?)

 

[EvoUK]

It's from Theology Web Forum, Civics. Expect whataboutism to the max. The chap in particular goes by the name Mountain Man.

This is page four of this particular thread (in the middle of a derail on PHDs and how generally worthless they are as a monitors wife works with some stupid ones, or something):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?18217-Anonymous-Op-Ed-from-the-NYT/page4

Usually post sources, but as it was an online forum didn't bother, apologies.

 

[phands]

The Obvious Suspect

Here's another theory. Makes more sense than it being Pence, but who knows.....

Who wrote the anonymous op-ed against President Trump in Wednesday’s New York Times? All we know for certain is what the Times disclosed: that it’s a “senior official in the Trump administration.” But the most likely author, based on the op-ed’s content and style, is the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman.
Huntsman is an obvious suspect for several reasons. The article’s themes are classic Huntsman: effusive about conservative policies, blunt about low character. In 2016, he made the same points for and against Trump. The topic that gets the most space and detail in the piece is Huntsman’s current area, Russia. (As Slate’s Fred Kaplan points out, Trump has been circumventing and undermining Huntsman.) The prose, as in Huntsman’s speeches and interviews, is flamboyantly erudite. The tone, like Huntsman’s, is pious. And the article’s stated motive—“Americans should know that there are adults in the room”—matches a letter that Huntsman wrote to the Salt Lake Tribune in July. In the letter, Huntsman, responding to a columnist who thought the ambassador should resign rather than keep working for Trump, explained that public servants such as himself were dutifully attending to the nation’s business.
Like other suspects, Huntsman has issued a statement to deflect accusations that he wrote the Times op-ed. But the statement—actually just a tweet—doesn’t come from Huntsman. It comes from the spokesperson at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. The full text reads, “Amb Huntsman: Come to find, when you’re serving as the U.S. envoy in Moscow, you’re an easy target on all sides. Anything sent out by me would have carried my name. An early political lesson I learned: never send an anonymous op-ed.”
That’s a non-denial denial. The Times has already said that the author’s “identity is known to us.” So the piece can’t have been sent anonymously. It must have carried the author’s name. Which means the statement from Huntsman’s spokesperson is technically accurate, even if he wrote the piece. And no matter what he says, he’s still the most likely suspect—at least until somebody else steps forward to claim responsibility—because the piece is full of telltale words and phrases. Here are some of them.
Country first. The op-ed glorifies the late Sen. John McCain. It calls him a “lodestar,” the word used by Henry Kissinger at McCain’s Sept. 1 memorial service to describe the senator. It concludes with this line: “There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first.” “Country first” was McCain’s presidential campaign slogan in 2008. Huntsman, who idolized McCain, adopted the same slogan for his 2012 presidential campaign. A week ago, after McCain died, Huntsman lauded McCain as his mentor and recalled his motto, “Country first.” Huntsman also flew back from Moscow to attend the memorial service.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/new-york-times-op-ed-anonymous-writer-trump.html

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There's still the issue of using the for a guilty knowledge test. In that role they work. I agree that they're useless for lie detection because they're used to detect lies about sensitive issues--you're afraid of it thinking you're guilty.

 

[lpetrich]

So we have another suspect: Jon Huntsman. The next task would be to collect his speeches and writings and see if he passes the three comparison tests: "lodestar", sentence length, and passive voice.

 

[Elixir]

So we have another suspect: Jon Huntsman. The next task would be to collect his speeches and writings and see if he passes the three comparison tests: "lodestar", sentence length, and passive voice.

That would break Cheato's heart (if he had one). He's "straight out of central casting". Where's he gonna find someone else who looks like this?

 

[Horatio Parker]

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.

Yes, which likely never would've happened if Constantinople hadn't fallen to Islam. The process of removing ancient Greek texts to the west spurred much of the Renaissance.

 

[RavenSky]

Mike Pence is the favorite, but next in line is someone unexpected: Betsy DeVos.

The better-known staffers are not far behind her, but Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are way down there.

