Straight Dope Message Board

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

Libel for an opinion piece? Highly unlikely. The editorial staff undoubtedly had their lawyers go over this backwards and forwards to make sure the NYT was insulated from civil litigation. I haven't read the piece, but I would bet that there were disclaimers and wiggle-words out the ying-yang preceding it.

I think the issue was whether the Times would face legal exposure if they intentionally misrepresented who the anonymous author was, as opposed to what the opinion piece actually said. The Times represents the author as being a well-known, senior Administration official; a few posters have guessed that the Times basically might be lying and inflating the importance of the White House butler. 51

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Probably someone that none of us have heard of before. Who knows how many senior positions there are.

About 1000 presidential appointments. Some with and without congressional approval requirements. But a lot of them just won't count because they're off site. 52

[E-DUB]

Originally Posted by nearwildheaven

Rachel Maddow implied that it could be Pence, and while he can't be "fired", he could certainly have his life made miserable if it turns out he's this version of Deep Throat.

(One wonders if Pence knows where that phrase originated, but that's a discussion for another day.)

Maddow also referenced an out-of-print 1960s novel called "Night of Camp David", about a president who goes insane, and you can't get a copy on Amazon right now. The ones I saw earlier were priced at $75 for mass market paperbacks.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...+of+camp+david

ETA: Even the Reader's Digest Condensed Book version is unavailable! Those people will get to read a condensed version of one of my all-time favorite books, "Intern" by Doctor X, later revealed to be children's science author and physician Dr. Alan Nourse.

Holding my copy right now. Think it might be reissued anytime soon? 53

[Bijou Drains]

interesting to see who has denied writing it so far , Pence and Pompeo, and who has not denied it - everyone else. 54

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by nearwildheaven

Rachel Maddow implied that it could be Pence, and while he can't be "fired", he could certainly have his life made miserable if it turns out he's this version of Deep Throat.

(One wonders if Pence knows where that phrase originated, but that's a discussion for another day.)

Maddow also referenced an out-of-print 1960s novel called "Night of Camp David", about a president who goes insane, and you can't get a copy on Amazon right now. The ones I saw earlier were priced at $75 for mass market paperbacks.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...+of+camp+david

ETA: Even the Reader's Digest Condensed Book version is unavailable! Those people will get to read a condensed version of one of my all-time favorite books, "Intern" by Doctor X, later revealed to be children's science author and physician Dr. Alan Nourse.

Holy hell, I think I read that exact RD Condensed Book edition... is "Intern" the story that has, as one of its subplots, the intern getting involved with a nurse to the point of marrying her, only to break up with her when she loses (one or both of) her legs? 55

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by senoy

Conway

She is a definite conservative, but no love for Trump. She was actively antagonistic towards him prior to his nomination and was pro-Ted Cruz. Prior to his nomination, she called Trump extreme and offensive. Her husband is extremely anti-Trump.

Most damning though is that she's the only person that we know for a fact has subverted him. We know from the phone call Trump had with Woodward that she got a request from Woodward to have a sit down with Trump and she didn't take it to him. She also knows that Woodward would have been honest and put Trump's rebuttal in his book since he is known for putting in even banalities in the name of 'neutral journalism.' Her excuse is that 'She was simply following protocol.' but we all know that the best way to stonewall anything is to follow the rules to the letter. She sits down with Woodward for lunch for an hour (which also forces us to ask why she was having lunch with him) says she'll ask the President for an interview and then it mysteriously gets lost in the bureaucracy.

Add on to this that it's someone who likely has a highly placed contact at the New York Times since they would have wanted as few people as possible to know about them and we know that she's a pollster from New York who has tons of high ranking journalist contacts. I think the arrows point in that direction.

My money is on her.

Conway is not an administration official. 56

[Bijou Drains]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Conway is not an administration official.

she is counselor to the president which seems like part of the administration to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counse..._the_President 57

[ElvisL1ves]

It isn't really a new concept - Gens. Mattis and Kelly, and Tillerson, were pretty widely reported back at the beginning to have teamed up to protect America from Trump, regardless of the personal consequences. Maybe it was just time for a reminder that the generals are still serving their country. 58

[Bijou Drains]

also generals know not to obey an unlawful order 59

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

It isn't really a new concept - Gens. Mattis and Kelly, and Tillerson, were pretty widely reported back at the beginning to have teamed up to protect America from Trump, regardless of the personal consequences. Maybe it was just time for a reminder that the generals are still serving their country.

