re: nytimes op-ed -- the question on my mind is not "who", but "why"?

[unblock]

i'm not saying it's a false flag operation, but that would be an easier answer to the "why" question.

if someone (donnie himself or some true believer) wanted to stoke the battle against the free press, the new york times in particular, this might be a way to do that.

if they wanted to instigate a purge within the white house because they know there are people there insufficiently loyal to donnie personally (after omarosa, it's be widely suggested that many more people have been recording conversations, e.g.) then this would be a great way to get that going, as appears to already be starting.


but if someone was genuinely part of "the resistance", why would they expose their operation, even if anonymously? surely they would have to expect donnie to react in ways that would make "resisting" more difficult.

were they desperate to recruit more resisters?
were they just trying to plant a marker so after the administration explodes in crisis, they could later say, hey, i tried to protect the nation?

seriously, regardless of who it was, *why* would they have revealed it?

[Wounded Bear]

1. Trump has been known to release "bad" press on himself as a distraction...

to some current scandal/problem. He's done it his whole life.

It certainly helps with his constant cries of victim-hood. His constant "poor me" bullshit is really tiring.

[unblock]

3. yes the new york times is a particularly interesting choice.

if it is a false flag, would donnie or a true believer leak it to foxnews?

this way, donnie can rail against the "failing new york times" and accuse them of making it up.
he could never do that to foxnews.

[emulatorloo]

32. How exactly does a 'Trump is Crazy' op-ed "distract" from the fact that Trump is crazy?

Please help me understand your thinking. Op-Ed basically backs up Woodward’s book.

[Wounded Bear]

40. Well, look at what Trump is doing...

Trump is turning this into another "Fake News Hates Me and are out to get me" story. Works just fine for his base, which might be shrinking, but is still very loud and borderline violent when shit like this comes out.

More snowflake whining, but his minions eat it up.

[Cary]

2. We are just along for the ride

May you live in interesting times.

[Hortensis]

17. Cary sounding momentarily burned out.

We are all being repeatedly reminded that we live in interesting times. Sometimes several times a day.

[Cary]

18. And the enemy of my enemy is not my friend

All I can do work with Democrats. Whatever Republicans are doing here is whatever.

[Hortensis]

20. Oh, yes.

Big whatever to their games until you can drop the curtain on them, one by one.

[Cary]

21. Republicans are pure evil

It is a huge mistake to not treat them as such.

[Hortensis]

23. They support evil for sure, and does it matter

if they refuse to see it? Result is the same.

[YessirAtsaFact]

4. Rachel Maddows take on the writers motive from last night

Is that this is to prepare the public for invoking the 25th amendment.

[still_one]

6. I don't buy that at all. If they were going to approach it from a 25th amendment angle they

wouldn't write an editorial, but quietly line up the people required to present the 25th amendment removal from office to Congress.

Preparing the public for its invocation assumes that the American public would have trouble grasping it, and with everything that has been going on since trump has taken office, they would not have to be prepared for this.

If the 25th amendment was going to be invoked they would do it. Either they don't have the backing to do it, or this entire thing is a ploy, something like what project veritas does or what they did to Dan Rather on Bush's AWOL story

[Cary]

22. Correct, as always

Read the Matthew Iglesias piece I posted.

[still_one]

24. I will. Thanks Cary

[unblock]

7. i don't know why people keep talking about the 25th amendment!

in order to make removal of the president stick, it requires 2/3rds of *both* houses of congress, in addition to the vice-president and a majority of the cabinet.

it's *much* harder than impeachment, which only requires a majority in the house and 2/3 of the senate -- which is already apparently impossible.


it was intended to remove someone due to coma or massive stroke, where essentially everyone agreed he was genuinely incapacitated.

neglecting, abusing, or mishandling the duties of the office due to being manifestly unfit is much more of a "high crime and misdemeanor" and impeachment is the appropriate tool for removal anyway.

[elleng]

8. I agree, and the OP can garner public opinion for doing so,

via kicking congress butts, which is necessary successfully to invoke the 25th Amd.

[still_one]

5. I was questioning this very thing yesterday. With project veritas, what was done to Dan Rather, and

even Iraq's WMDs, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this could be using media to push a "deep state" plot

The arguments that argue for its authenticity is the release of the Bob Woodward book, which can be argued to support the premise of the writer of the NY Times OP ED.

Still it must be noted that this is a double-edged sword. The writer of the OP ED admits a right wing ideology, as our those allegedly backing this shadow government implication, so no one should assume this is any better than trump

[unblock]

10. indeed. they want a trump who won't try to actually nuke north korea.

they're only interested in curbing his "worst" impulses.

but they're big fans of his merely horrendous impulses.

[still_one]

12. No doubt or they would not even have been aboard from the start

[emulatorloo]

27. See Rick Wilson on those who believe Trump White House is trolling the NYT

Link to tweet

“You maga people who think the op-ed is some sort of elaborate trolling from the WH are out of your minds.

Orange Furby is in the Trumpenbunker rage-watching Fox, his chin smeared with KFC gravy, his bib littered with fried chicken crumbs.

He more in-patient than President.”

——————-

Op-Ed seems like a cry for help to me, a need to put this out in the public sphere. It is both thoughtful and self-reflective. I think this person really believes he is protecting the country against Trump. I think that view of himself is wrongheaded. He and his group need to go public ASAP.

[still_one]

36. One thing that gives it validity is Woodward's book. Still, I doubt anything will come from this

[emulatorloo]

34. NYT knows who the author is. It isn't James O'Keefe/Project Veritas

[still_one]

38. I was speculating on the tactic, not on the specific person. I also used the outing of Dan Rather

which was a Rovian tactic.

