WTF? an anonymous call for a palace coup from the Resistance© inside the trump administration

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 12:57pm

This is by way of Old News by now, but I’ve been trying to catch up. You’ll know about this Deep Throat voice: ‘I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration; I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations’, NY ‘all the news that’s fit to print’ Times.com, Sept. 5, 2018, (& handily included: Leer en español 阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版 한국어로 읽기日本語で読む)

You won’t be faulted in thinking, as I had in just hearing about, but not even caring enough to find it and read it.. that was likely another ‘administration in disarray’ tale, thinking it might be that the generals were pushing back again on Boss Tweet’s plans to start bombing: China, Iran, North Korea, VZ, Nicaragua, South Sudan…given the new global realignments happening apace. But no, for the love of all that’s unholy: it’s NOT that!

Eric London at wsws.org has snagged what I assume are the most telling portions for us in his Sept. 6 ‘New York Times op-ed by anonymous Trump official gives implicit support for palace coup’, including but not limited to:

“In the op-ed, the unnamed official, who by definition is either a cabinet member or a leading aide to Trump, acknowledges a previously unknown level of palace intrigue aimed ultimately at removing Trump from office.

The author notes that “many of the senior officials in [Trump’s] own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” He or she admits that cabinet members have discussed plotting to remove Trump without initiating the congressional impeachment process.

“Given the instability many witnessed,” the op-ed reads, “there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until—one way or another—it’s over.”

This last phrase—“one way or another”—is a green light for Trump’s ouster from within the White House itself.” [snip]

“The senior official references Trump’s corporate tax cuts, its policies of corporate deregulation, and its massive military expenditures as examples of the “bright spots” of the administration.” [snip]

““Take foreign policy,” the op-ed states. “In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.”

The opinion piece concludes by calling for “all Americans” to heed the words of the late Senator John McCain, whom the author calls “a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.” The commentary adds, “Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.”

Small wonder, then, that Boss Tweet offered a one-word response to this op-ed: ‘TREASON?’

“The Times’ role in the campaign exposes the newspaper, which is closely allied with the Democratic Party, as nothing more than a megaphone for reactionary forces within the state that support Trump’s right-wing social policies but demand a less isolationist geopolitical strategy.

The Times’ former executive editor, Howell Raines, appeared on MSNBC last night to praise the paper for taking the “unprecedented step” of publishing an anonymous op-ed. The US is living through a “time of crisis,” Raines explained, which requires that the paper take “new approaches” to intervening in the political process.”

London notes as well that following a week or ten days of duopoly political class laments and hagiography over the demise of War Criminal McCain, portions of Bob Woodward’s new book had been highlighted, ‘detailing how leading Trump officials have been waging a civil war within the White House to control the conduct of the administration’. Apparently John Brennan had recently been on ‘Real Time with Bill Maher’ lauding Woodward’s view of the palace intrigue as the best way to handle the crisis without ‘allowing the divisions to spill into the street’, whatever that means.

Is Anonymous Part of the Resistance© calling for a John Wilkes Booth, or is he/she calling for All Good Military to Come to the Aid of their party? But yes: a double-whammy in a week.

Jeffrey St. Clair has some of the juiciest name-calling featured in Woodward’s book if you give a fig, but I sincerely loved this quip:

“The big question now circulating amid the cubicles of the Gray Lady: Who will Anonymous replace as a regular columnist at the New York Times?

Brett Stephens
B. David Brooks
C. Thomas Friedman
+ Will anyone notice the difference?”

For some guessing who the Insider is, Pence has pride of place, as he’s known to use ‘Lodestar’ now and again, and is said to have had precognitive dreams of his Presidency. Another big Q should be: Is there an author? Or an editorial board behind it? Yeah, yeah, take it to the bank when the Times claims: ‘’we’ve spoken with the author, and only 12 (or.what.ev.er.) of us know who it is!”

Oopsie, I’d missed this link of St. Clairs to the Slimes Sept.6: ‘It Wasn’t Me: Pence, Pompeo and a Parade of Administration Officials Deny Writing Op-Ed’.

There are any number of authors who call this just another Trump Distraction, given that he’s now calling for an investigation into The Alleged Source. Personally, I find it all very dangerous; you’ll decide for yourselves, of course.

Now this third-leg of the Trump Whammy Stool fits in rather seamlessly. I’d seen headlines concerning War Criminal Con Man Obomba’s Friday GOTV speech at U of IL, and was glad to get the Cliffs Notes from Barry Grey at wsws.org. I did locate a transcript for you…just in case. Oh, yes, following George Washington’s lead, he’d decided to exit the Oval and STFU, because ‘in a government of and by and for the people [a real eye-roller, no?], there should be no permanent ruling class’, so he was speaking to them as just another ordinary citizen. Now most often I fault wsws for smackin’ Trump around, kinda forgetting Obomba had laid out most of the precedents afoot now (if arguably meaner & larger, especially on the indefinite caging of immigrants), so it pleased me to read this. ‘Obama speech escalates factional warfare against Trump’, Sept.8

After referencing the NYT…mmmm…call to arms, then Woodward’s book:

“Woodward recounts incidents of Trump administration officials countermanding orders from the president, a situation Woodward characterizes as an “administrative coup d’état.”…

“He cited as evidence of his own progressive record the extra-judicial murder of Osama bin-Laden and his engineering of the “recovery” from the 2008 financial crisis. He reiterated his theme of 2016 that “things were great” in America by the time he left office.

“And by the time I left office, household income was near its all-time high, and the uninsured rate hit an all-time low, poverty rates were falling. I mention this just so when you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started.”

The reality, of course, is that Obama presided over the funneling of trillions of dollars to Wall Street to rescue the financial oligarchy, carrying out the greatest redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top in history. This was paid for by wage cuts and the destruction of decent-paying jobs, replaced by poverty-wage, part-time and temporary employment, the gutting of health benefits for millions of workers under “Obamacare,” pension cuts, the closure of thousands of public schools and layoff of tens of thousands of teachers, and a general lowering of the living standards of the working class.” [snip]

“Trump’s attacks on democratic rights were prepared by Obama’s brutal policy of deportations, his continuation of indefinite detention and the Guantanamo torture camp, his support for mass domestic spying and his program of drone assassinations, including of US citizens. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were continued and new wars were launched in Libya and Syria.

