NY Times Publishes Op-Ed From Trump Senior Official

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, ALF said:

 

Times would disagree

 

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us

 

 

OF COURSE the times would disagree. Don't be dense.

 

[plenzmd1]

15 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Refute the fact that the NYT and WaPo rely almost exclusively on anonymous sources without any named source verification.

 

Refute that these "stories" are, therefore, not able to be relied on for anything other than entertainment purposes.

 

I refute it...now prove to me I am wrong with numbers.

 

The problem with this piece it was not reporting..it was an OpED piece..with no verified 2nd source etc...you know, principals of journalism

 

..and unnamed sources have been the lifeblood of political reporting since we became a country with a free press.

 

Refute Trump is a racist

Edited September 6, 2018 by plenzmd1

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

Refute Trump is a racist

 

I refute it. Prove me wrong with numbers. Full quotes.

 

You're a !@#$ing child, man. Sorry.

Edit: also, even when anonymous sources were used in they past they were almost ALWAYS verified with public sources.

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by joesixpack

[plenzmd1]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

I refute it. Prove me wrong with numbers. Full quotes.

 

You're a !@#$ing child, man. Sorry.

see, thats your argument...I said it, therefor it is so.

 

You want quotes, here is just one. Again, I am not saying Trump is racist..I am saying a basis for an argument that just says..".I say it is so, therefore it is..its childish.

 

Soooo many Sanctuary areas want OUT of this ridiculous, crime infested & breeding concept.

 

 

 

[ALF]

a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us

 

 

since the Times knows the identity of the official it's only anonymous to us

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, ALF said:

since the Times knows the identity of the official it's only anonymous to us

 

 

An anonymous source told me you have herpes. I know who the anonymous source is, so he's only anonymous to you.

 

 

8 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

see, thats your argument...I said it, therefor it is so.

 

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE STORY IS!

 

"We know this source, trust us."

 

This isn't rocket science.

 

[ALF]

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

 

An anonymous source told me you have herpes. I know who the anonymous source is, so he's only anonymous to you.

 

 

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE STORY IS!

 

"We know this source, trust us."

 

This isn't rocket science.

 

 

You are even more bizarre then Trump and that is almost impossible to do

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

You are even more bizarre then Trump and that is almost impossible to do

 

Whatever you say, Mr. Disingenuity.

 

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

see, thats your argument...I said it, therefor it is so.

 

You want quotes, here is just one. Again, I am not saying Trump is racist..I am saying a basis for an argument that just says..".I say it is so, therefore it is..its childish.

 

Soooo many Sanctuary areas want OUT of this ridiculous, crime infested & breeding concept.

 

 

 

 

Lost in this pitiful argument you're having with JSP is the simple fact that the Times published an op-ed confirming the "deep state" exists.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The story is an outright fabrication seeking to do damage to the President as indictments are about to begin to flow.

 

There is no source.

 

It is outright fiction.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The story is an outright fabrication seeking to do damage to the President as indictments are about to begin to flow.

 

There is no source.

 

It is outright fiction.

 

 

 

So, would you say this particular media outlet is working to subvert a democratically elected president and therefore the will of the people?

 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The story is an outright fabrication seeking to do damage to the President as indictments are about to begin to flow.

 

There is no source.

 

It is outright fiction.

 

 

 

I suspect there's a source.  I also suspect the Times is purposely trying to frame one person's opinion as a general trend sans confirmation, and has been sitting on this op-ed for months, waiting to coordinate it with Woodward's book release for maximum impact.

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I suspect there's a source.  I also suspect the Times is purposely trying to frame one person's opinion as a general trend sans confirmation, and has been sitting on this op-ed for months, waiting to coordinate it with Woodward's book release for maximum impact.

 

I disagree.

 

If such a person existed, their entire purpose would now be subverted by coming forward.  There would be no logical reason to publish such a piece.

 

The only purpose this serves is to propagandize.

 

It's a fiction, just as Woodward's book is.

 

It's agree it was coordinated to release with the book, but posit that it's easy to coordinate when there's only two actors involved (Woodward and the Times) and there are no real sources.

Edited September 6, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[MILFHUNTER#518]

2 hours ago, joesixpack said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35515/nyts-anonymous-source-traitor-troll-or-tall-tale-michael-j-knowles?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

This guy gets it, especially in the last paragraph.

 

The time is coming to destroy these domestic enemies of our country. I can't wait.

 

Very good read thank you

 

At this point, msm has lost all credibility and anonymous sources are so overused that they also carry zero credibility with most people.

 

MSM=Boy who cried wolf

22 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I suspect there's a source.  I also suspect the Times is purposely trying to frame one person's opinion as a general trend sans confirmation, and has been sitting on this op-ed for months, waiting to coordinate it with Woodward's book release for maximum impact.