Doing the best, however, is "Field" -- anyone else or uncertain.


I think that "lodestar" is a good catch -- it's a very unusual word. So the writer was either Mike Pence or someone trying to imitate him.

Are there other stylistic features that one might be able to identify? Like typical vocabulary or grammatical features. By grammatical features I mean choices between constructions like these:

I saw Trump. He was watching TV. (two independent clauses)
I saw Trump, and he was watching TV. (with a coordinating conjunction)
I saw Trump while he was watching TV. (with a subordinating conjunction)
I saw Trump, who was watching TV. (with one clause made a relative clause)

"first principles" - a favorite phrase of Mattis

 

[lpetrich]

Who is the New York Times anonymous op-ed writer? There’s an obvious suspect. -- Jon Huntsman, pResident Trump's ambassador to Russia. Something that he also has denied.

Huntsman is an obvious suspect for several reasons. The article’s themes are classic Huntsman: effusive about conservative policies, blunt about low character. In 2016, he made the same points for and against Trump. The topic that gets the most space and detail in the piece is Huntsman’s current area, Russia. (As Slate’s Fred Kaplan points out, Trump has been circumventing and undermining Huntsman.) The prose, as in Huntsman’s speeches and interviews, is flamboyantly erudite. The tone, like Huntsman’s, is pious. And the article’s stated motive—“Americans should know that there are adults in the room”—matches a letter that Huntsman wrote to the Salt Lake Tribune in July. In the letter, Huntsman, responding to a columnist who thought the ambassador should resign rather than keep working for Trump, explained that public servants such as himself were dutifully attending to the nation’s business.

Then discussing such Huntsmanisms as "country first", also John McCain's campaign slogan, "malign", especially about Russia, "moorings", "amoral" instead of "immoral", "impetuous", and "inclination". The op-ed's author also wrote admiringly about John McCain, calling him a "lodestar".

Other phrases in the piece also fit Huntsman. He co-chaired the bipartisan group No Labels; the op-ed calls for “reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels.” Huntsman often said his campaign philosophy was to “work diligently”; the op-ed says officials in the Trump administration “are working diligently.” Huntsman extolled “this great nation”; so does the op-ed. Huntsman’s letter to the Tribune warned of “the fragile nature of this moment” and said wise public servants were working to “stabilize the most dangerous relationship in the world”; the Times op-ed frets about Trump’s “instability” and says wise public servants are faithfully carrying on “the work of the steady state.”

The next question: do Jon Huntsman's speeches and writings feature the word "lodestar", short sentences, or passive voice?

 

[blastula]

Here's another theory. Makes more sense than it being Pence, but who knows.....

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/new-york-times-op-ed-anonymous-writer-trump.html

He makes a good case. I used to like Huntsman. What a tool, even if he's not the writer, for just endorsing Trump and working under him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's from Theology Web Forum, Civics. Expect whataboutism to the max. The chap in particular goes by the name Mountain Man.

This is page four of this particular thread (in the middle of a derail on PHDs and how generally worthless they are as a monitors wife works with some stupid ones, or something):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?18217-Anonymous-Op-Ed-from-the-NYT/page4

Usually post sources, but as it was an online forum didn't bother, apologies.

TWeb? Man, that is a blast from the past.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I wonder if it is the same "Mountain Man" that used to post here?

 

[bilby]

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.

The problem is that 'lying' isn't a physiological state. So it cannot be measured. No matter how much classified technology you use.

You might be able to detect stress or nervousness; But as these don't necessarily have a significant correlation with lying, that's not particularly useful.

Sorry, but there are sound biological reasons to believe that 'lie detectors' cannot work; I would need to see some extremely compelling evidence, backed by a sound theory, before I change my mind on that.

Rumours of classified advances in polygraph technology are not going to cut it, any more than I would accept that the government may now be able to talk to ghosts due to classified advances in ouija board technology. Pseudoscience doesn't get more likely when backed by subtle hints at conspiracy to conceal new tech.