According to Obama, however, Trump was a radical departure from this wave of “progress,” a “symptom” of the “politics of fear and resentment.” It was the “powerful and privileged” pushing back. Obama criticized Trump for “cutting taxes on the wealthy, unwinding regulations and shrinking the safety net,” focusing however on the swelling of the deficit.” [snip]

“Obama saved his most biting criticism for Trump’s supposed softness toward Russia, appealing in the process to the tradition of cold war anti-communism.

“They’re undermining our alliances,” he declared, “cozying up to Russia. What happened to the Republican Party? Its central organizing principle in foreign policy was the fight against communism, and now they’re cozying up to the former head of the KBG.”

(cross-posted from Café Babylon)

Tags:

realpolitik

psyops and propaganda

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 1:53pm

Could it be in reaction to this?

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 5:23pm

oh my,

@Pluto's Republic

51 minutes? may i beg for cliffs notes? i' ve been working on a different diary at the same time for a couple days to feature the artwork of a c99% brilliant feminist artist and time's gotten quite away from me.

do i assume by your question that there may be even more underlying reasons that a putsch, even junta may be under consideration?

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 6:38pm

The op ed is written by a stooge of the devolved Intelligence

@wendy davis

...Agencies that are the Deep State currently in control of US foreign policy in the administration. They have no interest in domestic policy.

This revolution is brought by a "faction" of the Intelligence community that includes Binney, against the current Intelligence Agency Cartel that is the coup government authority over foreign policy for the past two decades. This "faction" correctly described the Russia Hoax as nonsense. This faction has the documents and is taking a stand.

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 7:25pm

brief notes for sure

@Pluto's Republic

but i clicked thru and it's from this week. what are binney, et. al. proposing, please?

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 5:33am

The interview subjects discuss Binney at length

@wendy davis

...and his software philosophy that informs the body of intelligence agents who resist what the agencies have become. They are releasing documents that....

Wait. Why am I writing a narrative of a video? My advice to you is to skip it and move on. It takes too long.

Submitted by wendy davis on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 10:43am

my apolgies, i'm sorry i asked,

@Pluto's Republic

but given your almost photographic memory (which no equivalent may exist for auditory memory), i'd hoped you might have an easier time providing the essence. now yesterday or the day before, a café commenter had brought this newish VIPS memo to my 'psyops and more psyops over syria' diary. i'd been a bit discomfited by the title, and as to the final prescription...well, you can see. a few outtakes of 'Moscow Has Upped the Ante in Syria’, a memo for the President, consortium news, sept. 9

“The situation is even more volatile because Kremlin leaders are not sure who is calling the shots in Washington. This is not the first time that President Putin has encountered such uncertainty (see brief Appendix below). This is, however, the first time that Russian forces have deployed in such numbers into the area, ready to do battle. The stakes are very high.

We hope that John Bolton has given you an accurate description of his acerbic talks with his Russian counterpart in Geneva a few weeks ago. In our view, it is a safe bet that the Kremlin is uncertain whether Bolton faithfully speaks in your stead, or speaks INSTEAD of you.
The best way to assure Mr. Putin that you are in control of U.S. policy toward Syria would be for you to seek an early opportunity to speak out publicly, spelling out your intentions. If you wish wider war, Bolton has put you on the right path.

If you wish to cool things down, you may wish to consider what might be called a pre-emptive ceasefire. By that we mean a public commitment by the presidents of the U.S. and Russia to strengthen procedures to preclude an open clash between U.S. and Russian armed forces. We believe that, in present circumstances, this kind of extraordinary step is now required to head off wider war.”

although at the top they'd written 'As in Aleppo, it will mean unspeakable carnage, unless someone finally tells the insurgents theirs is a lost cause.'

but haven't their been alleged joint humanitarian corridors promised before, and in my bias believe were broken by what they refer to as 'insurgents' as though it's a civil war, not an astroturfed proxy regime change war?

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 11:53am

Oh dear. I'm so sorry.

@wendy davis

Give me a few minutes to wake up and compose myself. I'm not feeling overwhelmed and I am glad to fill in the missing parts, which will seal it in my poor brain, as well. I tend to gather so much that is tangential, so many details. As you say, the stakes are high. I have a few things I want to verify first and I'll return with the salient points.

#1.1.1.1.1

but given your almost photographic memory (which no equivalent may exist for auditory memory), i'd hoped you might have an easier time providing the essence. now yesterday or the day before, a café commenter had brought this newish VIPS memo to my 'psyops and more psyops over syria' diary. i'd been a bit discomfited by the title, and as to the final prescription...well, you can see. a few outtakes of 'Moscow Has Upped the Ante in Syria’, a memo for the President, consortium news, sept. 9

“The situation is even more volatile because Kremlin leaders are not sure who is calling the shots in Washington. This is not the first time that President Putin has encountered such uncertainty (see brief Appendix below). This is, however, the first time that Russian forces have deployed in such numbers into the area, ready to do battle. The stakes are very high.

We hope that John Bolton has given you an accurate description of his acerbic talks with his Russian counterpart in Geneva a few weeks ago. In our view, it is a safe bet that the Kremlin is uncertain whether Bolton faithfully speaks in your stead, or speaks INSTEAD of you.
The best way to assure Mr. Putin that you are in control of U.S. policy toward Syria would be for you to seek an early opportunity to speak out publicly, spelling out your intentions. If you wish wider war, Bolton has put you on the right path.

If you wish to cool things down, you may wish to consider what might be called a pre-emptive ceasefire. By that we mean a public commitment by the presidents of the U.S. and Russia to strengthen procedures to preclude an open clash between U.S. and Russian armed forces. We believe that, in present circumstances, this kind of extraordinary step is now required to head off wider war.”

although at the top they'd written 'As in Aleppo, it will mean unspeakable carnage, unless someone finally tells the insurgents theirs is a lost cause.'

but haven't their been alleged joint humanitarian corridors promised before, and in my bias believe were broken by what they refer to as 'insurgents' as though it's a civil war, not an astroturfed proxy regime change war?