Are you thinking of the "suicide pact" formed by Mattis, Tillerson, and Mnuchin? Funny how one of them is gone, but the others are still around. 60

[kenobi 65]

FWIW, Pompeo, Pence, and Coats have all issued official statements denying that they were the authors of the piece.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.0bfd0ffedf6d 61

[E-DUB]

Originally Posted by kenobi 65

FWIW, Pompeo, Pence, and Coats have all issued official statements denying that they were the authors of the piece.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.0bfd0ffedf6d

Which is what they'd do........................

Thing about paranoids is, sooner or later folks really do start plotting against you. 62

[Merneith]

I think it's Kelly. He's in a position to take stuff off of Donald's desk and he has the requisite self-righteousness. It wouldn't surprise me if he picked up the lodestar language from Pence - or if he wanted to shank Pence due to constant exposure. 63

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I think the issue was whether the Times would face legal exposure if they intentionally misrepresented who the anonymous author was, as opposed to what the opinion piece actually said. The Times represents the author as being a well-known, senior Administration official; a few posters have guessed that the Times basically might be lying and inflating the importance of the White House butler.

They didn't say anything about "well known", just that he is known to them.

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's someone in a deputy secretary position. That's more where a deep state, sorry "steady state" guy would be. 64

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

They didn't say anything about "well known", just that he is known to them.

Ah that’s right - I misread it yesterday. 65

[Tired and Cranky]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

Why not Pence? He is practically a perfect fit. His fawning isnt real, though I hope that's obvious. What else precludes Pence?

As others noted, he is the only one who can't lose his job if his name is revealed. I don't think the NY Times would risk its credibility when they know that, in all likelihood, the author's name will be revealed at some point, possibly by the author himself. It's not Pence. I don't think it's anyone on Pence's staff.

Originally Posted by dalej42

Elaine Chao, one of the few cabinet members with any experience in the executive branch as she served as W’s Secretary of Labor for 8 years. So, she’s seen what a normal administration looks like .

I don't think so. She's, uhm, closely aligned with McConnell, who is an unabashed Trumpet.

Originally Posted by John Mace

Yeah, I can't see it being Pence. Or any of the military/ex-military folks. They would be too honor bound to do something outside the scope of the constitution like this.

I don't see what about this action is "outside the scope of the Constitution." He (The NYT tweeted that the author was a "he" so I am using that pronoun here) did not reveal classified information. Otherwise, people in the administration have the right under the Constitution to say what they will about the country's leader.

Originally Posted by senoy

Conway

[snip]

Most damning though is that she's the only person that we know for a fact has subverted him. We know from the phone call Trump had with Woodward that she got a request from Woodward to have a sit down with Trump and she didn't take it to him. She also knows that Woodward would have been honest and put Trump's rebuttal in his book since he is known for putting in even banalities in the name of 'neutral journalism.' Her excuse is that 'She was simply following protocol.' but we all know that the best way to stonewall anything is to follow the rules to the letter. She sits down with Woodward for lunch for an hour (which also forces us to ask why she was having lunch with him) says she'll ask the President for an interview and then it mysteriously gets lost in the bureaucracy.

Add on to this that it's someone who likely has a highly placed contact at the New York Times since they would have wanted as few people as possible to know about them and we know that she's a pollster from New York who has tons of high ranking journalist contacts. I think the arrows point in that direction.

We don't know that Conway never took Bernstein's interview offer to Trump. We know that Trump claimed Conway never told him about the interview but - news flash! - Trump often lies to people. He was lying to Bernstein when he said that the interview offer never made it to him. He effectively acknowledged on the same call that Sen. Graham told him Bernstein wanted to interview him. Trump likes friendly, ignorant interviewers, like those on Fox news. Trump knew that Bernstein would be informed and dogged. Trump never would have agreed to talk with Bernstein. He can better protect the idea that the book is a misinformed hatchet job if he can claim he was never even given the opportunity to correct Bernstein's reporting.

