Slashdot Mirror
White House Says Anonymous 'Coward' Behind New York Times Op-Ed Should Resign (freerepublic.com)
Earlier today, The New York Times published an op-ed from an anonymous staffer in the Trump administration, who has "vowed to thwart parts of [President Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations," citing the president's amorality. The staffer writes: "We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous. But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office." An anonymous [coward] shares the response from the White House: White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders ripped the anonymous senior White House staffer who wrote an op-ed for The New York Times slamming President Trump's conduct. "The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign," she added. Trump himself called the op-ed's author "gutless." He tweeted: "Does the so-called 'Senior Administration Official' really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"
The New York Times op-ed page editor Jim Dao described the process behind publishing the op-ed, telling CNN that the official contacted him "through an intermediary." He said that the New York Times also spoke with the anonymous individual but there are only a "very small number of people within the Times who know this person's identity." Dao didn't provide a gender for the person, but the author was described in a New York Times tweet as a "he" earlier Wednesday. [The Times later said that the tweet was a mistake and that it "was drafted by someone who is not aware of the author's identity."] Furthermore, Dao "said there was no special effort to disguise the person's writing style, for example by rewriting the piece in some fashion," reports CNN. "'There's editing in everything we do,' he said, but it's based on making the person's views 'clearer' and adhering to style standards."
A separate CNN article highlights 12 senior Trump administration officials who may be behind the op-ed.
The New York Times op-ed page editor Jim Dao described the process behind publishing the op-ed, telling CNN that the official contacted him "through an intermediary." He said that the New York Times also spoke with the anonymous individual but there are only a "very small number of people within the Times who know this person's identity." Dao didn't provide a gender for the person, but the author was described in a New York Times tweet as a "he" earlier Wednesday. [The Times later said that the tweet was a mistake and that it "was drafted by someone who is not aware of the author's identity."] Furthermore, Dao "said there was no special effort to disguise the person's writing style, for example by rewriting the piece in some fashion," reports CNN. "'There's editing in everything we do,' he said, but it's based on making the person's views 'clearer' and adhering to style standards."
A separate CNN article highlights 12 senior Trump administration officials who may be behind the op-ed.
I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae. If there was a tech angle fine, but I don't see any. If the editors are going to greenlight political stories stick to the major ones. Not some random staffer who's dad probably made him take the job. I mean, we've got a SCOTUS nomination process going on right now...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.
Except the senior administration officials were people he hired. It's not the "Deep State" if you're the dummy who hired them. Then again, were you looking for the truth or just someone to blame for this clusterfuck presidency?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Being an amoral disgusting person is NOT ILLEGAL.
Seriously are you a time traveler who just landed in 2018? Have you not been paying attention to anything.. at... all?
Disclosing highly classified national security information by giving away
locations of US strategic subs.
Publically soliciting illicit acts and illicit assistance from unfriendly foreign governments and having those requests immediately answered with action within hours... also illegal. Both the solicitation of illicit action (hacking) and requesting election assistance from foreign governments.
Obstruction of justice ("because Russia") and pattern of firing and attempting and plotting to fire entire chains of people investigating you. People have gone to jail for far less.
Trump's on-air confessions to illegal misuse of campaign funds because he doesn't even understand the law.
Abuse of office by leveraging his position and resources to seek retribution against political adversaries. (e.g. Revoking security clearances for political reasons)
Muller and a half dozen ongoing independent criminal investigations are going to destroy Trump, his family and all of his buddies. They deserve everything they are about to get.
That is not true. Not generally and not specifically. President Trump does not sign the checks of his senior officials. Since the Carter Administration, White House senior officials, including cabinet secretaries are paid under a system separate from the GS system, because the pay of a GS-15 was considered insufficient for someone of the stature of a cabinet secretary who had been a CEO. And later, the "Senior Executive Staff" designation was also considered insufficient, so exemptions were created. But the pay structure and the way they get paid is the same, as is their employer, the United States Government. And their pay is set by the same civil service laws and under the same US code as senate staffers and Supreme Court Justices and postal employees.
And by the way, no cabinet secretary or head of an armed or intelligence agency can make more than the Vice-President, by law.
In case your interested, here are the salaries of non-cabinet staff from 2017. It is amazing how few of these people are still there.
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
And here are salaries of cabinet secretaries on down.
https://work.chron.com/much-mo...
You are welcome on my lawn.
If he were an officer in any branch of service instead of the commander in chief, he'd have been dishonorably discharged for conduct unbecoming.
Not in 30 of the 51 separate elections. A nationwide popular vote total is irrelevant, we don't vote as a single body nationwide but in 50 states and the DC we vote in 51 separate elections and in 30 of those states he won, giving him the electoral votes for a rather substantial victory.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Gargantuan deficits? Bill Clinton would have run a surplus pretty much every year of his two-term presidency if he hadn't had to pay the INTEREST on the debt that Reagan and Bush I ran up.
AC
To be totally pedantic...
.... and not even bothering to vote got 41%. So, literally, it looks like "nobody" wins!
There are some 320 million people in the united states (or were, in 2016). In 2016, some 136 million votes were cast for president. So the majority of people in the United States didn't vote at all!
But I hear what you are saying: "I meant a majority of eligible voters".
One could look up the stats in a bunch of places, but according to this particular source, about 59% of eligible voters participated in the 2016 presidential election. Of those that did vote, Trump got about 46% and Clinton about 48%. So, yes, I guess a majority of voters chose a different candidate than Trump.
But in terms of eligible voters, Trump got about 27%, Clinton about 28%,
Here you go
Pay special attention to the parts that create the Electoral College and the US Senate, both of which were explicitly designed to limit the impact of Democracy.
As an added bonus google "Gerrymandering" and "Voter Suppression"
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yep. This is a copy-paste job: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol...
You Trumptards keep repeating that lie. That kind of thing only works with people like you. The rest of us know that, while Hillary wasn't a great option, she was a far better option than Trump (as would be pretty much anyone else as is now plainly evident), which is why the majority of us voted for her. Trump was NOT elected into office by the people. Stop broadcasting your ignorance.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yes, and the American people already made their minds up when they elected Trump a president.
Don't make it out to be something it's not. If you pardon the round numbers, about 63 million people voted for Trump. There were an estimated 250 million eligible voters for 2016, with about 325 million total population. So, the people who voted for Trump make up about 25% of eligible voters, and less than 20% of the total population. He won the election, but don't make it out like he has some sort of super-mandate from the general public. The vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of eligible voters (75%) did not vote for him.
Anyway, if you want to talk about whether or not Americans think that people in the government should help steer Trump in the right direction, instead of just leaving any and every decision up to him, consider the fact that his approval rating is in the high 30s. A majority of Americans do not approve of the job he is doing, right now.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black