Open Letter to Anonymous

 

An Open Letter to Anonymous, the Author of, “I Am Part of the Resistance inside the Trump Administration.” printed in the New York Times:

Mr. or Ms. Anonymous,

I just finished reading your opinion piece in the New York Times. I first take issue with the title. You are part of a resistance – where? Inside the Executive Branch, Congress, all over? You are not specific, but let me be specific. The people went to the polls in November 2016 and did not elect you President.

As far as I can see, unless you come forward and identify yourself, you are part of the problem that began the day after the election. You became part of that problem by admitting the following: “I work for the president, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”  If you are so worried that President Trump is a menace to our country, what is more important, keeping your job and working for someone you are not happy with, or stepping out of the shadows and telling what you know?

You continue: “Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.” How has he attacked them outright? Are you sure you aren’t talking about the cast of characters who have emerged as trying to bring down the president from the outset?

Anyone can see that your statement is full of errors. For example, isn’t making the markets work more effectively by removing some of the mountains of legal regulations imposed by Obama, revising the tax code to make it more business-friendly so American companies will return operations to the United States, while creating more jobs and wealth for our citizens, working towards eventually removing tariffs on goods if our allies will do the same, exporting energy and calling out bad deals, such as Germany’s pipeline deal with Russia part of freeing the markets? Inviting the tech sectors to the White House promoting innovation, new product, promoting NASA and the advances in the space program currently underway? There are too many examples to list here, but these are just a few of the free minds, free markets thinking that we needed.

He attacks free people? How? He rescued hostages held in North Korea and brought them home, as well as negotiated for the remains of US soldiers. He champions law enforcement, the military, those that do the hard work of keeping us safe while plugging up the “open borders – no borders” policies of the Obama administration, which is now the group-think of the new Democratic Socialists. His attempts to denuclearize the NK peninsula has resulted in no more rants by the Kim regime or testing at least. It’s only been two years, but he has stood up to Iran, China, Syria and others who don’t know the meaning of freedom. He champions people who enter our country legally, but realizes that open borders have contributed to a major drug epidemic (drugs from China and Mexico) stealing our youth, promoting crime, deadly gang activity and has to stop.

I take issue with this statement of yours as well: “In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.” He didn’t mass market the notion that the press is the enemy of the people. They became that during the presidential debates. My family was shocked at the biased coverage across the media world and it has become a tragedy for one of our greatest gifts as a free people, called “Freedom of the Press.” This bias became apparent by the giants of social media as well – Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube — by the admitted bias and censoring, even removal of conservative voices, and blamed it on “algorithms.” When a pastor whose church functions are censored on Facebook or a conservative business’s advertising is removed then, to me, these are the enemies of the people. Trump was right in that label and they have yet to change course.

Let’s continue with your other op-ed remarks: “Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.” You contradict yourself because you said above that President Trump has attacked free markets, free people, free minds, and that Trump promoted the idea that the media is the enemy of the people, yet you now confirm that there has been near-ceaseless negative coverage of his administration – so which is it, and who is doing it? The American people have to search hard to find it any positive coverage. For example, next to no coverage on bringing the cost of prescription drugs down and rolling out new drugs quicker. That was a big deal and it received ten minutes.

You end your piece with this: “But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful. It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.” Adults in the room? Who decides that, you? Or the American people who elected President Trump?

So far, the shadows have revealed a silent but dangerous coup attempt in the form of a fake dossier produced by Hillary’s people to railroad the new president, aided and abetted by certain people in the FBI and other branches of government and the private sector. After two years, the people are still being kept in the dark, but now know how things have been operating in secret, behind closed doors, with “adults in the room” like Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and many others. That is the resistance that you are now a part of by hiding in the shadows.

We didn’t elect a politician. We elected someone to restore the Republic. I repeat, we elected. Trump’s Supreme Court picks reveal where his values are. His ceaseless work on behalf of the American people, not just conservatives, but all Americans, while in the midst of a “Russia collision” investigation, the endless negative media coverage, people taping him like his attorney, and you talk about amoral?