Submitted by wendy davis on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 11:56am

as long as i've gone

@wendy davis

quite OT (or have i?) this synchronicity:

#UPDATE The UN's new humanitarian chief warns that a large-scale military operation against the rebel-held Syrian province of Idlib could create "the worst humanitarian catastrophe" of this century https://t.co/1lqBsd3YID

— AFP news agency (@AFP) September 10, 2018

meanwhile, tweeters on the ground in syria are retweeting this, fwiw, and that today is 9/11 isn't lost on most of them:

‘Filming of staged chemical attack in Syrian Idlib begins - Russian MoD’, 11 Sept, 2018, RT

1. #WhiteHelmet centre in midst of Madir Citadel controlled by Al Qaeda, Jaish Al Islam, Ahrar Al Sham, 500m fm frontlines of Al Skalbiyye Christian town, targeted last night with Cluster rockets by these terrorist groups. All groups & WH evacuated fm SAA liberated #Syria. pic.twitter.com/Yakqg2iaV2

— vanessa beeley (@VanessaBeeley) September 10, 2018

#1.1.1.1.1

but given your almost photographic memory (which no equivalent may exist for auditory memory), i'd hoped you might have an easier time providing the essence. now yesterday or the day before, a café commenter had brought this newish VIPS memo to my 'psyops and more psyops over syria' diary. i'd been a bit discomfited by the title, and as to the final prescription...well, you can see. a few outtakes of 'Moscow Has Upped the Ante in Syria’, a memo for the President, consortium news, sept. 9

“The situation is even more volatile because Kremlin leaders are not sure who is calling the shots in Washington. This is not the first time that President Putin has encountered such uncertainty (see brief Appendix below). This is, however, the first time that Russian forces have deployed in such numbers into the area, ready to do battle. The stakes are very high.

We hope that John Bolton has given you an accurate description of his acerbic talks with his Russian counterpart in Geneva a few weeks ago. In our view, it is a safe bet that the Kremlin is uncertain whether Bolton faithfully speaks in your stead, or speaks INSTEAD of you.
The best way to assure Mr. Putin that you are in control of U.S. policy toward Syria would be for you to seek an early opportunity to speak out publicly, spelling out your intentions. If you wish wider war, Bolton has put you on the right path.

If you wish to cool things down, you may wish to consider what might be called a pre-emptive ceasefire. By that we mean a public commitment by the presidents of the U.S. and Russia to strengthen procedures to preclude an open clash between U.S. and Russian armed forces. We believe that, in present circumstances, this kind of extraordinary step is now required to head off wider war.”

although at the top they'd written 'As in Aleppo, it will mean unspeakable carnage, unless someone finally tells the insurgents theirs is a lost cause.'

but haven't their been alleged joint humanitarian corridors promised before, and in my bias believe were broken by what they refer to as 'insurgents' as though it's a civil war, not an astroturfed proxy regime change war?

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:15am

@Pluto's Republic What would the point

@Pluto's Republic What would the point be for Binney in ousting Trump? He would merely be replaced by Pence or someone else closer to, and more sympathetic to, the aims of the currently powerful faction of intelligence (and military contractors, oil barons, and bankers); no doubt someone from the Clinton or Bush political machines.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 12:07pm

No. They are attempting to oust the Deep State.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

The perverted intelligence agency operatives that control the government's foreign affairs. I'm sorry I was not clear about that.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 6:17pm

Duplicate

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 3:17pm

The Dems will be sad if a palace coup happens.

As Weird Al used to say, "I know Darth Vader's got you annoyed, but remember if you kill him you'll be unemployed."

I'm not sure they realize just how sad they're gonna be without Trump. They'll be a party without a reason.

Pence is an obvious choice for who it is, of course.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by doh1304 on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 3:38pm

that's one of my favorite quotes

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
But it's "I know Darth Vader's got you really annoyed, but if you kill him you'll be unemployed."
I know, I'm a jerk. And I killed Kenny too.

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 4:45pm

@doh1304 I went back and

@doh1304 I went back and listened to the whole song, and this is what it actually is:

"I know Darth Vader's really got you annoyed, but remember if you kill him then you'll be unemployed."

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by doh1304 on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 8:09pm

See, tolja I was a jerk.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
BTW, are you familiar with Howard The Duck's "Star Waugh!" and Samurai Cat's "The Empire State Strikes Back"?

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:25am

@doh1304 No! I'll have to

@doh1304 No! I'll have to look those up.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by doh1304 on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 9:33am

The Empire State Strikes Back

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
is not the best Samurai Cat (his version of Temple of Doom is) but you'll love it, and Star Waugh! was Howard The Duck #7 or so, when it was fresh and hilarious. (btw, there was actually a Pope Hilarious. I found him while looking up early Pope names for a blaspheemous vampire character to use)

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 5:32pm

heh;

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

quite apropos, but i don't think they realize it. Ds might be even more lost in space w/o 'Putin' to blame...for everything. yep, pence makes sense, but using his verbiage could amount to a false flag 'known known', couldn't it?

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV-Pfg9uzJQ]

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:24am

@wendy davis That's true too. In

@wendy davis That's true too. In some ways, I guess it doesn't matter which individual wrote it. We know what factions they represent.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by doh1304 on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 3:33pm

I'm just an amateur novelist/conspiracy theory lover, but

I honestly think that "The Resistance" (the corruptocrats, the Hillary wing of the Democratic Party) think they need - and can create - 2 things before they can succeed at staging a successful overthrow of the government. 1, a cabal of military officers who consider it essential to their personal ambitions to overthrow the goveernment, and 2, the public belief in the illegitimacy, not only of the Trump presidency, but the illegitimacy of American democracy. This supposed plot seems like the wet dream of a delusional person, and it is.

#1 requiress a Thatcherian view and contempt for the American military. A friend, who spent 30 years in the army and retired with an oak leaf on his shoulder, told me that to be promoted above Colonel you had to have combat experience. Thus, to get the stars required to retire to those lucrative post retiremant jobs at defense contractors and TV networks we must have a war. Thus the Hillarian warmongering - she's doing it to recruit careerist military officers to her plot. (note that it is not necessary for Hillary to be the head of this plot, or even expect to be, though I assume her to be the figurehead)
Personaally, I think that Gen. Scott (from Seven Days In May) is an exception. The Resistance assumes him a tragic hero.

