Senior Trump Official Pens Op-Ed in the NYT calling President Amoral

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mmmmhmmm. Anonymous.

+1
Forgive me if I don't put too much credence in anonymous authors (or sources).

You guys understand that the nyt does know who it is right?

You understand that you sound like an idiot when you talk down to people, right? Yes, we understand the NYT *says* they know who it is. That really means nothing.

You understand there is such a thing as journalistic ethics? That I can't send the NYT an email saying I am Nikki Haley and get it published with no further due diligence on their side? That they have a reputation they want to maintain?

It's cowardly of the writer to remain anonymous and it's cowardly of the NYT not to demand s/he put their name on the piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going with Mnuchin.

This is an outlier guess, but I thought of him too. He was part of the "suicide pact" that obviously never came to be, with Tillerson and Mattis, but I could see them pivoting and deciding to stay the course for the reasons contained in this article.

No, it's someone much younger, more idealistic than Mnuchin. And religious - note how they call Trump "amoral."

Also, not the use of the phrase "ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people" - that's right out of the Hillsdale/Koch Brothers playbook

https://kirkcenter.org/symposia/free-minds-free-markets-and-free-people/

good catch. that's a very cato, reason magazine, koch, type thing.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, you get with small kids and religious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going with Mnuchin.

This is an outlier guess, but I thought of him too. He was part of the "suicide pact" that obviously never came to be, with Tillerson and Mattis, but I could see them pivoting and deciding to stay the course for the reasons contained in this article.

No, it's someone much younger, more idealistic than Mnuchin. And religious - note how they call Trump "amoral."

Also, not the use of the phrase "ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people" - that's right out of the Hillsdale/Koch Brothers playbook

https://kirkcenter.org/symposia/free-minds-free-markets-and-free-people/

good catch. that's a very cato, reason magazine, koch, type thing.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, you get with small kids and religious.

Younger and with small kids I meant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the writing, it's someone involved in foreign policy, national security, and military, or with that background. The emphasis on diplomacy, academic references pretty much make that a slam dunk. And it has to be someone who has been around long enough to be able to talk about events early on (25th amendment).

So there you go: someone like Matthis, Dan Coats, Pompeo or Kelly.

But it also has to be someone who really cares about tax giveaways and some other conervative agenda items.

It’s not Pompeo. He’s almost as bad as Trump. I think it’s Matthis.

No way, no how it is Mattis. He’d stand up and do it publicly.

I’m leaning Coats or Haley.

I don't think Coats has it in him. The essay is self-congratulatory enough to be Haley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dont believe this....It is light on substance just like m. Wolfe’s book and does little harm. It also shows that although trump is impetuous responsible people are checking his worst impulses. If this person was legit the rational and moraly brave thing to do would be to resign and go on national tv and tell his story. I think its bs

What makes you think these guys are really moral? They would rather let this crazy buffoon continue in the WH than try to invoke the 25th, even as they contemplated it, hoping that Trump will be pushed out in two years.

Rs have shown that nothing else matters except tax cuts for the rich, even at the expense of this country. Party over country. If they push out Trump they know they will lose Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Huckabee Sanders

“Sander’s evangelical faith is her lodestar; according to her husband, Bryan Sanders”

https://theslot.jezebel.com/the-complicity-of-sarah-huckabee-sanders-1825597216

it is not this hillbilly cow.

I just love liberals. If the woman is a conservative, their appearance is fair game. But hands off if she's a liberal!

[Anonymous]

Anyone else disturbed by the sight of a room full of law enforcement officers (sheriffs) cheering and clapping as the President railed against the New York Times and the media in general? I can’t find a clip but I saw it this afternoon on CNN. I think it was at around 5 pm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Huckabee Sanders

“Sander’s evangelical faith is her lodestar; according to her husband, Bryan Sanders”

https://theslot.jezebel.com/the-complicity-of-sarah-huckabee-sanders-1825597216

it is not this hillbilly cow.

