The Wildest Things About Trump From Bob Woodward's New Book, 'Fear'

[md11fr8dawg]

2 hours ago, bostonangler said:

 

Trump has reduced revenue and increased spending driving the debt higher... We won't really know the effect of his policies for a few years. Same as the Bush policies, it took several  years to see the full effect. Obama's policies only increased debt more. So in reality, since 2000 ( really longer than that if you back to Nixon taking us off the gold standard) our fiscal policies have been a disaster. 

 

B/A

 

And therein lies the problem with our country today. Coming off the gold standard allowed the political thieves in both parties to spend spend spend to by votes and keep their sorry A$$es in power. And the start of the Fed's printing press and the devaluation of our dollar.

[coorslite21]

2 hours ago, bostonangler said:

 

CL I agree with most people that whoever wrote this letter needs to take ownership or it will be meaningless. What is crazy is the extremist on the left and right will never accept the truth if it does come out. If it was written by Donald Trump Jr., those on the extreme right would turn on him and call him the Deep State blah blah blah. If it turned out The New York Times had written it themselves those extreme left wouldn't care and say it was true.

 

I think rational people should wait for the author to take ownership. Then rational people will be able to process it. Until then people can speculate all they want, in the end speculation means nothing.

 

At this point calling The New York Times names doesn't change anything and only adds fuel to the fire. Will the extremist accept the truth, whatever it turns out to be or will they continue rolling with conspiracy? I'm sure some will never let go of what they believe even if they are beaten over the head with truth, but the masses will accept the truth and decide where they go from there. So in the meantime we wait and hope the writer comes forward and presents evidence or goes away in shame.

 

B/A

 Until it is proven otherwise this anonymous source is peer fiction..... This whole thing could be totally made up..... No  actual person and just made up BS...... Wouldn't be the 1st time for this publication......heck.....Lanny Davis just pulled a like non story with Cohen supposedly flipping on Trump...the left seems more out of sorts than Trump and the White House!...can't wait for Pelopsi to say something@

[bostonangler]

4 hours ago, md11fr8dawg said:

 

And therein lies the problem with our country today. Coming off the gold standard allowed the political thieves in both parties to spend spend spend to by votes and keep their sorry A$$es in power. And the start of the Fed's printing press and the devaluation of our dollar.

 

You are correct sir!

 

[Synopsis]

There will always be counter views to what a public figure is saying and doing. The key is to be grounded in the textual cornerstones and represent best "We the People" to do the same. Unless there will be some legal action, limited comments to questions are warranted even to say the book author or source are providing fictitious information. For supposed sources in an organization opposed to the leader in the organization, an internal review is warranted to include appropriate action so the organization maintains the stated purpose in a unified manner. In this case, the White House should review and discover to what extent there is an internal source with any internal or external collaboration to produce fictitious material or provide confidential internal information and take the appropriate action. One scenario is there is somehow eaves dropping and an external source published the information posing as an internal source. In this case, the eaves dropping would have to be terminated immediately and the originators brought to justice. With the issues pertaining to foreign entities, there may be one or more with eaves dropping capabilities and are using this to create churn, distraction, and potential impediment to the present White House Administration. This involves more than just Our Beloved and Phenomenal Actually Patriotic President Donald J Trump.

 

God Bless President Donald J Trump!!! 

[umbertino]

No, You Are Not Part of the Resistance: A Response to Trump Official Who Penned Anonymous NYT Op-Ed

 

September 06, 2018

 

 

 

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/9/6/no_you_are_not_part_of

[bigwave]

By John Nolte:

Trump has done nothing wrong.

Remember that…

As the corrupt media fabricate a “fitness for office” crisis, remember…

Trump has done nothing wrong.

 

Fot the rest of the article:https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/06/nolte-woodward-book-anonymous-nytimes-op-ed-reveal-trumps-done-nothing-wrong/

 

[bostonangler]

18 hours ago, Pitcher said:

It appears Jeff Sessions is part of the swamp

 

He's not the only one... The list of Swamp dwellers he has appointed is a rather lengthy one.

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

NY Times' decision to publish anonymous column carries risks

NEW YORK (AP) — The coup of publishing a column by an anonymous Trump administration official bashing the boss could backfire on The New York Times if the author is unmasked and turns out to be a little-known person, or if the newspaper's own reporters solve the puzzle.

Within hours of the essay appearing on the paper's website, the mystery of the writer's identity began to rival the Watergate-era hunt for "Deep Throat" in Washington, and a parade of Trump team members issued statements Thursday saying, in effect, "it's not me."

The Times' only clue was calling the author a "senior administration official." James Dao, the newspaper's op-ed editor, said in the Times' daily podcast that while an intermediary brought him together with the author, he conducted a background check and spoke to the person to the point that he was "totally confident" in the identity.

How large the pool of "senior administration officials" is in Washington is a matter of interpretation.