#2 assumes that the general stereotypically conservative acceptance for authoritarianism is strong enough to accept, even support, a fascist coup and government. Americans have a strong tendency to vehemently, violently support any person or structure that simultaneously denies and promotes their demons. (see civil rights and Viet Nam) but I expect that support will only last as long as The Resistance's coup does not impose on the mainstream's lifestyle,(and privilages) which they will find impossible for more than a week. Also, the Resistance's presumed supporters will not accept a dictatorship coming from the Democratic Party. This is wishful thinking beyond sanity.

And so I expect this all to blow over, because the plotters are delusional idiots. I also expect a few "mysterious" coincidences - a plane crash here, an undisclosed neurological disease there - and Trump will be allowed to serve out his term. The thing to beware of is a Democratic victory in 2020, unless Bernie's quixotic attempt to reform the Democrats somehow succeeds.

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 5:50pm

you do bring some good points

@doh1304

to the table, but i'm not sure i agree w/ all them. i need more time to think them thru, but why wouldn't their lifestyles be supported? how did the junta come to be in thailand, for instance? (wish i'd paid more attention to tony cartalucci on that subject.) but an erstwhile amerikan self-exiled café babylon commenter lives there, and is fine with the new regime.

I honestly think that "The Resistance" (the corruptocrats, the Hillary wing of the Democratic Party) think they need - and can create - 2 things before they can succeed at staging a successful overthrow of the government. 1, a cabal of military officers who consider it essential to their personal ambitions to overthrow the goveernment, and 2, the public belief in the illegitimacy, not only of the Trump presidency, but the illegitimacy of American democracy. This supposed plot seems like the wet dream of a delusional person, and it is. #1 requiress a Thatcherian view and contempt for the American military. A friend, who spent 30 years in the army and retired with an oak leaf on his shoulder, told me that to be promoted above Colonel you had to have combat experience. Thus, to get the stars required to retire to those lucrative post retiremant jobs at defense contractors and TV networks we must have a war. Thus the Hillarian warmongering - she's doing it to recruit careerist military officers to her plot. (note that it is not necessary for Hillary to be the head of this plot, or even expect to be, though I assume her to be the figurehead) Personaally, I think that Gen. Scott (from Seven Days In May) is an exception. The Resistance assumes him a tragic hero. #2 assumes that the general stereotypically conservative acceptance for authoritarianism is strong enough to accept, even support, a fascist coup and government. Americans have a strong tendency to vehemently, violently support any person or structure that simultaneously denies and promotes their demons. (see civil rights and Viet Nam) but I expect that support will only last as long as The Resistance's coup does not impose on the mainstream's lifestyle,(and privilages) which they will find impossible for more than a week. Also, the Resistance's presumed supporters will not accept a dictatorship coming from the Democratic Party. This is wishful thinking beyond sanity. And so I expect this all to blow over, because the plotters are delusional idiots. I also expect a few "mysterious" coincidences - a plane crash here, an undisclosed neurological disease there - and Trump will be allowed to serve out his term. The thing to beware of is a Democratic victory in 2020, unless Bernie's quixotic attempt to reform the Democrats somehow succeeds.

Submitted by doh1304 on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 8:30pm

I don't actually believe everything I say, just what it may

@wendy davis
mean. For example, the figurehead of the "Resistance" coup plot may actually be Pence, for Opus Dei/TheFamily, and the Resistance will be exposed and used as an excuse to declare martial law and install a modern inquisition and an American theocracy. The implications of my paranoid delusions are the important part.

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 9:00pm

wide smile.

@doh1304

all righty then; i won't need to argue any of the points. (whew!) not even re: the bern, who loved the magical mystical honorable warrior...john mccain.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 4:38pm

Its central organizing

Its central organizing principle in foreign policy was the fight against communism, and now they’re cozying up to the former head of the KBG.”

And God forbid we should oppose traditional Republican policy. It's not like Democrats are their opposition or anything.

As for Putin, I'm afraid that once you say the following you lose all ability to make a moral critique of the KGB:

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 5:55pm

sheldon wolin had dubbed

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

the D team 'the inauthentic opposition'. and may the gods bless harry shearer; thanks for that. it was new to me.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:38am

@wendy davis You're welcome.

@wendy davis You're welcome.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by wendy davis on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 8:08am

i loved it so much

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

that i took it to the café, smile.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 8:13am

@wendy davis Hope they enjoy it!

@wendy davis Hope they enjoy it! (waves to other reasonable people at the oasis next door)

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by snoopydawg on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 4:40pm

For pity's sake as aunt Clara used to say

In Wake of Bombshell Op-Ed, Watchdog Calls for Congress to Investigate 'Erratic' Trump—Starting with Subpoenas for Cabinet.

CauseWhile the op-ed argued that Americans should feel secure in the fact that there are "adults in the room," Common Cause argued that nothing in the piece should be comforting to the public.

Americans deserve to know the truth behind these accusations that the president poses a severe enough threat to our nation that the cabinet weighed invoking the 25th Amendment in order to remove him from office, and that those same unelected officials are in effect running the nation to mitigate the damage that would be done by the president," said Common Cause president Karen Hobert Flynn in a statement.
....
"A shadow presidency is not among the constitutional mechanisms to address a president unable to discharge their powers and duties," said Hobert Flynn. "It is past time for the Republicans in the majority in Congress to put their country before their party and provide investigatory oversight, because no legislation nor nominee is worth the potential threat to our democracy outlined in recent accounts of the Trump White House."

It seems that the person who wrote the op-ed liked most of the things that Trump was doing like signing the tax bill, deregulation of the EPA and other regulatory agencies, trying to revoke the ACA, etc. But what s/he doesn't like is that Trump is too soft on Russia and North Korea. The minute Trump said that he wanted to get along with Russia the daggers came for him.

The MICC can't stand the thought of not having Russia as an enemy because they have all those weapons to sell.

—

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 6:06pm

lord luv a duck,

@snoopydawg

the NYT ‘It Wasn’t Me: Pence, Pompeo and a Parade of Administration Officials Deny Writing Op-Ed' i'd linked to in the OP had libertarian rand paul suggesting lie detector tests for any possible candidates. don't trust me on this, but i'm pretty sure that the trumpeter's reaction was more on the order of "i've been a wonderful president, how could they do this to me?" than railing against a plot against him. but then, that may just be the Times bein'...The Resistance© again, and he has figured out what's afoot.

guess i should have read it further than a scan. i'd had to find the link in the cache so i could open it in a private window; outta clicks already this month.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 5:57pm

Where to start?