The NY Times makes it really easy to file confidential tips with them and it is the most influential newspaper in the country. Anyone who is anyone in DC has at least a few contacts at the Times. Anyone could have submitted this anonymously. You wouldn't submit such an editorial to a right-leaning outlet because it is more likely that there is some partisan hack on the staff who will learn learn your identity and leak it to a Republican friend.

It smells to me like a military or intelligence officer. I like Coats, as others have suggested. 66

[Skammer]

My vote is Mattis; especially since he's been known to toss around the phrase "first principles." I see Pence or Sessions as unlikely. They have too much to lose by turning against Trump. 67

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky

We don't know that Conway never took Bernstein's interview offer to Trump. We know that Trump claimed Conway never told him about the interview but - news flash! - Trump often lies to people. He was lying to Bernstein when he said that the interview offer never made it to him. He effectively acknowledged on the same call that Sen. Graham told him Bernstein wanted to interview him. Trump likes friendly, ignorant interviewers, like those on Fox news. Trump knew that Bernstein would be informed and dogged. Trump never would have agreed to talk with Bernstein. He can better protect the idea that the book is a misinformed hatchet job if he can claim he was never even given the opportunity to correct Bernstein's reporting.

Woodward, not Bernstein. 68

[Tired and Cranky]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Woodward, not Bernstein.

Bernward? Woodstein? I knew it was something like that. Thanks. 69

[TroutMan]

Originally Posted by kenobi 65

FWIW, Pompeo, Pence, and Coats have all issued official statements denying that they were the authors of the piece.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.0bfd0ffedf6d

For what it's worth, Pompeo and Pence's denials included strong criticism of the person who wrote it. Coats' denial didn't.

And in a bid to stay relevant, Carson also announced it wasn't him. In that vein, I'd like to formally say it wasn't me either. 70

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

I highly doubt the NYT would have run with such a piece from a "rando nobody...has ever heard of."

That would be my best guess too. But you never know. 71

[andros]

Actually, I'm starting to consider the possibility that it was the Donald.

Well, Kellyanne, but at Trump's direction. 72

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

We can pretty much eliminate out of hand such worthies as Perry, DeVos and Carson, right?

Given that all three are functionally illiterate, I'd eliminate them from any accusation of having written anything.

Originally Posted by Merneith

I think it's Kelly. He's in a position to take stuff off of Donald's desk and he has the requisite self-righteousness. It wouldn't surprise me if he picked up the lodestar language from Pence - or if he wanted to shank Pence due to constant exposure.

I agree. I don't know enough about Dan Coats to consider if he might be a good #2 contender, but Kelly (a) hates his job, (b) considers Trump a dangerous idiot, and (c) appears to be sticking to the job out of a sense of duty to protect the nation. If he's not the one who wrote the thing, I'd be willing to bet that he concurs with every word of it.

I'm sure it's not Pence. He has cast himself in the role of consummate gentleman (even though behind his calm demeanor he's madder than a March hare), and besides, the second in line to the presidency can't risk being seen as torpedoing the incumbent. 73

[Merneith]

I note that Kelly is not on the list of people who've issued denials ....

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...hey-are-behind


(Ben Carson, lol) 74

[Hari Seldon]

I start with the hypothesis that everything the Times says is true; they have too much to lose if not (and nothing to gain by lying). So it is a high-ranking official who is in danger of losing their job. That let's Pence out. Also I don't think Pence is in the loop enough for it to be him. It would seem to be someone right in the middle of things enough that not following orders can make a difference. The Votemaster (q.v.) seems to think it is someone in the military. I am going to place me bets on 1. Mattis, and 2. Kelly. 75

[UnwittingAmericans]

He should tell the whole class, er I mean government, that nobody's going home until someone fesses up. 76

[Shodan]

I'll assume until proven otherwise that the NYT wrote it themselves. After all, they haven't denied it, and even if they have, that just proves they did.

Regards,
Shodan 77

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I'll assume until proven otherwise that the NYT wrote it themselves. After all, they haven't denied it, and even if they have, that just proves they did.

Regards,
Shodan

The NYT is a professional organization, quite unlike the White House. I'd like to see the original. If in crayon, then maybe it's Eric T. 78

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky

Bernward? Woodstein?

Aren't they dead? 79

[elucidator]

It was Burt Reynolds. 80

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

If in crayon, then maybe it's Eric T.

