I’m not seeing how accepting that the op-ed came from a senior WH official—as opposed to entertaining some alternate theory that it’s all just a hoax—represents a gamble analogous to what you’re talking about here. What are you risking through this “gamble”? It takes more effort to speculate about things not supported by evidence than it does to do the opposite.
Everything that we accept as truth could in theory but false, but few people move through life hedging all their beliefs with “I can’t rule out the alternative.” It would be exhausting way to be, not to mention exasperating.
“I just want you to know that I love you very much”.
“It means a lot to me that you feel this way, but I can’t rule out the alternative. You could be lying, just sayin.”
I don’t find the “effort” to be “exhausting”. If you do, then I’d maybe suggest you follow a different path; for my part, the only concern is that I may someday find it “exasperating” to deal with folks who blithely rule out possibilities.
Well, the author of the Op-Ed could be a Russian shape shifter. Or an (illegal) space alien come to soften America up for an invasion.
Can’t rule out anything, you know.
Yes. If a large group of Cabinet secretaries and other Administration officials at that level or just below had released a statement similar to the Op-ed, with their names attached and “we hereby resign” added to the end, it would have been a game-changer. Even Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell would have known they couldn’t get away with their usual ‘this is concerning’ remarks and then inaction.
But the writer of the Op-ed does indeed want to win for him-or-herself the status of being a patriot and a hero, while continuing to gain the goodies of remaining in that prestigious job and continuing to do Republican stuff.
If you truly believe there’s a spectrum, from the like of “space alien shapeshifter” on one end to “senior White House official” on the other; and you believe the idea to be ruled out is so much closer to the former than the latter as to (a) make that analogy and (b) disregard both for all practical intents and purposes — well, then, I don’t see much point in belaboring this; I’ll say you seem to be going too far in one direction, and you can reply “nuh-uh,” and what else is there?
There are an infinite number of possibilities but only one that is associated with any evidence. If you don’t see the folly in ruminating over unsupported theories just because they exist within the realm of possibility, it’s unlikely anything I can say will change your mind.
Come on, man. No, it’s not impossible that NYT faked this whole thing up but it’s a big frigging stretch to give it much thought at this point. There’s a million less risky ways for them to fuck with Trump if that was their goal. And, as has been said before, the Op-ed doesn’t say anything that’s not already out there.
For starters, according to this site: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Clinton and supporters spent $969.1M while Trump and supporters spent $531.0M, and the mainstream media and many establishment figures were anti-Trump, and he still won the election. The whole notion of Russian collusion is kind of a compliment to Trump’s intellegence: they think that sort of success must have had outside help from the Russians, but no he’s just smart. And he’s doing a superb job as president. See:
Given that it is the Times, who has lots to lose and little to gain by making it up, and that the accusations in the Op-Ed piece match what is in Woodward’s book (much of which seems to be sourced) I’d say the Times inventing it is closer to the alien hypothesis than actual person did it hypothesis.
I have yet to see a reason from you why the Times would do it that makes any sense.
Well, put it the other way around: if the writer is a senior official who has something to lose if found out (which is why they’re anonymous), then what’s to be gained from accusations that match the sourced stuff in Woodward’s book? Especially since the only result of this NYT piece being a top story for days is, what, (a) Trump, with his guard now up, ranting about and obsessively failing to find the insider while (b) other folks joke about how the dope who’s been duped maybe needs to be kept away from key decisions, and hey, let’s alll start having some pretty danged blunt chats about the 25th Amendment in these unprecedented times?
If that result, and what’s to follow, are good for America — given that Trump is bad for America in a way that’s not comparable to anything else — then why wouldn’t the NYT put that out there regardless of whether a senior official actually wrote it? (If, fingers crossed, this winds up being the turning point where we all look back and say, oh, right, that’s when it went downhill for Trump remaining in office, then wouldn’t it arguably be worth it to print that up and then, uh, wait for nobody outside the NYT to disprove it, because how could they?)
The reason knowing who it is is important is because:
[ul]
[li]The further away from Trump it is, the less it matters, both in terms of PR impact and that individual’s claim to be a meaningful finger in the dike[/li][li]If/when identified, and it IS a household name, it will be a significant direct attribution of these types of claims[/li][li]You can trust reporters all you want, but everything so far has just been reporters saying “everybody’s saying this” and reports that “[Known name] called Trump an idiot,” which are all cases of (truthfully, or not) Anonymous Person putting words in [Known name]'s mouth[/ul][/li]
There may have been a few other cases, but the only attributions that come to mind are Rob Porter’s quotes cited from Woodward’s book and Cohn’s admission.
And the next phase in this will be that Trump will say tomorrow that he has denials from everyone.
And how long can it possibly take (not long) for teams of reporters to call up everybody who could conceivably be construed as the writer, and then what is the result of that? It is either no admissions, or someone admitted it on the condition that they not be identified.
…it’s the entire point of the op-ed, and the Woodward book, isn’t it? The whole idea is that the president, who doesn’t grasp what’s been going on, is amidst insiders who figure he can’t be allowed to do his presidentin’ without key stuff getting swiped off his desk: his impulses have to be thwarted, and parts of his agenda have to be frustrated, keeping the guy ineffective albeit exasperating.
If we reject the possibility that the NYT is playing fast and loose, then I’m seeing a report from a Senior Administration Official who (a) has first-hand knowledge and (b) concluded that this should be said — and could provide Specifics Please — but if such specifics exist, then I figure the NYT could reach the same conclusion.
Because the risk to their journalistic reputation would far outweigh any gains to be had from this letter. Without a credible reputation, they become Fake News and go out of business. It would only take one crafty investigative reporter from a rival newspaper to blow the whole thing out of the water.
To be honest, Trump is the best thing that has happened to the NYT. Keeping him in the WH ensures a steady supply of money-making headlines. Not only does this mean they’re probably not itching for his removal any time soon, but it also means they aren’t so desperate for sales and clicks that they’d start faking letters like this.
In contrast, with mid-terms around the corner, Republican politicians in the WH do have a vested interest in assuring the public that establishment conservatives are actually running things, not the loose orange cannon ball. If the author is someone who stands to directly benefit from Trump’s removal (like Pence), then you have even more motive for the letter.
I don’t believe Trump “doesn’t grasp what is going on”. Read my post above comparing Clinton and Trump campaign spending, and linking to magapill.com. How can he keep winning and be mentally incapable? He is obviously very smart. The whole 25th ammendment angle shows how desperate they are.
I was paraphrasing the op-ed: “The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”
You don’t find it exhausting because you don’t actually consider every possibility all the time. That’s the point of what you quoted: it would be exhausting if you did that. I mean, in this thread alone, you’ve taken everyone at face value. But there’s a non-zero chance that people don’t actually mean what they say. It would be exhausting if you were that paranoid.
You are also mischaracterizing the dismissal. No one is blithely dismissing anything. All of us have given our reasons for dismissing the possibility. The NYT has nothing to gain and too much to lose from faking this, and it has no history of such fakery.
You want to say there’s a non-zero possibility that this is fake? Fine. But that’s all the talk this idea deserves. Because you have no evidence for it, and we have strong evidence against it.
I acknowledge the extremely small possibility. Now let’s discuss the 99.99% left, which is much more likely to lead to a correct conclusion.
Well, I say “let’s.” I may not have anything more to say than I already did, unless new information comes to light.