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me.

Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response.

I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay.

Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware.

As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time.

Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides.

If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment.

I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example.

Scenario #2:

This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party.

The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries.

Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times?

— Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont.

Norma:

The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust.

And this:

Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process.

It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics.

But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism.

I call bullshit on the last paragraph.

I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it.

But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge?

Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 6:37pm

i found the link

@gulfgal98

at zero hedge. he/she shows a few Qs and BS responses, but he has a stand alone 'via the NYT' hyperlink, and a right click 'open in private window' works.

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me. Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response. I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware. As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time. Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides. If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment. I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example. Scenario #2: This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party. The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries. Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times? — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont. Norma: The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust. And this: Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process. It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism. I call bullshit on the last paragraph. I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it. But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge? Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

Submitted by ovals49 on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 7:05pm

Caputo says it’s a woman....

@gulfgal98
and George Webb thinks its Fiona Hill, FWIW. Regardless of the source it reeks of insider manipulation of public opinion, propaganda American style.

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me. Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response. I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware. As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time. Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides. If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment. I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example. Scenario #2: This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party. The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries. Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times? — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont. Norma: The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust. And this: Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process. It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism. I call bullshit on the last paragraph. I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it. But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge? Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

—

“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 9:05pm

who are caputo

@ovals49

george webb and fiona hill? my ignorance really dudn't matter, but again, i wonder again if it's a cabal, not one person who'd 'authored' it.

Submitted by ovals49 on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 10:25pm

Michael Caputo

@wendy davis
Michael R. Caputo is a Republican political strategist and media consultant. He became enamored of Ronald Reagan while serving in the military and became a Republican, later working for politicians including Jack Kemp. He worked for the Reagan Administration with Oliver North.

George Webb is a citizen YouTube journalist/meta data researcher/conspiracy theorist. Twitter @GeorgWebb and literally hundreds of provocative YT videos.

Fiona Hill is a new to me too.

—

“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024

Submitted by ovals49 on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 5:11am

Fiona Hill - White House advisor on Russia

@ovals49

This thumbnail sketch of Fiona Hill from Heavy.com paints a picture of a marginalized advisor on Russian affairs who has clashed with Trump over “Russia,Russia, Russia!!!” matters. She would make sense as a possible White House insider/mole and author of the soon to be infamous NYT “Palace Coup” OpEd.

—

“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024

Submitted by wendy davis on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 9:13am

thank you for the IDs

@ovals49

...and i'm glad the 'faith' video was brief. it's so baffling to me that otherwise rational people (?) believe that 'russians' elected Boss Tweet, although she extended it into past history, didn't she? no mention of the brits and amerikans interfering in elections, though. that line-up of smug, soulless 'academics' in suits was hard to look at, though.

fascinating you think she's a good candidate as author, though. wikileaks on twitter had kinda profiled the author, but of course as we dunno who did the analysis...who knows? but whoever it was had offered that the Times should never divulge the source!

whoever it was, if not a cabal, was/were a neo-con/ squared, trined, though, methinks.

anyhoo, here's the wiki on amendment 25, section 4, which seems to be the most relevant.

"Section 4 addresses the case of an incapacitated president who is unable or unwilling to execute the voluntary declaration contemplated in Section 3; it is the amendment's only section that has never been invoked. It allows the vice president, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide", to declare the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" in a written declaration to Congress. The transfer of authority to the vice president is immediate and (as with Section 3) the vice president becomes acting president – not president – and the president remains in office, though without authority."

then the time limits, similar declarations, then eventually a 2/3 majority in both houses.

on edit: but of course the opinion journalist notes (ht/HK) said they don't want to go there. so what are 'one way or another—until it’s over' means besides a junta, a john wilkes booth, or a forced resignation?

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 8:56pm

"opinion journalism"

@gulfgal98 @gulfgal98 The Times invents a new word for a very old industry:

@gulfgal98 But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism.

I seem to recall one of the Times' et al. chief criticisms of Wikileaks was that it published sensitive national security-related documents without any editorial oversight.

Yet here The Times publishes a letter in which the author details the machinations of a rogue cabal (literally) inside the Oval Office and brags about plotting a coup to overthrow a sitting President.

And yet The Times just tosses it out there without ANY editorial oversight, factual verification, or contextual reporting. OK then.

I guess the Times owes Assange an apology, huh? At least Wikileaks has a 100% accuracy rate in the veracity of the docs it publishes.

The Times? Eh, not so much....

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me. Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response. I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware. As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time. Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides. If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment. I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example. Scenario #2: This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party. The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries. Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times? — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont. Norma: The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust. And this: Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process. It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism. I call bullshit on the last paragraph. I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it. But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge? Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:56am

@Not Henry Kissinger Great point, NHK.

@Not Henry Kissinger Great point, NHK.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:40am

Wow, good for this guy. Just when I think all America

@gulfgal98 is lost to reason:

Why publish this? What purpose does it serve, other than to enrage its target and assuage the guilt of a collaborator? We have a mad king and a shadow government. This is a coup, not a heroic attempt to save democracy.

— Henry Matthews, New York

Of course, I don't agree that Trump is any more a mad king than George W. Bush was, unless by "mad king" people mean "not wholly under the control of the CIA."

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me. Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response. I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware. As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time. Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides. If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment. I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example. Scenario #2: This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party. The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries. Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times? — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont. Norma: The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust. And this: Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process. It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism. I call bullshit on the last paragraph. I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it. But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge? Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:42am

@gulfgal98 The writer was introduced

@gulfgal98 The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust.

Was he from Langley or Ft. Meade?

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me. Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response. I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware. As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time. Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides. If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment. I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example. Scenario #2: This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party. The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries. Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times? — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont. Norma: The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust. And this: Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process. It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism. I call bullshit on the last paragraph. I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it. But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge? Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:46am

@gulfgal98 Why did you publish it

@gulfgal98 Why did you publish it now? At a time when the country should be focused on the Kavanaugh hearings, the outcome of which will affect us for the next 30 years or more, you totally distracted everyone with a guessing game. This administration is placing our democracy in enough danger. Do you really need to play along?

This is a weird time to say it, and no doubt people will jump on my case for doing so, but, damn! I love my country.