Your timing is interesting, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous. It coincides with another new hit book by Bob Woodward, and Omorosa, as well as the midterm elections, and right in the middle of another Supreme Court nomination process. The American people are very tired of shadows, lies, hit pieces, and the stench of political correctness and rampant corruption that is poisoning our country, its values, its children, its freedoms at their very core. You gained nothing in my eyes by hiding in the shadows. If you are the adult you claim to be, step out and speak freely.

There are 30 comments.

  1. ST Inactive
    ST

    My guess is that he had to take some sort of oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, etc. He has probably broken said oath and should be fired if not thrown in the brig before being returned to ‘civilian life.’

    As the Great One, DocJay, might have said, I’ll start to believe the Ruling Class when they start putting more of their own kind behind bars.

    • #1
    • September 6, 2018, at 12:40 PM PDT
    • 10 likes
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    My guess is that he had to take some sort of oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, etc. He has probably broken said oath and should be fired if not thrown in the brig before being returned to ‘civilian life.’

    As the Great One, DocJay, might have said, I’ll start to believe the Ruling Class when they start putting more of their own kind behind bars.

    Indeed!

    They won’t because they all are in it together. Trump is not one of them and they cannot stand it. 

     

    • #2
    • September 6, 2018, at 12:46 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  3. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher

    Yes!

    • #3
    • September 6, 2018, at 12:55 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  4. Fritz Member

    Good article.

    (By the way, the word you wanted is “coup,” not “coo.”)

    • #4
    • September 6, 2018, at 12:57 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Just because he declared he wasn’t part of the Progressive resistance, he was. His strategy was precisely the same: to take down the President and his administration.

    • #5
    • September 6, 2018, at 1:05 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  6. ST Inactive
    ST

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Just because he declared he wasn’t part of the Progressive resistance, he was.

    I am not following you. I thought he wrote that he was part of the Resistance.

     

    • #6
    • September 6, 2018, at 1:09 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  7. PHCheese Member

    I haven’t heard anyone ask if this person actually exists. I no longer put fabrication past liberals.

    • #7
    • September 6, 2018, at 1:28 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  8. KentForrester Coolidge

    Mrs. Cat, your post is really good, and you put so much work into it. It’s gratifying that we have people like you within the Ricochet membership..

    Good job, dawg. I mean cat.

    • #8
    • September 6, 2018, at 1:38 PM PDT
    • 12 likes
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Just because he declared he wasn’t part of the Progressive resistance, he was.

    I am not following you. I thought he wrote that he was part of the Resistance.

     

    I think he was saying he was part of the NeverTrump, supposedly conservative resistance–not part of the Leftists. I’m saying he is part of the Leftists, ST, for doing this.

    • #9
    • September 6, 2018, at 1:42 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  10. ST Inactive
    ST

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Just because he declared he wasn’t part of the Progressive resistance, he was.

    I am not following you. I thought he wrote that he was part of the Resistance.

     

    I think he was saying he was part of the NeverTrump, supposedly conservative resistance–not part of the Leftists. I’m saying he is part of the Leftists, ST, for doing this.

    Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

    • #10
    • September 6, 2018, at 1:44 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. Paul Dougherty Member

    I suspect there was no author from inside the administration. It is a carefully coordinated attack meant to trigger the President’s paranoia. The Times and Mr. Woodward don’t really care if we believe this or not. It is meant to provoke disruptive purges by the President. 

    I imagine this is where the faithful try to reassure that He wouldn’t fall for this rouse. He is way to smart for that. 

    • #11
    • September 6, 2018, at 1:56 PM PDT
    • 10 likes
  12. Roderic Fabian Coolidge

    I question how effective people like this can be in the administration. They can’t be insubordinate. If all this guy is saying is that they are working to change Trump’s mind about policy and keep it on a reasonable basis then that’s what advisors are supposed to do. So, big deal.

    Yes, Trump is skeptical of trade. He campaigned on that, and the people elected him. Now he’s following through, doing what he said he’d do. For a politician who is supposedly anti-democratic he seems to do what he promised the people he’d do pretty often. 

    If this anonymous elitist twit thinks Trump’s trade policy is wrong then he doesn’t seem to be able to do anything to stop it. He seems to be congratulating himself over his own impotence.

    And, yes, I think everyone knew that Trump was not exactly the quiet, even tempered type. That’s something else many voters like about him. 