I just love liberals. If the woman is a conservative, their appearance is fair game. But hands off if she's a liberal!

This country has gone off the rails with fake Evangelicals trying to invade politics and control women, a conman president who is a complete sack of sh*t, and millions of voters who celebrate ignorance and the return to some amorphous time of perceived white power paradise. Such a shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else disturbed by the sight of a room full of law enforcement officers (sheriffs) cheering and clapping as the President railed against the New York Times and the media in general? I can’t find a clip but I saw it this afternoon on CNN. I think it was at around 5 pm

Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else disturbed by the sight of a room full of law enforcement officers (sheriffs) cheering and clapping as the President railed against the New York Times and the media in general? I can’t find a clip but I saw it this afternoon on CNN. I think it was at around 5 pm

Yes, saw that. Or the comments he made that protesting should be illegal. No fascism to see here, folks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the writing, it's someone involved in foreign policy, national security, and military, or with that background. The emphasis on diplomacy, academic references pretty much make that a slam dunk. And it has to be someone who has been around long enough to be able to talk about events early on (25th amendment).

So there you go: someone like Matthis, Dan Coats, Pompeo or Kelly.

But it also has to be someone who really cares about tax giveaways and some other conervative agenda items.

upon further consideration IMO it is nikki haley.

Her speechwriter is Jonah Goldberg's (National Review) wife so it is easy for her to have someone write the the whole 'free minds, free markets' shit.

Haley cares about the tax cut, hard core deregulation agenda.

Once trump is out of office, haley can out herself to position herself to show 'hey look i was trying to keep the presidency on track - so give it to me'.

I don't have any guesses about who it could be, but the bolded above is what annoys me to no end. It's BS to try to set yourself up to get bonus points for being part of "the resistance" when it all falls apart and people are called out as apologists and enablers of a terrible president. I'm not going to thank this person for anything when it's all said and done. Resign and talk openly and insist on change and consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Huckabee Sanders

“Sander’s evangelical faith is her lodestar; according to her husband, Bryan Sanders”

https://theslot.jezebel.com/the-complicity-of-sarah-huckabee-sanders-1825597216

it is not this hillbilly cow.

I just love liberals. If the woman is a conservative, their appearance is fair game. But hands off if she's a liberal!

Gosh, you conservatives are so much more consistent in that regard; you think a woman’s looks, body, and personal choices should be fair game regardless of her ideological leanings. Here’s a cookie.

[Anonymous]

“Trump reacted to the column with “volcanic” anger and was “absolutely livid” over what he considered a treasonous act of disloyalty, and told confidants he suspects the official works on national security issues or in the Justice Department, according to two people familiar with his private discussions.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-sleeper-cells-have-awoken-trump-and-aides-shaken-by-resistance-op-ed/2018/09/05/ecdf423c-b14b-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html

Standby Jeff Sessions

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:My guess is that the author is Mike Pence and he wrote it in order to have evidence in the future showing that he didn't mindlessly go along with Trump. The author is clearly a right-winger who wants to be associated with Trump's actions that are popular with establishment Republicans, but wants to disassociate from Trump's crazier actions.

But doesn't he stand to benefit most from Trump's removal from office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the writing, it's someone involved in foreign policy, national security, and military, or with that background. The emphasis on diplomacy, academic references pretty much make that a slam dunk. And it has to be someone who has been around long enough to be able to talk about events early on (25th amendment).

So there you go: someone like Matthis, Dan Coats, Pompeo or Kelly.

But it also has to be someone who really cares about tax giveaways and some other conervative agenda items.

It’s not Pompeo. He’s almost as bad as Trump. I think it’s Matthis.

No way, no how it is Mattis. He’d stand up and do it publicly.

I’m leaning Coats or Haley.

I don't think Coats has it in him. The essay is self-congratulatory enough to be Haley.

She doesn’t seem central enough. She’s in NY and this was written as though the person had daily or at least weekly proximity to the WH.