After all this saturation-level propaganda and psy-ops and other crap, there's still a significant enough number of people approaching the situation with reason and a true concern for what might be called, if not democracy, at least a flawed republic based on the rule of law. Which no longer exists, of course, but at least some people are still basing their thinking on the best and most rational version of the values I was taught as a child.

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me. Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response. I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware. As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time. Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides. If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment. I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example. Scenario #2: This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party. The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries. Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times? — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont. Norma: The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust. And this: Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process. It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism. I call bullshit on the last paragraph. I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it. But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge? Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:50am

@gulfgal98 A nationally distributed

@gulfgal98 A nationally distributed newspaper has just revealed that there are 'highly-positioned' people running a 'shadow government'. They are 'running interference' with the President's 'more reckless inclinations'.
And we're more concerned with WHO the author is???
In November 2016, I was terrified at waking up to the fact that Trump was President. Now I'm terrified that self-appointed 'guardians' are leaving him in place while running around pushing their own agendas, when they should be invoking the 25th Amendment to remove a dangerous man from one of the most powerful positions in the world.

and this person is obviously an anti-Trump liberal, probably a Democrat, who still maintains enough critical thinking skills to care about larger issues, and not simply bay for blood like a member of a mob.

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me. Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response. I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware. As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time. Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides. If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment. I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example. Scenario #2: This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party. The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries. Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times? — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont. Norma: The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust. And this: Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process. It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism. I call bullshit on the last paragraph. I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it. But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge? Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 10:32am

I think it was fake all along

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Under my Scenario #2, I pretty much call it that. I was trying to put it into neutral terms but that was my personal take, especially after reading the Times response.

The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office.

I am going to say it again. Trump is not part of the deep state and they are very worried that their cabal is falling apart. They are trying everything they can to get rid of him before we all find out just how corrupt the majority of DC is. They have tried Russiagate, they have tried the Steel dossier, they have tried Stormy Daniels, and they have tried on at least three occasions to physically take Trump out.

Trump is no choir boy, but he is outside the Washington swamp and the New World Order. Clinton is about as inside as they come.

I keep telling people around here we need to think beyond the normal labels of party or political philosophy because our real enemy is outside those constructs and is using those constructs to keep us divided.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:52am

@gulfgal98 I note that they're

@gulfgal98 I note that they're trying to reframe the Deep State now by calling it "the steady state." See, guys, it's that power actually resides with a bunch of unelected people who stay in power for decades, sometimes for life. Aristocracy is better. With democracy you can get people like Trump.

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me. Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response. I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware. As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time. Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides. If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment. I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example. Scenario #2: This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party. The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries. Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times? — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont. Norma: The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust. And this: Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process. It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism. I call bullshit on the last paragraph. I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it. But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge? Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:54am

@gulfgal98 The writer is mostly

@gulfgal98 The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware.

One of the commenters mentioned that the op-ed provides little, if any, new information.

I guess I will lay out two scenarios, neither of which I see as optimal for the long term health of the government of this country. I am linking the NYT response to 23,000 reader inquiries about this op ed. Some of which I may quote below. But I suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves. I will say that the Times responses were not particularly clarifying for me. Scenario #1: The writer is actually a high ranking official in the Trump administration. First problem I have with that is the definition of "senior official." Below is the Times response. I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. Second, if the writer is so concerned about the direction of this country under Trump why did they not resign and speak openly under their own name, rather than as an anonymous source? This is not the same as with Watergate where a crime was committed. The writer is mostly complaining about Trump's personality, style, and lack of foreign policy experience all of which most Americans are already aware. As an analogy, my first thought went back to William Ruckelhaus who served in various high level positions under Nixon. He took a stand against Nixon and resigned from office. Rucklehaus was the Director of the FBI at that time. Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, resigned their positions within the Justice Department rather than obey an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was investigating official misconduct on the part of the president and his aides. If this writer is truly a senior official in the Trump administration, then posting an anonymous op ed is not only cowardly, but it also serves absolutely zero purpose other than to fuel division in the administration and provide fodder for calls to either impeach Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment. I personally find both of these options very detrimental to the stability of our governmental processes and the Constitution. Neither of these should be taken lightly and only used in extraordinary circumstances. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind as an example. Scenario #2: This is something similar to the Steel dossier which came into the FISA process as a result of very tenuous links via a third party. The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries. Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times? — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont. Norma: The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust. And this: Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process. It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics. But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism. I call bullshit on the last paragraph. I am not defending Trump or his way of governing, but what concerns me far more is what we are seeing here with an anonymous op ed that serves absolutely no real purpose other than to cast doubt upon this administration. If the writer wrote this and signed his or her name, I would have no problem with that. If I write an op ed for my local paper, I am required to sign my name to it. But this is not how journalism should work and I am not buying it. Why should we trust the NYT or the WaPo with this kind of anonymous subterfuge? Give us full transparency first and then I might consider the substance of what is being published.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 6:25pm

woot! and yes!

i sincerely applaud all of your comment, but especially noting the cowardly subterfuge as opposed to ruckleshaus and elliot. resigning rather than firing archibald cox.

but you see either article 25 him or impeaching him more the goal even with “So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until—one way or another—it’s over”?

do you remember the name of the ‘answering questions’ piece that drew that vast number of comments? i suspect i can find it w/ just a general query, come to think of it. anyway, excellent, gulf gal. may i at least ask about the general tenor of the Qs?
,
yeah, ‘motivation was not our concern’, ‘the resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism’, 'crucial chaos issue' in the original's intro. what craptastic lies.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 4:38pm

Here it is

@wendy davis and it was also linked in my comment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/reader-center/anonymous-op-ed-trump.html

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 6:34pm

fascinating

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 8:07pm

"Cozying up"

A Nobel Peace Prize winner red baits his Presidential successor:

“They’re undermining our alliances,” he declared, “cozying up to Russia. What happened to the Republican Party? Its central organizing principle in foreign policy was the fight against communism, and now they’re cozying up to the former head of the KBG.”

The guy is all class isn't he?

What happened to the Democratic Party, Barry? Its central organizing principle in foreign policy was detente and rapprochement with Russia, and now they’re cozying up to rogue factions in the intelligence services and trying to gin up public support for WWIII.