    One thing this fellow has done pretty effectively, and that’s to remove all doubt about the existence of a deep state that’s working against Trump. It is pretty incredible how much Trump has been able to do even with all the twits working against him. That’s all the more reason to appreciate Trump.

    • #12
    • September 6, 2018, at 2:07 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  13. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Just because he declared he wasn’t part of the Progressive resistance, he was.

    I am not following you. I thought he wrote that he was part of the Resistance.

     

    I think he was saying he was part of the NeverTrump, supposedly conservative resistance–not part of the Leftists. I’m saying he is part of the Leftists, ST, for doing this.

    Actually, since he espouses “free trade” and he espouses “free market” many leftists would be upset with him, if they were not so afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome that they cannot think straight.

    The Left is big on environmental protections, which become moot unless payment is made when a serious trade agreement goes into effect. In Calif, the state had to pay out over 800 millions of dollars to the company in Canada providing mandated toxin MTBE to be in our gasoline. So we had to pay to not use a toxin because of NAFTA.

    Despite this, the Leftists remaining on my social media are all in praise mode for this latest NYT’s piece. Politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows.

    • #13
    • September 6, 2018, at 2:08 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat Post author

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Mrs. Cat, your post is really good, and you put so much work into it. It’s gratifying that we have people like you within the Ricochet membership..

    Good job, dawg. I mean cat.

    You make me laugh ! Thank you.

    • #14
    • September 6, 2018, at 2:53 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  15. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat Post author

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    I suspect there was no author from inside the administration. It is a carefully coordinated attack meant to trigger the President’s paranoia. The Times and Mr. Woodward don’t really care if we believe this or not. It is meant to provoke disruptive purges by the President.

    I imagine this is where the faithful try to reassure that He wouldn’t fall for this rouse. He is way to smart for that.

    Very interesting point.

    • #15
    • September 6, 2018, at 3:14 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Paul Dougherty Member

    It makes no rational sense for a person on the inside to write this letter. If they are truly concerned for the necessity of manipulation from within, why expose this? It seems more of a characterization of what a writer projects on to a imagined well intentioned subversive. It only makes sense to me as fiction.

    • #16
    • September 6, 2018, at 3:25 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  17. Marythefifth Member

    I’m with Paul Dougherty. Trump might want to take a closer look at his staff, but why should we waste speculation on something so strange and flimsy until we know it’s legitimate?

    • #17
    • September 6, 2018, at 3:42 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  18. Hoyacon Member

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    It makes no rational sense for a person on the inside to write this letter. If they are truly concerned for the necessity of manipulation from within, why expose this? It seems more of a characterization of what a writer projects on to a imagined well intentioned subversive. It only makes sense to me as fiction.

    The wiggle room in “senior official” is considerable. I believe that the person exists, but that his position and importance are being overstated. He also could well be a Democrat rather than a Trump political appointment, which would explain a few things.

    • #18
    • September 6, 2018, at 4:43 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  19. ST Inactive
    ST

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    It makes no rational sense for a person on the inside to write this letter. If they are truly concerned for the necessity of manipulation from within, why expose this? It seems more of a characterization of what a writer projects on to a imagined well intentioned subversive. It only makes sense to me as fiction.

    The wiggle room in “senior official” is considerable. I believe that the person exists, but that his position and importance are being overstated. He also could well be a Democrat rather than a Trump political appointment, which would explain a few things.

    me three.

    • #19
    • September 6, 2018, at 4:54 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  20. Paul Dougherty Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    It makes no rational sense for a person on the inside to write this letter. If they are truly concerned for the necessity of manipulation from within, why expose this? It seems more of a characterization of what a writer projects on to a imagined well intentioned subversive. It only makes sense to me as fiction.

    The wiggle room in “senior official” is considerable. I believe that the person exists, but that his position and importance are being overstated. He also could well be a Democrat rather than a Trump political appointment, which would explain a few things.

    It doesn’t make sense for the NYT to run a less than key senior staffer as Anonymous. If nothing else, the Times believe themselves to have a reputation to keep “journalistic”.

