Anonymous wrote:This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.

As a liberal, I disagree emphatically. Nothing should stop anonymous op eds on alleged wrong doing of any President.
Now if the President in question believes that they've been libeled or slandered, there is a legal process for that against the news outlet in question, who is going to have to prove the truth of what they said.

Who cares who it is? It's not like we learned anything new.

there is a process for removing an unfit president. The anonymous source and those he/she refers to are cowards for not using it--along with the republican congress who sold their soul for SCOTUS and tax cuts.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the Times would have published it if it wasn't someone truly senior. But, maybe I give them too much credit.

I think you have to look. carefully at what the Times said - that they used “senior administration official” in a way that is consistent with how they use that phrase regularly in their articles. That means it could be virtually anyone in a non-career, non-administrative position in the WH or anyone at any Exec. Agency from the head to at least 2 layers deep, i.e. Sec., dep. sec., under sec., maybe asst secs also. To be “Trump administration official”, the person would have to be nominated/confirmed or non-confirmed but schedule-C position.

Plus, based on the things described in the op-ed, I would expect (if I was running this piece at tbe Times) that the author had regular acces to the WH and/or EOB.

That still leaves a LOT of people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks it was John Kelly?

He hasn't said he didn't write it yet, has he? (as of 12:36am Friday)

deep throat denied being deep throat for decades. a denial is meaningless.

+1. Joe Klein also denied being the author of Primary Colors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/09/07/before-the-trump-op-ed-another-mysterious-anonymous-author-lit-up-washington/?utm_term=.f7b3c64cf79e

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how this is clearly keeping liberals up at night, heads exploding. You guys love the speculation! So exciting!

Liberals' heads exploding? Is that why Trump is going batsh-t??

Well, clearly liberals are falling over themselves, trying to figure out whodunnit. Case in point, DCUM regulars.

Oh honey if you think WH staffers and others in the administration aren’t also “falling over themselves” trying to figure out whodunnit then you haven’t been paying attention. Case in point, all the sycophants delivers letters to the Oval Office assuring Spanky of their undying loyalty and that they absolutely DID NOT WRITE that nasty old editorial

+1 Trump wants them to take a lie detector test. I'd say that's pretty desperate.

And Rand Paul agrees. Libertarian says what?

Didn't Rand Paul come up with the idea of having them take the lie detector test?

Trump was his own ananymous source that sparked the racist birther movement. I didn't see your collective outrage then.

Hypocrites

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks it was John Kelly?

He hasn't said he didn't write it yet, has he? (as of 12:36am Friday)

deep throat denied being deep throat for decades. a denial is meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the WH really wanted to find out, why not just order NHS to find out? NHS knows when you sneeze, certainly they can find out who in or near the WH is cozy with an NYT editor.

actually doesn't the NYT reporting side have a duty to find out who it is?

I'm surprised they aren't trying to hunt down who it is internally.

they are

https://twitter.com/jodikantor/status/1037429850682867714

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.

They already make up stories on a daily basis so what’s new?

You two are psychotic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senior Whitehouse official? I heard there was a senior gardner. Does that mean someone who works at the Whitehouse who is over 65?

Might be the same doorman that claimed to know about Trump’s illegitimate child!

I love how anonymous sources are the bread and butter of those with TDS, everything is to be believed as long as it makes Trump look bad, yet when it’s a positive news article it must be a lie.

EXACTLY. You nailed it.

Anonymous wrote:This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.

Agreed. I *always* take anonymous sources/authors with a huge grain of salt. If I don't discount them entirely. There's simply no reason to believe anyone who won't put their name on something.

Anonymous wrote:This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.

There have been leaks during Dem presidencies, too, but the difference here is, so far, it appears that none of the Dem presidents have inspired an internal revolt, and I suppose most of the staffers respected the president. Trump - not so much.

Anonymous wrote:This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.

They already make up stories on a daily basis so what’s new?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how this is clearly keeping liberals up at night, heads exploding. You guys love the speculation! So exciting!

Liberals' heads exploding? Is that why Trump is going batsh-t??

Well, clearly liberals are falling over themselves, trying to figure out whodunnit. Case in point, DCUM regulars.

Oh honey if you think WH staffers and others in the administration aren’t also “falling over themselves” trying to figure out whodunnit then you haven’t been paying attention. Case in point, all the sycophants delivers letters to the Oval Office assuring Spanky of their undying loyalty and that they absolutely DID NOT WRITE that nasty old editorial

+1 Trump wants them to take a lie detector test. I'd say that's pretty desperate.

And Rand Paul agrees. Libertarian says what?

This sets up a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a right-leaning newspaper from printing an "anonymous" Op-ed from an Administrstion insider condemning the president when he is a Democrat? Or if the Dems take the House, an anonymous Hill staffer spilling the beans on Democratic shenanigans?

No anonymous articles should be published.