—

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 9:15pm

excellent,

@Not Henry Kissinger

obomba deserved an oscar, not a nobel. he's the consummate com man comprador isn't he?
let this serve as tonight's closing lullaby, as O models 'the red right hand'.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrxePKps87k]

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 7:58am

@Not Henry Kissinger Bless you, NHK. Couldn't

@Not Henry Kissinger Bless you, NHK. Couldn't have said it better myself.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by doh1304 on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 9:16pm

I'm calling worse than bullshit

I could see someone, faced with a dangerously unstable president, attempting to subtly prevent the worst consequences of that insanity, and seeing some success, remaining anonymous to save that effort. But then why risk exposure by going to the Times? It doesn't pass the "Hee haw test" (if you can't explain a plan and keep a straight face, drop the plan)
Much more likely is that the op-ed was a forgery, designed to destabilize Trump's presidency - effectively the American democracy.
Yes, this is treason, plain and simple. I'm not suggesting a direct relationship, but Bush v Gore opened the gates of hell, and W's writing NSPD 51 then not having the courage to carry it through did not close that gate, so Obama's refusal to prosecute emboldened Hillary. And now we have the "plot against Trump". If we'd responded with integrity to B v G, or NSPD 51, or told Obama to "go to hell, just start the prosecutions before you go", all this would not have happened, but that's always how things like this happen.

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 8:13am

Strictly speaking it's flagrant sedition,

@doh1304
as it doesn't seem to be in the service of any "foreign enemy", but purely domestic selfish interests.

Of course, "Sedition!" isn't anywhere near as inflammatory a war cry as "Treason!"

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by doh1304 on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 9:43am

Well yes, my rhetoric is loose

@TheOtherMaven
I could have added Reagan conspiring with Iran and Nixon conspiring with the Viet Namese and Kissinger's crimes , but too much detail only confuses a sloppily made point. On the other hand, what do you call Israel and Saudi Arabia?

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 12:34pm

(Updated ) Hi, WD! Haven't caught up

with you in a while--hope everything's going well for you and yours.

Excellent essay! (Some of your foreign policy ones are beyond my pay grade; but this topic is one I know a little about, since "me, myself and I" am a retired Fed. ) Gotta run now, and help 'Mr M' (decided to stick with M, instead of B--to eliminate confusion with 'the B') for a bit, but I'll definitely be back to put in my 2 Cents. Hope to make it back before you retire for the evening.

Later . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Continued)

Tuesday, 9/11

Well, having read Nancy's essay, I'm inclined to stand by my 'guess' that it could be Huntsman, if it's actually an Administration official. (Or, as I mentioned, it could be a so-called cabal, or several so-called officials.)

Having said that, have to admit that Paul Craig Roberts made several very logical and sound points (about the NYT Editorial Board). Frankly, I've never seen more 'bilge' coming from the Establishment corporatist media, than I've witnessed since the 2016 election cycle began.

There's also the building alarm (reflected in the cable news coverage), with the 'talking heads' fervently urging the Admin to move on--IOW, don't worry about 'who' the author is. It's obvious that they're concerned about their Deep State buddies being exposed. It's quite entertaining, actually.

I'll be eagerly watching to see if a consensus develops, here. Earlier, the NYT said they wouldn't rule out publishing another Op-Ed. But, as uncomfortable as the media and political PtB have become--now that DT appears to relish finding out who the author is--I have to wonder if they won't nix that idea.

Guess time will tell.

Blue Onyx

"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by wendy davis on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 1:27pm

welcome,

@Unabashed Liberal

blue et.al. it's just copy/paste which is about all i can manage any more, and i'd thought all of this might have been discussed widely before.

i'm not sure what any of the your comment meant, but as to us bein' okay: not much doesn't suck here for us these days, but we're very appreciative of what doesn't suck. we built us an idyll here, and the wildlife and birds (even tho we can't afford to feed them any longer), oh my!

turns out there are apples an plums galore, even after most of the blossoms got hit by a freeze, and after pummelings by maelstroms of winds and quarter-sized hail twice... mr. wd brings me jars and pails of awesome flower to arrange, usually ten or twelve sequential vases- full at a time. got enough of everything to share, even prepared food into the community in need. sometimes that's gotta be enough till the grim reaper comes to collect his/her dues.

but best to you and mr. onyx and his health predicaments. a few MIA others here are experiencing the same.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 2:08pm

Guess that did seem a bit odd, WD--the

@wendy davis

italics, that is. But, it was simply meant as a general salutation & well-wishes--since the last time we spoke, you Guys seemed to be getting along fine.

Sorry to hear about the hailstorms, etc. We had a hailstorm several weeks ago--hail from dime quarter size. Thankfully, nothing was damaged.

Every time I hear about the California fires, I wonder--and mean to ask you--if you've been spared in Colorado, this fire season. Hope your son is okay, if he's still a hotshot. One of your best essays was when you wrote about the awful fire several years ago, when you and Mr WD had to evacuate. Anyhoo, hope you've avoided a repeat of that dangerous and horrendous experience.

I'm glad you brought up this topic, since it's an easy one to have an 'opinion' about. Guess we'll never know the whole truth, but it's fun to speculate. As underhanded as our government is, these days, I'd probably be skeptical of any story about the anonymous author--regardless of the source!

Blue Onyx

"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by wendy davis on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 3:55pm

no, no.

@Unabashed Liberal

i hadn't seen your later eidt, i'd meant about this being in your wheelhouse as you'd worked for the fed, the B, the M, etc. it happens whe i keep a tab open and thing are added that i never know about.

anyhoo, pluto put up your PCR thoughts link, so folks have move on to the other side of the titanic now. i'll go work on my art diary.

best to you.

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 9:57pm

The ONLY ‘issues’ that NEED to be dealt with

are the hateful, opportunistic, America-hating fuckwits who figured that tearing this country apart and pitting citizen against citizen, delegimizing a newly elected presidency, creating THE biggest scandal in this country’s history, and corrupting every single branch of our government in order to maintain control was worth it.

The Clinton Dossier is one big lie created SPECIFICALLY to enable a bloodless, soft coup. That is all we need to know. The rest is smoke, mirrors, and bullshit.