    • #20
    • September 6, 2018, at 5:49 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  21. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat Post author

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    It makes no rational sense for a person on the inside to write this letter. If they are truly concerned for the necessity of manipulation from within, why expose this? It seems more of a characterization of what a writer projects on to a imagined well intentioned subversive. It only makes sense to me as fiction.

    The wiggle room in “senior official” is considerable. I believe that the person exists, but that his position and importance are being overstated. He also could well be a Democrat rather than a Trump political appointment, which would explain a few things.

    It doesn’t make sense for the NYT to run a less than key senior staffer as Anonymous. If nothing else, the Times believe themselves to have a reputation to keep “journalistic”.

    They have a reputation? This anonymous person seems to have declared that there is a group working against some of the policies of the president and may have access to high security information – would you say they are the threat and not Trump? At the very least, they seem to be concluding that the Trump voters are children and need adult supervision….

    • #21
    • September 6, 2018, at 6:18 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  22. Boss Mongo Member

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):
    If this anonymous elitist twit thinks Trump’s trade policy is wrong then he doesn’t seem to be able to do anything to stop it. He seems to be congratulating himself over his own impotence.

    Thank you, @rhfabian; This is sweet, sweet wine.

    • #22
    • September 6, 2018, at 6:24 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Paul Dougherty Member

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    It makes no rational sense for a person on the inside to write this letter. If they are truly concerned for the necessity of manipulation from within, why expose this? It seems more of a characterization of what a writer projects on to a imagined well intentioned subversive. It only makes sense to me as fiction.

    The wiggle room in “senior official” is considerable. I believe that the person exists, but that his position and importance are being overstated. He also could well be a Democrat rather than a Trump political appointment, which would explain a few things.

    It doesn’t make sense for the NYT to run a less than key senior staffer as Anonymous. If nothing else, the Times believe themselves to have a reputation to keep “journalistic”.

    They have a reputation?

    Well, They think so..

    This anonymous person seems to have declared that there is a group working against some of the policies of the president and may have access to high security information – would you say they are the threat and not Trump?

    Yes and no. Yes they are a threat to confidence in our institutions as intended. Trump is different threat. I don’t know how much of the “good stuff” is a result of Trump or in spite of his worst efforts.

    At the very least, they seem to be concluding that the Trump voters are children and need adult supervision….

    I don’t delight at the idea of the President spending time and energy rooting around for “Traitors?”

    • #23
    • September 6, 2018, at 6:46 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. Eridemus Coolidge

    From minute one, this just seemed like a leftist childishly posting something he wished existed, making a feeble attempt at encouraging the outside “resistance” and shaving off any midterm Republican votes he/she can.

    • #24
    • September 6, 2018, at 8:00 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  25. James Gawron Thatcher

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    I haven’t heard anyone ask if this person actually exists. I no longer put fabrication past liberals.

    Cheese,

    I am in agreement. I think the most plausible explanation is that this whole thing is a hoax. Gorka agrees with me.

    Gorka: NYT Anonymous White House Op-Ed a National Security Issue…or a Hoax

    Gorka continued: “If it is somebody in the White House, this is the definition of sedition. Just look it up in the Merriam-Webster, right now. Sedition is a crime. It is the overt or covert attempt to undermine a lawful authority or a constitutional order. If you disagree with the president, you are not elected to undermine him.

    Gorka added, “I was a politically commissioned officer. My job was to be loyal to his agenda and his policies. If you don’t like him, you resign and leave. If you actively admit to being quote-unquote part of the resistance inside the White House, you are committing sedition, sabotage, and subversion.”

    Gorka remarked, “This person should be rooted out. If this person exists, I do not want to be in their shoes, because I know right now, a four-star Marine Corps legend is on this person’s trail like a bloodhound and will remove this person from their position.”

    Gorka wondered if the New York Times exaggerated the status of the op-ed’s author as a “senior administration official.”

    “You know what the most likely scenario is?” asked Gorka rhetorically. “I think this is some disgruntled little peon who makes photocopies in the Eisenhower Executive Building. This is some pussyhat-wearing snowflake who was left over from the Obama administration. This is their attempt at a moment of glory to satisfy their overinflated view of themselves, and the New York Times has painted this as a senior official. I think perhaps that’s the most likely scenario. There is nothing in this letter that speaks to this person being a senior member of the administration.”