It's a term used loosely around the White House. Press offices often release statements or offer background briefings and ask that the information be attributed to a senior administration official.

The Partnership for Public Services tracks approximately 700 senior positions in government, ones that require Senate confirmation. Paul Light, a New York University professor and expert on the federal bureaucracy, said about 50 people could have legitimately written the column — probably someone in a political position appointed by President Donald Trump.

He suspects the author is in either a Cabinet-level or deputy secretary position who frequently visits the White House or someone who works in the maze of offices in the West Wing. Most of the Cabinet has denied authorship.

Martha Joynt Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project, meanwhile, puts the number of true senior administration officials at around 100, defining them as high up in the government and having regular interaction with the White House or the president himself.

Jennifer Palmieri, former communications director for Hillarious Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, tweeted that, based on her experience with the Times and sourcing, "this person could easily be someone most of us have never heard of and more junior than you'd expect."

That would be a problem for the Times, partly through no fault of its own, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The column attracted so much attention — as much for its existence as for what it actually said — that it raised the expectation that the author is someone powerful, she said.

If the person is not among the 20 top people in the administration, "the Times just gets creamed," said Tom Bettag, a veteran news producer and now a University of Maryland journalism instructor. "And I think it gets held against them in the biggest possible way. I have enough respect for the Times to believe that they wouldn't hold themselves up to that."

It would look like the Times was trying to stir the pot if it were not a high-level person, said Chuck Todd, host of NBC's "Meet the Press."

Ruth Marcus, deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Post, told Todd on MSNBC that if the author had come to the Post it would provoke a serious discussion, because the newspaper has not in the past run anonymous op-ed columns. She said no one approached the Post to hawk the column.

"When you give someone anonymity on this, you are putting your credibility on the line," Marcus said.

News organizations have different standards for using information from unnamed sources. Frequently, they try to give some indication of why the person would be in a position to know something — the senior administration official, for example — and why anonymity was granted. In this case, the newspaper considered that the person's job would clearly be at risk and that the person could even be physically threatened, Dao said.

He did not see much difference in the use of anonymity in news and opinion pages.

The Times has long been a target of Trump's vitriol. He criticized the newspaper for printing the column and said the Times should reveal its source for reasons of national security. In an interview Thursday with Fox News, Trump said, "What they've done is virtually, you know, it's treason, you could call it a lot of things."

Dao said, "There's nothing in the piece that strikes me as being relevant to or undermining the national security."

The newspaper maintains a strict policy of separation between its news and opinion side, and the decision to publish the column without identifying the author was made by Dao and his boss, Editorial Page Editor James Bennet, in consultation with Publisher A.G. Sulzberger. The paper's executive editor, Dean Baquet, is responsible for the news side and was not part of the decision.

Few people at the paper know the writer's identity, Dao said, and he could not see any circumstances under which it would be divulged.

The Times' own news story about the column said the author's identity is "known to the Times' editorial page department but not to the reporters who cover the White House."

Trump, in a tweet Thursday evening, posed the question: "Are the investigative 'journalists' of the New York Times going to investigate themselves - who is the anonymous letter writer?"

Indeed, like hundreds of other reporters in Washington, the Times' news staff is trying to find out the writer's name. If the Times learns the identity, it could raise serious questions about the newspaper's ability to protect a confidential source among people who don't know — or don't believe — that one part of the newspaper will keep important information away from another.

"You could write a novel about this," said Jamieson, author of the upcoming "Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President." ''If they engage in successful journalism, at some level they discredit themselves."

[coorslite21]

23 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

NY Times' decision to publish anonymous column carries risks

NEW YORK (AP) — The coup of publishing a column by an anonymous Trump administration official bashing the boss could backfire on The New York Times if the author is unmasked and turns out to be a little-known person, or if the newspaper's own reporters solve the puzzle.

Within hours of the essay appearing on the paper's website, the mystery of the writer's identity began to rival the Watergate-era hunt for "Deep Throat" in Washington, and a parade of Trump team members issued statements Thursday saying, in effect, "it's not me."

The Times' only clue was calling the author a "senior administration official." James Dao, the newspaper's op-ed editor, said in the Times' daily podcast that while an intermediary brought him together with the author, he conducted a background check and spoke to the person to the point that he was "totally confident" in the identity.

How large the pool of "senior administration officials" is in Washington is a matter of interpretation.

It's a term used loosely around the White House. Press offices often release statements or offer background briefings and ask that the information be attributed to a senior administration official.

The Partnership for Public Services tracks approximately 700 senior positions in government, ones that require Senate confirmation. Paul Light, a New York University professor and expert on the federal bureaucracy, said about 50 people could have legitimately written the column — probably someone in a political position appointed by President Donald Trump.

He suspects the author is in either a Cabinet-level or deputy secretary position who frequently visits the White House or someone who works in the maze of offices in the West Wing. Most of the Cabinet has denied authorship.

Martha Joynt Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project, meanwhile, puts the number of true senior administration officials at around 100, defining them as high up in the government and having regular interaction with the White House or the president himself.