Sedition

si - dish - uh n
noun

1) ncitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2) any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

Archaic. rebellious disorder.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by snoopydawg on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 10:21pm

This isn't the only act of Sedition

@Amanda Matthews

Everything leading up Russia Gate could be considered sedition, insubordination, insurrection, mutiny or if they do remove Trump on trumped up charges treason. The person who wrote the opinion piece admitted that some people in his administration are working against him when they don't agree with him. No matter what he was duly elected by the country and I'm betting that if he's removed we'll see lots of violence and who knows maybe that is the plan. Removing Trump might lead to civil war which will let the PTB declare martial law and then it's game over for what's left of our republic. Gawd I hate being this cynical.

—

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 10:32pm

“Gawd I hate being this cynical.”

@snoopydawg
That thought probably crosses the minds of practically everybody here. At least once or fifty times a day.

At least you’re in good company.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 8:12am

@Amanda Matthews The president got peed

@Amanda Matthews The president got peed on by some hookers back in the day, and somebody foreign knows about it.

Seriously? That's what they came up with to justify a coup?

smh

Like Trump actually gives a shit who knows what he once did with hookers.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Wed, 09/12/2018 - 2:46am

Trump has been in our faces for 50 years. He’s been a smarmy

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
egotistical bullshitter the entire time. The guy has no filter and he’s a serial liar. These are things that have been well known since he began inflicting himself on the public.

Meet Donald Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/

THE EMPIRE AND EGO OF DONALD TRUMP

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/08/07/business/the-empire-and-ego-of-donald...

Interview With "The Apprentice" Host Donald Trump
Aired February 27, 2004 - 21:0

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/27/lkl.00.html

A Timeline of Donald Trump’s Creepiness While He Owned Miss Universe

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/a-timeline-of-do...

That’s why I always wonder why people are surprised and/or shocked. He even let Howard Stern refer to his daughter as ‘a piece of ass’.

[video:https://youtu.be/4ctPCc6qx2M width:300 height:350]

That’s why I have a hard time believing people who are ‘surprised’ by anything he says or does.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 09/12/2018 - 9:08am

@Amanda Matthews They're surprised

@Amanda Matthews They're surprised and shocked because they need to be. I'm gonna write on this soon.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 4:47pm

Hear, hear!

@Amanda Matthews I appreciate your ability to state the issue of sedition so clearly.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 1:53am

My bet is that 'Anonymous' is Ambassador Jon

Huntsman. Since it's so late, I'll swing back tomorrow and state my case!

Blue

"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 12:53pm

Doesn't he live in Moscow?

@Unabashed Liberal

Most of the time?

Hey Mollie:

It seems that Huntsman plays keyboard with a Russian tribute band, now, called “Leonid & Friends.” They do very good covers of the American band Chicago. I watched a recent video where Huntsman performed in a special concert called “Chicagovich.”

He's an ambassador gone wild. I think he was the right guy to send to Russia. He's very popular there; makes Americans look good. You can catch him on the keyboard at 7:20.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 2:23pm

Hi, Pluto! Good to see you. That's an interesting

@Pluto's Republic

tidbit about Huntsman. Now, since I've heard his Sat XM Radio programs a few times, I did know that he had been in a band (in his younger days). But, didn't know what he played, or didn't remember.

He basically lives in Moscow, as far as I know (while he's been the Russian Ambassador). However, I read that he returned stateside for McCain's funeral. Apparently, they were real tight.

BTW, my apologies--just saw that I attributed your Paul Craig Roberts essay, to Nancy. Guess I got confused, because she highlighted several paragraphs in her comments. Sorry!

Blue Onyx

"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by ovals49 on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 6:21am

Fiona Hill on CSpan - goes there, “Palace Coup”

From early 2017 cyber security panel, pumping the Russia,Russia, Russia!!! meme. Her first clip starts about 2 minutes in, and her comment about Palace Coups (conveniently absent from the CSpan transcript) begins @4:41. Link to video here.

She’s looking more and more like our mystery NYT OpEd author.

—

“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 12:25pm

I read that Trump still thinks

@ovals49

...she is the coffee girl.

Submitted by wendy davis on Tue, 09/11/2018 - 12:30pm

Robert bridger took a romp thru the weeds

in his ‘Thank Q? New York Times’ Anon Anti-Trump Tirade Points to Deep State Desperation’, sept. 10, strategic-culture.org

i will say that one of the Qs to the NYT (it may have been referencing ‘the steady state’ was are we supposed to believe there’s a conspriacy akin to Qanon at hand, and the answer was ‘we are not responsible for what you believe’ or close to that.

“Yet all of these sensationalistic efforts to play Sherlock Holmes are nothing more than an exercise in sheer quackery. The reasons are twofold: first, it is exactly what the architects of this letter want – to spark a firestorm and sow chaos inside of the administration, thus making Trump look not only out of control, but cornered; second, in all likelihood the letter was crafted by some pimply hack in the New York Times editorial department. But the ‘Grey Lady’ hides behind the paper shield of ‘journalistic ethics,’ saying it cannot reveal its sources, which could be just another way of saying there was no source at all. Most likely, we’ll never know.

What does seem certain is that a true patriot who loves his country would not set off fireworks like some juvenile delinquent in the highest branch of government. Instead, he would have done the honorable and professional thing and quietly resigned without a fiasco. Then this official – again, if he truly exists - could go on to sign a multi-million book deal detailing his life and times spent in the White House. Predictably, however, it would be in the same vein as fact-fudger Bob Woodward and his latest bit of Masterpiece Theater, replete with innumerable nods to anonymous officials and former diplomats who would rather not have their names mentioned. You know, because security and other such delightful nonsense. (Buy your bindered bull crap here [pub date also 9/11). [large snip]

“In any case, if any of this is to be believed, with the news of a “resistance” group – a “sleeper cell,” as it has been called - inside of the Trump administration, it would seem that we may be witnessing from the shadows a showdown between two opposing, albeit anonymous forces. One comprised of QAnon and their supporters, and the other made up of the so-called Resistance.

Are these groups are merely wild conspiracy theories, dreamed up out of the blue - possibly as a stunt or even a psy-ops operation - or do they represent a bona-fide standoff between two battling factions competing for different agendas inside and outside of the Trump administration?

My personal hunch is we’ll have the answer to that question before the Midterms.”

my apologies if i haven't answered folks i should have it gets confusing, yanno? esp. what w/ RL chores and trying to get a rather complicated (but joyful!) new diary pre-formatted.