    Gorka is making sense.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #25
    • September 7, 2018, at 10:55 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  26. Paul Dougherty Member

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    I haven’t heard anyone ask if this person actually exists. I no longer put fabrication past liberals.

    Cheese,

    I am in agreement. I think the most plausible explanation is that this whole thing is a hoax. Gorka agrees with me.

    Gorka: NYT Anonymous White House Op-Ed a National Security Issue…or a Hoax

    Gorka continued: “If it is somebody in the White House, this is the definition of sedition. Just look it up in the Merriam-Webster, right now. Sedition is a crime. It is the overt or covert attempt to undermine a lawful authority or a constitutional order. If you disagree with the president, you are not elected to undermine him.

    Gorka added, “I was a politically commissioned officer. My job was to be loyal to his agenda and his policies. If you don’t like him, you resign and leave. If you actively admit to being quote-unquote part of the resistance inside the White House, you are committing sedition, sabotage, and subversion.”

    Gorka remarked, “This person should be rooted out. If this person exists, I do not want to be in their shoes, because I know right now, a four-star Marine Corps legend is on this person’s trail like a bloodhound and will remove this person from their position.”

    Gorka wondered if the New York Times exaggerated the status of the op-ed’s author as a “senior administration official.”

    “You know what the most likely scenario is?” asked Gorka rhetorically. “I think this is some disgruntled little peon who makes photocopies in the Eisenhower Executive Building. This is some pussyhat-wearing snowflake who was left over from the Obama administration. This is their attempt at a moment of glory to satisfy their overinflated view of themselves, and the New York Times has painted this as a senior official. I think perhaps that’s the most likely scenario. There is nothing in this letter that speaks to this person being a senior member of the administration.”

    Gorka is making sense.

    Regards,

    Jim

    It seems to me kind of risky from the NYT editors standpoint to have a person of low level out there who may confess to the rouse. It would be much easier for two or three editors to fabricate the editorial out of whole cloth and be comfortably confident that truth never surfaces.

    • #26
    • September 7, 2018, at 12:07 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  27. James Gawron Thatcher

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    I haven’t heard anyone ask if this person actually exists. I no longer put fabrication past liberals.

    Cheese,

    I am in agreement. I think the most plausible explanation is that this whole thing is a hoax. Gorka agrees with me.

    Gorka: NYT Anonymous White House Op-Ed a National Security Issue…or a Hoax

    Gorka continued: “If it is somebody in the White House, this is the definition of sedition. Just look it up in the Merriam-Webster, right now. Sedition is a crime. It is the overt or covert attempt to undermine a lawful authority or a constitutional order. If you disagree with the president, you are not elected to undermine him.

    Gorka added, “I was a politically commissioned officer. My job was to be loyal to his agenda and his policies. If you don’t like him, you resign and leave. If you actively admit to being quote-unquote part of the resistance inside the White House, you are committing sedition, sabotage, and subversion.”

    Gorka remarked, “This person should be rooted out. If this person exists, I do not want to be in their shoes, because I know right now, a four-star Marine Corps legend is on this person’s trail like a bloodhound and will remove this person from their position.”

    Gorka wondered if the New York Times exaggerated the status of the op-ed’s author as a “senior administration official.”

    “You know what the most likely scenario is?” asked Gorka rhetorically. “I think this is some disgruntled little peon who makes photocopies in the Eisenhower Executive Building. This is some pussyhat-wearing snowflake who was left over from the Obama administration. This is their attempt at a moment of glory to satisfy their overinflated view of themselves, and the New York Times has painted this as a senior official. I think perhaps that’s the most likely scenario. There is nothing in this letter that speaks to this person being a senior member of the administration.”

    Gorka is making sense.

    Regards,

    Jim

    It seems to me kind of risky from the NYT editors standpoint to have a person of low level out there who may confess to the rouse. It would be much easier for two or three editors to fabricate the editorial out of whole cloth and be comfortably confident that truth never surfaces.

    Paul,

    After what we’ve put up with for the last 2 years anything is possible. I’ve considered that too. The deconstructionist leftists really believe that narrative is all that matters. That facts don’t count. Thus when it comes to fiction writing they excel. Unfortunately, reality is of no interest to them for the same reason.

