Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really believe it's a group of people.

If that's the case, they're a group of cowards.

Yes, Trump loves critics and allows them to speak freely.

was anyone arrested for criticizing trump?

yes trump's criticism speak freely. trump doesn't like it but very few people like being criticized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really believe it's a group of people.

If that's the case, they're a group of cowards.

Yes, Trump loves critics and allows them to speak freely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s recap with what we know:
-nyt op ed received some sort of communication from an individual. Because of the sensitivity, there’s no way they didn’t diligently confirm and/or meet in person with the author. And there is no way they made it up, etc. They know the press is under attack; they are playing things safe.
-we know it was either
—pence or pence staffer
—OR someone who wanted it to look like pence. Someone who specifically knows he uses that term
—third possibility: it’s a coincidence that the word was used
—fourth: it was a 2+ individuals including ^^

It appears to be true, and or match up with other accounts. If YOU think it’s not true, that trumps administration is run like a well-oiled, communicative machine—then go ahead and state you evidence. I think the telephone recording is my evidence that comms are not good. Basically, a bunch of staff knew about this and did not bring it to his attention. What kind of workplace is that? (I have worked in good and bad workplaces, and the call is reminiscent of a bad work environment.)

^sorry, to clarify, when I said telephone recording, that was on the subject of the Woodward book—that communication is the evidence of a defunct workplace: staff was not able to/wanted to/afraid to communicate, or not listened to

NYTimes Opinion editor says he was initially contacted by a go-between but he did eventually meet the anonymous writer (and has met this person multiple times).

We do not know it was Pence or a Pence staffer. That is pure speculation and somewhat contradicted by things the NYTimes opinion editor has said.

I didn’t say it was a pence staffer (or pence). But likely it’s an either or.
If it wasn’t him/staffer, there’s a 99.9% chance they attempted to pin it on him

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s recap with what we know:
-nyt op ed received some sort of communication from an individual. Because of the sensitivity, there’s no way they didn’t diligently confirm and/or meet in person with the author. And there is no way they made it up, etc. They know the press is under attack; they are playing things safe.
-we know it was either
—pence or pence staffer
—OR someone who wanted it to look like pence. Someone who specifically knows he uses that term
—third possibility: it’s a coincidence that the word was used
—fourth: it was a 2+ individuals including ^^

It appears to be true, and or match up with other accounts. If YOU think it’s not true, that trumps administration is run like a well-oiled, communicative machine—then go ahead and state you evidence. I think the telephone recording is my evidence that comms are not good. Basically, a bunch of staff knew about this and did not bring it to his attention. What kind of workplace is that? (I have worked in good and bad workplaces, and the call is reminiscent of a bad work environment.)

^sorry, to clarify, when I said telephone recording, that was on the subject of the Woodward book—that communication is the evidence of a defunct workplace: staff was not able to/wanted to/afraid to communicate, or not listened to

NYTimes Opinion editor says he was initially contacted by a go-between but he did eventually meet the anonymous writer (and has met this person multiple times).

We do not know it was Pence or a Pence staffer. That is pure speculation and somewhat contradicted by things the NYTimes opinion editor has said.

Anonymous wrote:Elaine Chao

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s recap with what we know:
-nyt op ed received some sort of communication from an individual. Because of the sensitivity, there’s no way they didn’t diligently confirm and/or meet in person with the author. And there is no way they made it up, etc. They know the press is under attack; they are playing things safe.
-we know it was either
—pence or pence staffer
—OR someone who wanted it to look like pence. Someone who specifically knows he uses that term
—third possibility: it’s a coincidence that the word was used
—fourth: it was a 2+ individuals including ^^

It appears to be true, and or match up with other accounts. If YOU think it’s not true, that trumps administration is run like a well-oiled, communicative machine—then go ahead and state you evidence. I think the telephone recording is my evidence that comms are not good. Basically, a bunch of staff knew about this and did not bring it to his attention. What kind of workplace is that? (I have worked in good and bad workplaces, and the call is reminiscent of a bad work environment.)

^sorry, to clarify, when I said telephone recording, that was on the subject of the Woodward book—that communication is the evidence of a defunct workplace: staff was not able to/wanted to/afraid to communicate, or not listened to

Anonymous wrote:CNN is reporting that as Cabinet officials issue statements confirming they are not the author of the op ed, staffers are rushing to print them out to bring to the President to read. Can you imagine this happening in any other WH?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone like Don McGahn for this?

But why? What is the motivation? It can’t be a CYA move because we would argue this was a huge cop out. It’s bullsh*t. It doesn’t make any sense.

Anonymous wrote:Let’s recap with what we know:
-nyt op ed received some sort of communication from an individual. Because of the sensitivity, there’s no way they didn’t diligently confirm and/or meet in person with the author. And there is no way they made it up, etc. They know the press is under attack; they are playing things safe.
-we know it was either
—pence or pence staffer
—OR someone who wanted it to look like pence. Someone who specifically knows he uses that term
—third possibility: it’s a coincidence that the word was used
—fourth: it was a 2+ individuals including ^^

It appears to be true, and or match up with other accounts. If YOU think it’s not true, that trumps administration is run like a well-oiled, communicative machine—then go ahead and state you evidence. I think the telephone recording is my evidence that comms are not good. Basically, a bunch of staff knew about this and did not bring it to his attention. What kind of workplace is that? (I have worked in good and bad workplaces, and the call is reminiscent of a bad work environment.)