Fine by me.
I’m good; I figure this digression could’ve been wrapped up as soon as it came up on page one, but I see no reason not to end it here.
It doesn’t sound like you are making a “serious claim that the NYT made this up.”
I noted that the well got poisoned against anyone who’d like to make that claim, which I feel is a bad move even though I don’t happen to be someone who’d bet that way; I’d sure like to hear the reasons from anyone who would bet that way, and I sure wouldn’t want the well poisoned against them.
That said, to continue with the Bet That Way bit for a moment longer, I certainly take the possibility seriously enough that I’d rather bet money on that than on any given Senior Administration Official. No, not as against all of them put together, which seems more likely — but it seems to me that they could have done it easily enough; and that the results so far have been what they would’ve hoped for, and that what’s next is likewise promising; and that we’re in a situation so dire that folks in the White House are apparently doing this stuff, which means it’s hardly unthinkable that we’re in a situation that key folks at the NYT would find unprecedentedly dire and act in unprecedented ways.
So, no, not a serious claim that they did; but, then again, I’d never claimed Trump would get elected President, because I never found that likely either. I would’ve bet money against him, and lost — but I wouldn’t have lost all of it, because I sure am keen on asking, “hey, wait; would it be wise of me to rule that out?”
The first person said a serious claim. You keep conflating that with any shred of possibility that the entire Time went insane (which is what it would take), then you seem to be ascribing to everyone else that latter position.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone say it’s completely beyond the realm of physical possibility, just that there’s zero reason to believe it right now. Not zero reason for there to be any shred of chance. Zero reason to believe it.
Now hold on: why must it be that “the entire Time went insane”? As I understand it, the news side has no first-hand knowledge; it’s the editorial side that knows, and not everyone on the editorial side. I’d be curious to know the minimum number of folks who’d need to get themselves into a We Are The Resistance mindset — you know, the way folks at the White House have apparently done — to swing this.
I’m sure they kept it as need-to-know as possible, and I’m sure that the decision wasn’t made at the level of junior intern but involved several senior people. It doesn’t actually change the point. It’s within the realm of physical possibility. There is no evidence to believe it.
Well, (a) if you have specifics in mind, then break this down for me: if it’s the VP, or if it’s Kellyanne Conway, or if it’s Jim Mattis, or whoever, then what do you figure is the minimum number of people who need to know who it is? And if it was penned by someone at the NYT, then what you figure is the minimum?
And (b) let’s say a poster speculates that, like I just said, maybe it was Mattis: that’s within the realm of physical possibility, right? Is there any evidence to believe that it was Mattis instead of Pence or Conway or however many other folks arguably count as Senior Administration Officials? (Or, if not Mattis: is there any evidence it was Zinke? Or Carson? Or Acosta? Are they all just realm-of-possibility folks with no evidence for any of them in particular?)
There is evidence for the set that is “senior administration officials.”
All the stuff you mention would happen anyway thanks to Woodward’s book. So that can’t be a reason.
Would they invent something as a circulation builder? Would be temporary - it’s not like the Times is some local paper who’d make their reputation with this. And not anywhere near worth the risk.
My hunch is that the person who wrote this is not quoted in Woodward’s book, and so wants to go on record saying he is a “good” guy. I’m sure the author will come out once Trump is out of office.
I’m sure the fact that the Times gets some of the attention devoted to Woodward’s book diverted to them, which is a reason for going with the submission, but that’s certainly not enough of a reason to invent it.
Children in cages? Taking steps to increase the pollution that you and I will have to breath? Insulting our allies and complimenting our enemies? Giving a secret to the Russians? Lying his ass off? Saying Nazis are good people?
Saying that having those charged give testimony in return for a lighter sentence should be illegal? Okay, that is good for mob bosses at least.
Not to mention that his appointees - the best people, right? - think some of what he is doing is bad for America, which is why they were trying to stop it. Those same appointees have called him an idiot. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
If he really appoints the best people the best people don’t like him - those who don’t go to jail. If he does not, then he’s lying.
I am sure the Editorial Board and the publisher both know. As for the Resistance - the Times is already there, given that they are looking for dirt, not in that their reason for existence is taking Trump out. Publishing the op-ed doesn’t change that in any way.
Would it? For days, the big top-of-the-hour story has been this op-ed piece; it’s been getting all sorts of coverage, and people’s reactions to it have been getting all kinds of coverage, and I — don’t see Woodward’s book getting that.
Maybe this winds up adding to the pop of Woodward’s book: here’s what happened then, and here’s what’s still happening now. Or maybe the context of what we’ve all heard about Woodward’s book is helping this get more attention? I don’t know; one way or another, I can sure see figuring that the best thing for a badly-needed fire is some gasoline, or vice versa.
Heh. Now I’m envisioning a chainsmoking paranoid ranter who — even then — still keeps insisting the whole thing is a sham, man, and folks at the NYT got in over their heads; but they figured someone would need “good” guy cred once Trump left office, and said, hey, just say you penned it; we’ll back you up.
But even I know that’s just a riff on movie plots, not on actual history.
Yes. This isn’t someone saying, “We’re protecting the country from the evil-doers.”
It’s someone saying “We’re protecting you evil-doers despite that Godfather has turned senile.”
Woodward was on top as soon as news outlets got advanced copies - right up until the Op-ed. Sneaky people, those New Yorkers. I bet they are still pissed about “The Post.”
Interesting. Now, what’s your take on Area 51? 
All kidding aside, on taking a step back it’s actually kind of staggering to me that Woodward’s thing got the back burner. Like, that bit about Cohn swiping documents right off Trump’s desk? Shouldn’t that be insanely big? As in, bigger than the whole NYT piece put together? Trump is bellowing threats about the NYT, he’s talking about treason — shouldn’t that be the jaw-dropping bit with Cohn?
That is all big stuff but the book actually doesn’t come out until the 11th. Might as well focus on the article until the book is released.
Good point. I do think the fact that he says he has the very letter Cohn swiped is pretty stunning. I haven’t seen as much reaction to that as I would have expected.
And I think the opinion piece has just reinforced the book, so that everything in it will feel more verified, rightly or wrongly.
I pretty much agree with you. Perhaps the issue is the disfunction in the Trump White House is so well known that this kind of stuff isn’t that surprising any more, but someone going public is. And I think news organizations love to beat the publication date, so the fact that the book isn’t out yet isn’t the issue.
BTW - and maybe this fits into this thread - I’m surprised (not) that those so upset by someone calling Trump treasonous isn’t upset about Trump calling Anonymous a traitor. As if treason was something done against the President, not the country and Constitution. Just another example of Trump’s dictatorial tendencies.
In future editions I could see this Op-ed being used as a foreword for the Woodward book.
Wow this is quite an analogy. Do I understand this correctly? A person (un-elected) within the administration considers the elected president an enemy and consequently has the right to use stealth to undermine his decisions. As a non american I struggle to see how anybody can defend the position of an appointee working against an elected official. Is this not treason? If you disagree with someone at this level of Government I would think the only honourable thing to do is to resign. It appears politics is an even rougher game than I thought