That sort of rules out any names we’d recognize (unless he’s purposefully obfuscating by saying this).
Either he read a different letter than I or that’s got to be a sad lot of writers.
I mean, the letter was fine and clear, but emotional? Neigh, I say.
So you’re saying the writer should have been less whinny?
Thanks.
I’m not sure if your comment is regarding going through an intermediary or doing investigation, but either way I don’t agree. A truly high level person would almost certainly go through an intermediary to start. And doing rigorous investigation is a necessity no matter what level the person is at. If someone calls me and says “I’m Mike Pence,” I’m not going to skip the investigation because I know that name already.
On that topic, the editor at CNN believes the person is almost certainly a name that people would recognize. Publishing an anonymous op-ed is a huge deal for the NYT, and they wouldn’t do it for just anyone. I’m not sure I agree, because it’s a big story by itself and the threat to the writer is real whether it’s a known person or not. But the editor at CNN probably knows a little more about journalism than I do, so his argument carries more weight than mine.
The 25th contains a provision for a removing a president if the Vice President and a cadre of fellow Executives believe that he is unfit for office. Here’s the relevant part:
After that congress votes on it, or if they go into hiding, the President gets his job back.
In other words, getting an unfit president out of office is exactly what that part of the 25th is for.
I didn’t say it was likely. I just said the majority of people seem to be fine with it, especially if the alternative is a bunch of unelected randos randomly setting policies and going behind the president’s back to shield us all from what those randos have privately decided are his destructive impulses.
That was kind of my thought too (without having listened to the podcast yet). Unless, the intermediary known to the NYT said something like “John Kelly wants to get you an op-ed, but it can’t be traceable to him, so he can’t use the email address you have for him. He’ll be using the address lodestar99@gmail.com…”
My vote is for an aide or close adviser to a Cabinet official, someone who can fairly be described as a “senior official” but who most of us have never heard of. Most of us had no idea who Mark Felt was either.
That’s actually pretty persuasive. Hmmm. Maybe I need to rethink my vote.
First of all, I was noting how that part was, in your words, “mostly received”. It was received the way you describe by Elizabeth Warren, but most of the commentators I have heard have said “that’s not what the 25th amendment is for” or something along those lines.
The amendment, which you quoted, doesn’t say “unfit”, it says “unable” (emphasis added in your post). Those are two very different things.
Wouldn’t it have to be someone privy to most everything going on? That would seem to rule out Kellyanne Conway and Jon Huntsman.
Putting aside “lodestar,” I was struck by the phrase “free minds, free markets and free people.” Eloquent, and not a catchphrase you hear every day. I was also struck by “cold comfort,” which has a literary feel to it, and also doesn’t sound like something a young person would say.
Coats and Pence both have Indiana backgrounds. They both went to McKinney School of Law at Indiana University, though not at the same time. I could see them being on the same wave-length about Trump, and having conversations that led to the NYT op-ed piece, probably penned by Coats.
check this website - their motto is: free minds and free markets: (it’s at the top of the page)
They are a libertarian website/magazine
And your context for this suggestion is…?
The post immediately above it. That was my first thought on reading that the phrase was not something you hear everyday. Depends on which sources you read.
Ah… okay. I seem to be very groggy today. Death by a thousand (news)paper cuts.
Vladimir Putin, via proxy.
I seriously doubt the anonymous op-ed piece was written by a household name, but it could have been written by a deputy or an assistant deputy who knows what key players are up to. What matters is motive: was this an opinion piece written by someone who is legitimately afraid for the future of the country under Trump, or was it written to troll the media?
Or was it written to drive thump over the edge so Pence will have to take over?
I found the Slate piece by Saletan pretty convincing as well. However does Huntsman really count as a senior official inside the administration? That sounds to me like someone who is working in DC.
Has anyone done a statistical analysis matching the phrases in the op-ed with speeches and articles by the various suspects ? Of course the writer may have tried to disguise their writing style but there are probably subtle patterns which are difficult to get rid of.
I don’t think it was Pence. I have read on one of those political gossip websites that he and Nikki Haley want to be the political nominees in 2020. I agree that Pence wants the Presidency, but to get the GOP nomination he’ll have to be accepted by Trump’s base. If he were revealed to be the author of the piece, that isn’t going to happen.
I’m not an HR professional, but if someone under you writes an op-ed saying that you’re an incompetent asshole and you can’t narrow it down to 100 people, then you probably are an incompetent asshole.
I think Dumb Donald is going to force every one of his subordinates to write a letter to the NYT asking them to void the secrecy agreement and publish the author’s name. Hopefully the Times would ignore a forced request even if coming from the author.
Isn’t Huntsman in Moscow? I don’t know how he could be the resistance in the WH.