Jennifer Palmieri, former communications director for Hillarious Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, tweeted that, based on her experience with the Times and sourcing, "this person could easily be someone most of us have never heard of and more junior than you'd expect."

That would be a problem for the Times, partly through no fault of its own, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The column attracted so much attention — as much for its existence as for what it actually said — that it raised the expectation that the author is someone powerful, she said.

If the person is not among the 20 top people in the administration, "the Times just gets creamed," said Tom Bettag, a veteran news producer and now a University of Maryland journalism instructor. "And I think it gets held against them in the biggest possible way. I have enough respect for the Times to believe that they wouldn't hold themselves up to that."

It would look like the Times was trying to stir the pot if it were not a high-level person, said Chuck Todd, host of NBC's "Meet the Press."

Ruth Marcus, deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Post, told Todd on MSNBC that if the author had come to the Post it would provoke a serious discussion, because the newspaper has not in the past run anonymous op-ed columns. She said no one approached the Post to hawk the column.

"When you give someone anonymity on this, you are putting your credibility on the line," Marcus said.

News organizations have different standards for using information from unnamed sources. Frequently, they try to give some indication of why the person would be in a position to know something — the senior administration official, for example — and why anonymity was granted. In this case, the newspaper considered that the person's job would clearly be at risk and that the person could even be physically threatened, Dao said.

He did not see much difference in the use of anonymity in news and opinion pages.

The Times has long been a target of Trump's vitriol. He criticized the newspaper for printing the column and said the Times should reveal its source for reasons of national security. In an interview Thursday with Fox News, Trump said, "What they've done is virtually, you know, it's treason, you could call it a lot of things."

Dao said, "There's nothing in the piece that strikes me as being relevant to or undermining the national security."

The newspaper maintains a strict policy of separation between its news and opinion side, and the decision to publish the column without identifying the author was made by Dao and his boss, Editorial Page Editor James Bennet, in consultation with Publisher A.G. Sulzberger. The paper's executive editor, Dean Baquet, is responsible for the news side and was not part of the decision.

Few people at the paper know the writer's identity, Dao said, and he could not see any circumstances under which it would be divulged.

The Times' own news story about the column said the author's identity is "known to the Times' editorial page department but not to the reporters who cover the White House."

Trump, in a tweet Thursday evening, posed the question: "Are the investigative 'journalists' of the New York Times going to investigate themselves - who is the anonymous letter writer?"

Indeed, like hundreds of other reporters in Washington, the Times' news staff is trying to find out the writer's name. If the Times learns the identity, it could raise serious questions about the newspaper's ability to protect a confidential source among people who don't know — or don't believe — that one part of the newspaper will keep important information away from another.

"You could write a novel about this," said Jamieson, author of the upcoming "Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President." ''If they engage in successful journalism, at some level they discredit themselves."

Oopps....just like the Steele Dosier......made up/fraudulent....oh well....the diversion has been created and the seeds of mistrust planted...hip hip to the lame stream......that"s what they do these days...!

[bostonangler]

1 minute ago, coorslite21 said:

Oopps....just like the Steele Dosier......made up/fraudulent....oh well....the diversion has been created and the seeds of mistrust planted...hip hip to the lame stream......that"s what they do these days...!

 

Did it say fake or made up? I must have missed that... The point was, this better be a high up person and not some low level yahoo... But you making up a fake point really makes me wonder.

 

B/A

[coorslite21]

15 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Did it say fake or made up? I must have missed that... The point was, this better be a high up person and not some low level yahoo... But you making up a fake point really makes me wonder.

 

B/A

Reread the headline of your article....and as far as I'm concerned you can keep wondering.....

[bostonangler]

30 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

Reread the headline of your article....and as far as I'm concerned you can keep wondering.....

 

Right, a risk if the writer isn't high level... But making up stuff to mislead isn't your style, that is why I was surprised.

 

B/A 

[coorslite21]

13 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Right, a risk if the writer isn't high level... But making up stuff to mislead isn't your style, that is why I was surprised.

 

B/A 

What did I make up?

[bostonangler]

1 hour ago, coorslite21 said:

Oopps....just like the Steele Dosier......made up/fraudulent

 

At this point the letter cannot be called made up or fake... It might be from one of Trump's lieutenants, or some small fry wannabe, it could be one of his kids, but as of now we cannot say it is fake... Until proven otherwise the letter is real, the only question is who wrote it.

 

B/A

[coorslite21]

8 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

At this point the letter cannot be called made up or fake... It might be from one of Trump's lieutenants, or some small fry wannabe, it could be one of his kids, but as of now we cannot say it is fake... Until proven otherwise the letter is real, the only question is who wrote it.

 

B/A

Confused again.....are you talking about the Steele Dosier or the NY times OP ED that there is no factual evidence about... Which means it's ficticious, fake....show me a letter?.......enjoy your weekend!