You realize that the officials swore allegiance to the Constitution, not Trump, right? Even if Trump might think otherwise. Blocking Trump from putting the nation at risk is upholding their oaths.
Something about the op-ed just feels off. It doesn’t feel like something truly written by an insider in the administration but rather someone trying to impersonate but not doing so well enough.
Maybe it is real, but it just feels somewhat contrived and forced.
I see no reason why the New York Times would suddenly start faking news.
The main reason I’m concerned is that the guy coming out makes it harder for him to stop Trump. The stuff they could get away with before may suddenly be questioned.
That said, Trump already thinks that everything bad about him is fake news, so it might be easy to convince him that the NYT lied. And then he’d keep on letting them. In that case, I think it’s a smart choice.
I don’t think it’s all that likely they’ll be found out, unless there are people other than Trump who want them found out.
The idea that it’s a message to Republicans that supporting Trump is safe is concerning, but it honestly seems like Republicans already have convinced themselves of this. So I’m not convinced. I think it may just be someone who wants to stop him.
I mean, how much easier would their job be if Trump is gone?
There’s an election in a couple of months.
If you feel this way I would say that you deeply DEEPLY misunderstand what journalism is. You feeling this way says much more about your limited understanding than it does about reality. This sounds like anti-vaxer, flat earth, evolution denial stuff.
Yes, it is an OP-Ed, but this would not have appeared in print without the involvement of all levels of leadership at NYT, including their board, and many lawyers. The notion that they “faked it”, if ever even hinted at, would basically put them out of business.
I can’t help but note that there’s another thread going on right now where a poster mused that “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” — and another poster replied, in a measured manner,
So, first: can you do me a favor and opine there about the limited understanding of those other posters? I of course think you’re wrong to be so dismissive; but since you’re already writing me off, I’d just like to up the odds of you hearing it from multiple folks, is all. But, second: do you think there’s any point where the danger posed by a president like Trump could cause key folks at the NYT to say, “screw it, why not slap together an op-ed piece?”
Lookup Bandwagon Fallacy. Just because you share a level of misunderstanding with others does not make it so.
No, not a reputable journal like the NYT. Not in a million years. It ain’t Fox News. You are dangerously close to bleating “FAKE NEWS!” And if that is your position, then there is nothing more to say.
The notion that the NYT made the whole thing up is not worthy of consideration, IMHO. But the notion that “senior official” means something less than cabinet level is extremely possible.
These people weren’t hired as personal employees of Donald Trump. They’re employees of the federal government.
Part of the job responsibility is adhering to the chain of command, which DT sits atop of. But another part is acting ethically and responsibly. If these come into conflict it can get complicated and there’s a lot of gray area. But it’s not like you can settle all issues by saying “Trump hired you”.
Again, it’s not that I think I’m right because I hear other people saying it; it’s that, since I think you’ve already made the mistake of dismissing me out of hand, I was hoping there’s a chance you’ll rethink your position — which I see no reason to think you reasoned yourself into, so who knows what can get you out of it?
Uh, okay: dismiss possibilities out of hand, because you can’t conceive — not in a million years! — that the people there couldn’t possibly do that in unprecedented circumstances, because, gosh, ‘reputable’, that makes it unthinkable.
It’s one thing to say you wouldn’t bet that way; as I said, I wouldn’t. But to simply handwave the whole idea of a lie? What does that get you?
How much lower, do you think, at the outside?
Yep, just because I can’t see that a conspiracy theory is just maybe POSSIBLE, that makes me the one with questionable logic. Got it.
I’ll save you the trouble of further responses. Yes, I fully embrace my lack of ability to subscribe to nonsense.
Agreed. If the NYT is pulling a fast one here they are costing themselves decades of a carefully built reputation and they know it. It would be bigger news than this story if they faked it.
It could also be some low level functionary who is technically a “senior administration official” but that would surprise me too because it would still seriously damage the paper’s reputation. If it turns out the be someone on the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (technically a senior administration official) or similar I will be shocked.
Just like CBS News would never publish some faked memos about the National Guard because it would put Sixty Minutes out of business.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, look, isn’t the whole point of the op-ed — if true — that there actually is some sort of conspiracy at the White House, where people are right now secretly working to thwart the president and one of them is now trumpeting this anonymously so as to be able to remain in position while lying about it?
That’s not a possibility I rule out: that a guy who is willing to lie penned this, and is part of a whole group of folks who agree about the rightness of doing this. It doesn’t seem to be a possibility you rule out; so why rule out the other one?
There are 3 possibilities:
- There is a cabal in the Trump administration working to thwart him. If that is true: it proves the deep state exists. That probably runs afoul of some laws and may be treason.
- It is fake news. In which case: what is wrong with our mainstream media? Why are they hellbent on unseating Trump? If the mainstream media wants him gome to such a degree, it makes me support Trump more: he must really be helping the peons and the elite are going berserk trying to stop it.
- Trump is the source, through an intermediate, in some brilliant 4d chess move, as he is known for.
I’m guessing here, but I would think it would have to be someone with influence over an area of government. Meaning, that if you followed politics and were interested in that area (e.g. foreign policy, economics, etc.) you would recognize that person as someone with influence in that sphere. So I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be a Deputy This (e.g. a Rod Rosenstein type), or Undersecretary of That.
Remind me again…who is the “deep state”?
Are they democrats seeking to undermine Trump or republicans trying to undermine Trump?
No, not just like that. Unless you think the NYT got fooled by a Dan Coats impersonator.
It did put Dan Rather out of business.
I can’t exactly characterize the deep state. But if the op-ed is genuine, someone at the NYT can identify at least one member of it. Republican versus Democrat is a false dichotomy. The true dichotomy is “the globalist elitists and the people they’ve fooled” vs. “everyone else”. The globalist elitists are both republican and democrat. In most recent presidential elections it didn’t matter who won: both candidates were from the Uniparty.