If Eric Trump tried to write an anonymous op-ed, it would have his name in the byline and the body of text would be blank. 81

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

That would be my best guess too. But you never know.

Without doing any further research than that one article, my takeaway is that there was a point in time when the source was an intern, and some materials were from that time in his career, but that at the point in time at which the article was written, the source was not an intern and was appropriately described, and nearly all of the material that was used in relation to him was not from when he was an intern. That's not a case of them lying about the identity of the person, that seems to be a case of them failing to note that in one instance, they were discussing the "early years" of that person's career. That would be misleading, but could just as well be an oversight as an intentional act to deceive.

Really, if there was any fishy business going on at NYT, someone would leak it to a different news agency, because it would be going against acceptable journalistic standards for that business and all of the employees would be opposed to that. As your link suggests, any sort of questionable handling within the newspaper will be raised in the media and reported on, because it harms their industry, and so it was. 82

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I'm thinking it's fake.
And made up, by one of the many, many people Trump fired.
The use of "lodestar" was intended to sow discord, to put the cat in with the canaries, so to speak. 83

[Locrian]

Who knows? Could be a copy boy or girl who happens to be in the right room. I will say it is DEFINITELY NOT Pence. I didn't see "God" or "Jesus" or "blessed" in the text, so no way it's him. He can't speak a sentence without using those words. 84

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Without doing any further research than that one article, my takeaway is that there was a point in time when the source was an intern, and some materials were from that time in his career, but that at the point in time at which the article was written, the source was not an intern and was appropriately described, and nearly all of the material that was used in relation to him was not from when he was an intern. That's not a case of them lying about the identity of the person, that seems to be a case of them failing to note that in one instance, they were discussing the "early years" of that person's career. That would be misleading, but could just as well be an oversight as an intentional act to deceive.

You've either misread or misunderstood that one article.

All the quotes from that guy were from the "early years" of the guy's career. The guy was "a 2009 college physics-engineering graduate who E.I.A. said was hired as an intern in summer 2009 and upgraded to general engineer in March 2011". The emails "captured conversations between summer 2009 and April 2011". The article was written on June 27, 2011.

No one who reads an article in the NYT with quotes from “one official”, an “energy analyst”, or “one federal analyst” would assume this was referring to a guy who was a year and a half out of college (and had apparently been promoted from intern status within the last month), even leaving aside the actual intern quote. 85

[snowthx]

I came to this thread thinking it was Pence, but now I can see the argument for Conway. Gawd that would be great!

Deep down, I feel it could be no one at all. The NYT is no friend of Deej, and running this piece is having what could be considered the designed effect of causing chaos and suspicion and the undermining of trust in the WH. Trump values loyalty and trust above all else. With chaos reigning it will be harder to continue along his disastrous agenda.

Still, unless some law has been broken (with evidence) or Congress gets in the mood to impeach, this week will end the same as all the others - being called "Trump's worst week ever". There seems to be no bottom. 86

[Jungian Camisole]

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains

Conway based on the fact her husband keeps going after Trump in public

I am thinking George Conway by way of Kellyanne. It's been rumored that she says she "needs a shower" every time she has to defend The Donald. Do I believe she actually said that? I don't know. I give it about a 51/49 percentage-wise. 87

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky

I don't see what about this action is "outside the scope of the Constitution."

From Article II of the US Constitution:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

88

[ElvisL1ves]

Can't be Conway unless it was ghostwritten. Far too coherent. 89

[John Mace]

Is SNL running a new episode this week? Or Bill Maher's show? I'd love to see what either one will do about this. Especially SNL. Bring on Baldwin!! 90

[Bijou Drains]

SNL starts a new season in a few weeks but Maher should be back tomorrow night. 91

[River Hippie]

I am starting to wonder, as others have, if it's some kind of inside job put out to get die hard Trumpsters in a tizzy and to validate Trump's claims of a "Deep State". The sticking point of that theory for me is that I don't think 2 Scoops has it in him to put out something that makes him look so pathetic. His ego couldn't stand it. Maybe it was done for his benefit but without his knowledge.

I'm also wondering if whoever wrote it was trying to get Cheeto to stroke out.

