Just saw him address this in front of the law enforcement officers. He looks really bad. Sweaty, bloated, bad coloring. This is really wearing on him.

Declassification of 20 pages imminent.

Clearly kellyanne. Just look at that wapo piece from the other week

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tweet from Nate silver:

"Yeah, this is probably right. Actuarially speaking, there are lot more nobodies than somebodies.

Also, people who are like "the NYT would NEVER publish it unless it's someone BIG" should remember that this is the NYT op-ed page, which has much laxer standards than the newsroom."

Thoughts?

this piece is HUGE but ONLY if it is written by someone important.

we all know that there are many nobodies working in the WH who loath trump. there have been many many leaks to confirm this. the only (huge) value of this piece comes from a claim that someone with an actual power to subvert the president is doing it. if this turns out to be some random wh aide nobody has heard of it would really stain NYT.

My guess is that 'Senior' means appointee, but not much more than that. And most of the essay shouldn't be surprising: a conservative functionary wishes Trump were a more focused conservative. Not sure this is worth the excitement.

The Times would not give this platform to some “functionary” merely because they are in some random appointed position. This is somebody high up sounding the alarm. We should listen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tweet from Nate silver:

"Yeah, this is probably right. Actuarially speaking, there are lot more nobodies than somebodies.

Also, people who are like "the NYT would NEVER publish it unless it's someone BIG" should remember that this is the NYT op-ed page, which has much laxer standards than the newsroom."

Thoughts?

this piece is HUGE but ONLY if it is written by someone important.

we all know that there are many nobodies working in the WH who loath trump. there have been many many leaks to confirm this. the only (huge) value of this piece comes from a claim that someone with an actual power to subvert the president is doing it. if this turns out to be some random wh aide nobody has heard of it would really stain NYT.

The author is not a nobody. No way, the Times plays that game. The institutional risk is too big. The author is important and this is HUGE.

PP here and i agree. i don't think NYT would publish a nobody the way nate silver is suggesting. and yeah, being an 'appointee' doesn't really cut it. this must be a person known to everyone who follows politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tweet from Nate silver:

"Yeah, this is probably right. Actuarially speaking, there are lot more nobodies than somebodies.

Also, people who are like "the NYT would NEVER publish it unless it's someone BIG" should remember that this is the NYT op-ed page, which has much laxer standards than the newsroom."

Thoughts?

this piece is HUGE but ONLY if it is written by someone important.

we all know that there are many nobodies working in the WH who loath trump. there have been many many leaks to confirm this. the only (huge) value of this piece comes from a claim that someone with an actual power to subvert the president is doing it. if this turns out to be some random wh aide nobody has heard of it would really stain NYT.

The author is not a nobody. No way, the Times plays that game. The institutional risk is too big. The author is important and this is HUGE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tweet from Nate silver:

"Yeah, this is probably right. Actuarially speaking, there are lot more nobodies than somebodies.

Also, people who are like "the NYT would NEVER publish it unless it's someone BIG" should remember that this is the NYT op-ed page, which has much laxer standards than the newsroom."

Thoughts?

this piece is HUGE but ONLY if it is written by someone important.

we all know that there are many nobodies working in the WH who loath trump. there have been many many leaks to confirm this. the only (huge) value of this piece comes from a claim that someone with an actual power to subvert the president is doing it. if this turns out to be some random wh aide nobody has heard of it would really stain NYT.

My guess is that 'Senior' means appointee, but not much more than that. And most of the essay shouldn't be surprising: a conservative functionary wishes Trump were a more focused conservative. Not sure this is worth the excitement.

Anonymous wrote:This pissed me off. F them all, the administration officials and the voters who put this unstable POS into the Oval Office because TAXES! And SUPREME COURT! You’ve all jeopardized our nation because of your putting partisanship above country.

It doesn’t make me comforted to read that “adults are in the room” making sure our toddler-in-chief doesn’t do something irresistibly horrendous. It makes me furious to think of that baby being there in the first place and how he got in.

I agree 100% This person is not a hero. He or she is fully complicit.

Anonymous wrote:We are suppose to be reassured by learning that Trump is, in fact, unfit but they are going to continue business as usual so they can lower taxes and completely deregulate. These people are the opposite of patriots.

+1,000

Anonymous wrote:Tweet from Nate silver:

"Yeah, this is probably right. Actuarially speaking, there are lot more nobodies than somebodies.

Also, people who are like "the NYT would NEVER publish it unless it's someone BIG" should remember that this is the NYT op-ed page, which has much laxer standards than the newsroom."

Thoughts?

this piece is HUGE but ONLY if it is written by someone important.

we all know that there are many nobodies working in the WH who loath trump. there have been many many leaks to confirm this. the only (huge) value of this piece comes from a claim that someone with an actual power to subvert the president is doing it. if this turns out to be some random wh aide nobody has heard of it would really stain NYT.

We are suppose to be reassured by learning that Trump is, in fact, unfit but they are going to continue business as usual so they can lower taxes and completely deregulate. These people are the opposite of patriots.

Maybe its a trick to distract democrats from the SC confirmation hearing...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a popular tweet by Dan Bloom who is advocating that it is Mike Pence due to language(use of lodestar, which is unusual); mentions senate ties, etc. check it out. I will try to post part here. His username is danbl00m

honestly I cannot square pence's sycophantic behavior toward trump with writing this.

His Uriah Heep act is just that, an act. Pence and Mother have lofty ambitions. Rumpus can't fire him so
What's he going to do?

Fox News is now attacking the author with a whole panel of Crazytown deniers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Historic moment, far more important than the daily Democrat whining and exaggerating.

I REALLY hope many Fox News hosts run with this. Most Trump voters don’t read the NYT and just watch FN. The conservative media badly needs to separate Trump from traditional conservatism. This is THE golden opportunity.

Surely you jest. Fox will be talking about Nike and Kapernick or the murder rate in Chicago.

Top of the page!

http://www.foxnews.com/

This is why this could turn the tide. The tide is turned not by one event, but by Fox News deciding to switch its allegiance from Trump to normal right of center politics. Certain hosts have never been pro-Trump, but we need big names to have a change of heart, and this can happen only if they have another hero to hang their hat on. The immigration, healthcare, tax cuts discussions won't need to change. But they'll be able to get rid of this at times embarrassing leader (thinking in Foxian terms, here. Everyone else things he's unhinged all the time.)