    This one does smack of a total fabrication.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #27
    • September 7, 2018, at 1:03 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  28. Roberto, Crusty Old Timer Member

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    It makes no rational sense for a person on the inside to write this letter. If they are truly concerned for the necessity of manipulation from within, why expose this? It seems more of a characterization of what a writer projects on to a imagined well intentioned subversive. It only makes sense to me as fiction.

    A scenario did occur to me where this is real, the author is fairly senior in the administration and writing this makes sense. Many have speculated that the author is Ambassador to Russia John Huntsman, he checks many of the right boxes and the content of the letter is of a similar style to other statements he has made. I initially rejected this on the grounds that while he is certainly arrogant enough to write something of this nature he wouldn’t be dumb enough to do so as it clearly rebounds against the stated goal. Unless…

    What are the author’s actual motives here? Taking the letter at face value seems a serious mistake as it is so clearly detrimental to its supposed purpose. But what if the actual purpose is for the author to get caught? Consider this scenario:

    Huntsman drops some large hints that he is the author, Trump confronts him and they have a massive public falling out where he dramatically resigns, Huntsman becomes a rallying cry here to the Never Trump contingent “He tried all he could to save Trump from himself, what a hero!” and finally he has positioned himself as a prominent primary challenger in 2020 for all those in the GOP currently dissatisfied with Trump.

     

    • #28
    • September 7, 2018, at 1:27 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  29. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat Post author

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    I haven’t heard anyone ask if this person actually exists. I no longer put fabrication past liberals.

    Cheese,

    I am in agreement. I think the most plausible explanation is that this whole thing is a hoax. Gorka agrees with me.

    Gorka: NYT Anonymous White House Op-Ed a National Security Issue…or a Hoax

    Gorka continued: “If it is somebody in the White House, this is the definition of sedition. Just look it up in the Merriam-Webster, right now. Sedition is a crime. It is the overt or covert attempt to undermine a lawful authority or a constitutional order. If you disagree with the president, you are not elected to undermine him.

    Gorka added, “I was a politically commissioned officer. My job was to be loyal to his agenda and his policies. If you don’t like him, you resign and leave. If you actively admit to being quote-unquote part of the resistance inside the White House, you are committing sedition, sabotage, and subversion.”

    Gorka remarked, “This person should be rooted out. If this person exists, I do not want to be in their shoes, because I know right now, a four-star Marine Corps legend is on this person’s trail like a bloodhound and will remove this person from their position.”

    Gorka wondered if the New York Times exaggerated the status of the op-ed’s author as a “senior administration official.”

    “You know what the most likely scenario is?” asked Gorka rhetorically. “I think this is some disgruntled little peon who makes photocopies in the Eisenhower Executive Building. This is some pussyhat-wearing snowflake who was left over from the Obama administration. This is their attempt at a moment of glory to satisfy their overinflated view of themselves, and the New York Times has painted this as a senior official. I think perhaps that’s the most likely scenario. There is nothing in this letter that speaks to this person being a senior member of the administration.”

    Gorka is making sense.

    Regards,

    Jim

    It seems to me kind of risky from the NYT editors standpoint to have a person of low level out there who may confess to the rouse. It would be much easier for two or three editors to fabricate the editorial out of whole cloth and be comfortably confident that truth never surfaces.

    That would mean the NYT and certain editors are not honest..

    • #29
    • September 8, 2018, at 5:37 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  30. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat Post author

    Flipping channels, I briefly came upon Obama at a podium mentioning the Anonymous letter in the NYT! Obama said to the guests who were snickering about Trump, that Anonymous mentioned there’s problems in the WH and ‘this is not how democracy is supposed to be.’ The station airing this was PBS and was titled “Presidency in Peril.” Now the NYT mentions O again:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/us/politics/obama-2018-campaign-trump.html

    Interesting how it’s mentioned that John Huntsman, Ambassador to Russia, might be Anonymous – Roberto in comment #25 makes an interesting point and again Russia is mentioned, hmmmm, does Anonymous have a Russian fingerprint or two to cast doubt? No, they wouldn’t do that….

    • #30
    • September 8, 2018, at 5:47 AM PDT
    • 3 likes