 

[Gospel]

I'm a little late to the party, but I believe Trump himself had someone else write the piece to the NYT so that he can complain about the deep state.

Edit: That's the only thing anyone can gain from this IMO.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm a little late to the party, but I believe Trump himself had someone else write the piece to the NYT so that he can complain about the deep state.

Edit: That's the only thing anyone can gain from this IMO.

Stone.

 

[starwater]

Omarosa says it's Pences Chief of Staff from WaPo

"I suspect it is Pence’s chief of staff,” she said, fingering Vice President Pence’s top staffer, Nick Ayers, as the anonymous author of the now-infamous op-ed in the New York Times that portrayed President Trump as incompetent and dangerous, something she had previously suggested.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm a little late to the party, but I believe Trump himself had someone else write the piece to the NYT so that he can complain about the deep state.

Edit: That's the only thing anyone can gain from this IMO.

He doesn't need an article like this to complain about the deep state. He does that all the time anyway. He has far better ways to disrupt news cycles, and this kind of article actually does real harm to his public image and his self image. The article was written by one or more people who are using Trump to push their conservative agenda while not letting his worst impulses get out of hand. Nobody likes the man, but the article mentions approval of the "good" things he has done:

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

It then delivers a backhand slap:

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

I actually disagreed strongly with that claim. It is because of his impetuous, adversarial, petty, and ineffective performance that he has managed to jam all of these changes down the countries throat while everyone has been so distracted. Normally, the political process would slow down such ambitious power-wielding behavior, because the country itself does not necessarily want dismantled pollution controls, compromised workplace safety, loose health regulations, tax cuts for the wealthy, military waste, and "more". More importantly (included in the "more") is the ability of a Republican Congress to jam through judicial appointments that have been left vacant through many years of deadlocked government. That means that Trump has essentially handed the GOP control of the US federal judiciary. That is a tremendous coup for them.

So I think that this letter has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump. It is a call for Republicans to hold steady and not worry so much. It may look bad, but they've got him under control.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He doesn't need an article like this to complain about the deep state. He does that all the time anyway.

Well, what this does is confirm the existence of a "deep state." Whether or not it was (or this version of it was) newly created specifically in response to Trump or something that has long existed--in far more general terms--is the question here.

That's what's so suspicious about it, imo and why I think, if it's not legitimate, Stone is behind it.

Either way, the creation of a "deep state" conspiracy theory as a cover story for an actual deep state has been the goal all along, starting as far back as Alex Jones (if not farther). That's precisely why Alex Jones was tasked with promoting the theory in the first place; to hide it in plain sight and throw suspicion on Dems and/or "liberal elites" as the perps.

So I think that this letter has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump. It is a call for Republicans to hold steady and not worry so much. It may look bad, but they've got him under control.

Agreed, to a point. The problem being that if it were true, Republicans in power--and that would include in industry and corporate C-suites--would already know this and thus there would be no need to make it public. So the question as to making it public must have more to do with voters than anyone on K or Wall Street.

And the only voters it would impact is swing Republican voters (that includes turncoat Dems, so, basically, white males), which is who I think this is targeting. Which in turn means, they--whoever conspired to "leak" this information--know they're in trouble in the midterms. Not just fear it; know it.

The deplorables don't matter. They're just the rabid fringe that has always existed on both ends of our political spectrum and only account for about 10-15% of the 25% that voted for Trump. So the focus for the GOP must be on assuring the turncoat Dems and "independents" (aka, Libertarians)--as well as the 10% sane Republicans out there in the red states--that although we all know Trump is insane, he's not really running the show and we have him contained so keep voting pro-Trump.

They're trying to overwrite "pro-Trump" to mean "pro-Deep State," only now it's "our" Deep State and not the evil Democrat/Elite controlled one that actually never existed and we were lying to you about all along and this is precisely the reason we created such a misdirection in the first place.

Iow, they just triggered twenty years of misdirection that was designed originally for precisely such a situation.