OK, i'm going with Coats. 92

[elucidator]

First off, if that story about him ordering a hit on Assad is true, that's literally I don't even. That he might do so and forget that he did....paint my butt blue and move to the country. Its just another chunk of news, like a box of chocolates, cockroach cluster, lark's vomit.... 93

[Tee]

“Unsung heroes” really gets me. We're out here saving you from foreign threats and the loony left and your own President! If this is not a career politician with higher ambitions appealing to the old base, then I don't see the point of it at all. 94

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Tee

“Unsung heroes” really gets me. We're out here saving you from foreign threats and the loony left and your own President! If this is not a career politician with higher ambitions appealing to the old base, then I don't see the point of it at all.

But the base is not listening to anyone without the Trump surname, so even that point makes little sense. 95

[GoodOmens]

Originally Posted by Tee

For some reason I think it's Nikki Haley.

I wouldn't be surprised, in part because I think (with precisely no evidence, mind you) that Trump tried to fuck her at some point. But I suspect Dan Coats is the most likely choice. Neither one explains the "lodestar" thing, though. 96

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by GoodOmens

Neither one explains the "lodestar" thing, though.

I don't think the letter was written to comfort the people that there are "adults on watch", it was written to strike paranoia into Trump's head. Making it seem like the VP is out there rallying the rest of the cabinet to start considering the 25th Amendment seems like a pretty sure-fire way to accomplish that. I would imagine the goal, then, being to make him implode.

That said, one thing that I've been impressed with Trump on is that - whatever he does in private - he's pretty good at keeping his cool in the public eye. It's hard to get a gauge on how much any one piece of news really hits him. I keep hoping for clear insanity to find its way into his tweets, but so far he's still keeping strong. That's probably the only thing keeping his approval rating up.

The man has decades of practice, of course. He's almost certainly been in extreme debt and living a lie since the 80s, only steps away from being outed as a failure and going to jail for the rest of his life.

He had people threatening the wife and kids of a creditor back in 2009, he was so scared out of his mind at the impact of the $1.25b debt that the Trump Organization owed, and yet he appears completely calm on the camera, with David Letterman, at the same time that call was being made, claiming that he had no debts and that it was only a bunch of other suckers who had lost it all.

I'm not sure that I'm confident that he can be paranoided into distraction in the same way that Nixon was. Nixon started to break down, and that's what allowed people to believe that he was guilty and needed to be removed. With Trump, obviously we can hope, but I think that criminal evidence is going to have to rule the day. 97

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by snowthx

Deep down, I feel it could be no one at all. The NYT is no friend of Deej, and running this piece is having what could be considered the designed effect of causing chaos and suspicion and the undermining of trust in the WH.

I don't think that's impossible, but I think that the NYT values their perceived integrity too much to risk this. I think it's more likely that it is a screw job, perhaps at the secret behest of the administration, to discredit the LSM when it is revealed to be a "fake", but even that is less likely than someone actually in the CFSG's administration.

In my opinion, if the letter is revealed to not be all it seems, it's most likely the result of the NYT stretching the definition of high ranking official. 98

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

The man has decades of practice, of course.

That's similar to a point someone made a while back about Trump's legal travails.

Originally Posted by Vox

A source very close to Trump said: “For the average human, nothing scares them more than legal issues. He. Does. Not. Care. His whole adult life has been spent in litigation. He's not afraid of high-stakes legal stuff. … He’s just going to start swinging and knock people’s heads off.”

Trump is different than the average person in many ways, and one of them is that he's had a very different life history than most people. Predicting how Trump would react to something based on how an normal person would react can be very tricky. 99

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I don't think that's impossible, but I think that the NYT values their perceived integrity too much to risk this. I think it's more likely that it is a screw job, perhaps at the secret behest of the administration, to discredit the LSM when it is revealed to be a "fake", but even that is less likely than someone actually in the CFSG's administration.

In my opinion, if the letter is revealed to not be all it seems, it's most likely the result of the NYT stretching the definition of high ranking official.

I agree. I would have to recalibrate my entire world-view if it turned out that the NYT fabricated this story. I'm not quite ready to do that.

Here's a question: Should news sources (other than the NYT, I presume) be busting their butts to uncover who Anonymous is? I say yes. You put the news out there, and you become the news. 100