I didn't say it was, and knowing the identity of the person neither makes it a valid or not valid speculation. The writer of the OP-ED admits to a right wing agenda.

Regardless, to me what would lend credence to its credibility is the book by Woodard just released before this

[ScratchCat]

9. I cant figure out the end game either

And there must be one, because this otherwise makes no sense. Why reveal any of this when the author knows how Trump would react? I agree that this being released to "prepare the public" for invoking the 25th makes little sense either. A plea to Congress to do their job? Maybe. I don't like the "rah rah, hey - we are real conservatives and like the economic stuff Trump has done", comes off as someone trying to distance themselves from Trump the person, but not the policies his fans claim to support.

There's got to be more here. There has to be a reason to say this NOW.

[marlakay]

39. Maybe a weird plea

To moderate republicans to still vote for them and not stay home or vote dem.

Like saying its safe to keep voting republican.

Personally I think its crazy, if Trump didn’t do it himself to get news off confirmation or Russia, who would be that stupid? It’s like saying we have a crazy president but we’re keeping him!

[Hugin]

11. Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment... (literally)

The thought had crossed my mind this incident was crafted by Old Yeller himself.

Two items in support of the contrarian view:

1) It would certainly serve the purpose of allowing Trump to purge what he considers undesirables from his offices. The Dotard has been paranoid about leakers since day one.

2) A huge distraction at a time when Idi Orangemin needs it most.

Recall, a few weeks ago Trump met with the head guy at the failing NYT. It was quite the buzz at that time. Perhaps, they were setting this up?

Like you...

[Buckeyeblue]

13. Agreed

It's a poorly guised setup to get rid of whoever he wants. I'm surprised the NYT published--except if 45 did coordinate this then I guess it would be news...real news made from a fake claim. I believe there is more than just a bit of irony in that.

[brooklynite]

25. Except for the fact that Trump has NEVER shown an inclination to strategic thinking...

[emulatorloo]

28. Yep.

Posted this above:

Link to tweet

“You maga people who think the op-ed is some sort of elaborate trolling from the WH are out of your minds.

Orange Furby is in the Trumpenbunker rage-watching Fox, his chin smeared with KFC gravy, his bib littered with fried chicken crumbs.

He more in-patient than President.”

[emulatorloo]

29. You believe 'Trump is Crazy' is a good distraction for Trump? Op-Ed pretty much confirms Woodward'

Woodward’s book. And Wolfe and Omarosa’s books as well.

[H2O Man]

14. Sometimes

a cigar is simply a cigar. The op-ed was not a "false flag" operation. It was a classic destabilizing operation, not unlike a number that have taken place around the world at other times. It was conducted by those who are generally known as neoconservatives -- they would prefer to have Pence as president, rather than Trump.

Thus, in the context of efforts to remove Trump, it was a good thing. However, it must be recognized as the introduction of the "Pence can bring America together" effort on their part. (Similar to Ford.)

The Democratic Party can take advantage of the anti-Trump part, but must be careful that we do not advance Pence et al.

[unblock]

15. i haven't come to any conclusion. it is certainly possible that they're just trying to salvage a gop

there have been many stories about how the republican party is now the trump party.

the biggest fear some republicans had early on was that donnie would take down the party with him.

i agree that one possibility is that this is simply an effort to keep some distance between the party and donnie, so that when donnie eventually goes down, republicans can pick up the pieces.


pretty pathetic that they feel they have to do that at all, never mind via an anonymous op-ed....

[salin]

19. Was meeting with a friend just after the story broke yesterday - that's where her mind went.

Whoever wrote this knew it would spike Trump's worst impulses, with the public watching, after having raised the specter of the 25th amendment into open conversation. It wasn't my first thought - but I had already expressed my concern of how dangerous Trump might act in response.

I quickly perused the DU - and found a poll on the who (cause... well its DU), and laughed that the leading answer at the time was "Other" - with a lot of speculation. My eye fell to the suggestion that it was the National Security guy for Pence. Shared that with my friend, we both darkly nodded with a that would make sense. Not saying that is who/what I think, just that it resonates that this was done to destabilize and already unstable environment in the Oval.

[Garrett78]

16. It's all about reassuring anti-Trump Republicans ahead of the election.

I think it's about protecting the Republican brand and trying to avoid a blue wave.

I think Coats and a few others are behind it.

[moondust]

26. Can be spun to fit whatever.

Which seems to suggest someone may be simply relating a story rather than trying to fuel some agenda.

[SWBTATTReg]

30. My fear is something that rump proposed or wanted done that is more outlandish than nuking...

North Korea or someone else is why they came out now w/ the NYT Opinion article.

I wouldn't put it pass rump to propose something so hideous, that it probably shocked those around him, so they had to speak out.

[ginnyinWI]

31. Doesn't the NYT know who the author of the op ed is?

It can't be Trumpie. Only if he could convince one of his high up people to participate in this charade would it have come from him. Duping the NYT isn't that easy.

They decided to publish based on being certain who wrote it and presumably what their motives were.

It might have been written to get people to ask if what they said was true or not. Just that simple.

[unblock]

33. it's not likely the nytimes would have run it if they knew it was from donnie personally

but that doesn't mean it couldn't have come from a loyalist with donnie's blessings or been donnie's idea in the first place.

that said, i am in any event inclined to take it at face value.

[emulatorloo]

35. The conspiracy theory just isn't credible. Trump ain't a chess player.

I take the op-ed at face value as well

[LAS14]

37. When I finally read the whole thing I decided it was Pence, laying...

...groundwork to present himself as an acceptable successor, whether after impeachment or in 2020.