You are most likely quite right, assuming there is a source. 

[LB3]

I wonder which NYT employee had to sleep with the anonymous source for this story.

[Tiberius]

19 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I suspect there's a source.  I also suspect the Times is purposely trying to frame one person's opinion as a general trend sans confirmation, and has been sitting on this op-ed for months, waiting to coordinate it with Woodward's book release for maximum impact.

Quote

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. 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.

The Times motives was to release a news story. The inclusion of John McCain's farewell letter shows it is not months old. This is an obvious attempt to make the babysitters look good, which, perhaps they are. 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Can't Cucck the Tuck!

 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

Good read.

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-administration-white-house-leaks-a5a82efa-d6c8-4209-b616-80f1422eb36c.html

 

President Trump is not just seething about Bob Woodward. He’s deeply suspicious of much of the government he oversees — from the hordes of folks inside agencies, right up to some of the senior-most political appointees and even some handpicked aides inside his own White House, officials tell Axios.

The big picture: He should be paranoid. In the hours after the New York Times published the anonymous Op-Edfrom "a senior official in the Trump administration" trashing the president ("I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration"), two senior administration officials reached out to Axios to say the author stole the words right out of their mouths.

Show less

• "I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating — that people seem so shocked that there is a resistance from the inside," one senior official said. "A lot of us [were] wishing we’d been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows — maybe he does? — that there are dozens and dozens of us."

Why it matters: Several senior White House officials have described their roles to us as saving America and the world from this president.

• A good number of current White House officials have privately admitted to us they consider Trump unstable, and at times dangerously slow.
• But the really deep concern and contempt, from our experience, has been at the agencies — and particularly in the foreign policy arena.

For some time last year, Trump even carried with him a handwritten list of people suspected to be leakers undermining his agenda.

• "He would basically be like, 'We’ve gotta get rid of them. The snakes are everywhere but we’re getting rid of them,'" said a source close to Trump.
• Trump would often ask staff whom they thought could be trusted. He often asks the people who work for him what they think about their colleagues, which can be not only be uncomfortable but confusing to Trump: Rival staffers shoot at each other and Trump is left not knowing who to believe.

Officials describe an increasingly conspiracy-minded president:

• "When he was super frustrated about the leaks, he would rail about the 'snakes' in the White House," said a source who has discussed administration leakers with the president.
• "Especially early on, when we would be in Roosevelt Room meetings, he would sit down at the table, and get to talking, then turn around to see who was sitting along the walls behind him."
• "One day, after one of those meetings, he said, 'Everything that just happened is going to leak. I don’t know any of those people in the room.' ... He was very paranoid about this."

The Times Op-Ed reinforces everything Trump instinctively believes:

• That a "Deep State" exists. It's trying to undermine him and — in the case of Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department, in Trump’s mind — is trying to overthrow his presidency.
• The Bob Woodward book, Trump believes, exposes that leakers are everywhere — and gunning for him. 

Be smart: "People talk about the loyalists leaving," the source close to Trump tells us. "What it really means is [that there'll be] fewer and fewer people who Trump knows who they really are. So imagine how paranoid you must be if that is your view of the world."

 

 

[plenzmd1]

48 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Lost in this pitiful argument you're having with JSP is the simple fact that the Times published an op-ed confirming the "deep state" exists.

If you believe it..kind of a conundrum there no?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

Good read.

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-administration-white-house-leaks-a5a82efa-d6c8-4209-b616-80f1422eb36c.html

 

President Trump is not just seething about Bob Woodward. He’s deeply suspicious of much of the government he oversees — from the hordes of folks inside agencies, right up to some of the senior-most political appointees and even some handpicked aides inside his own White House, officials tell Axios.

The big picture: He should be paranoid. In the hours after the New York Times published the anonymous Op-Edfrom "a senior official in the Trump administration" trashing the president ("I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration"), two senior administration officials reached out to Axios to say the author stole the words right out of their mouths.

Show less

• "I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating — that people seem so shocked that there is a resistance from the inside," one senior official said. "A lot of us [were] wishing we’d been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows — maybe he does? — that there are dozens and dozens of us."

Why it matters: Several senior White House officials have described their roles to us as saving America and the world from this president.

• A good number of current White House officials have privately admitted to us they consider Trump unstable, and at times dangerously slow.
• But the really deep concern and contempt, from our experience, has been at the agencies — and particularly in the foreign policy arena.

For some time last year, Trump even carried with him a handwritten list of people suspected to be leakers undermining his agenda.

• "He would basically be like, 'We’ve gotta get rid of them. The snakes are everywhere but we’re getting rid of them,'" said a source close to Trump.
• Trump would often ask staff whom they thought could be trusted. He often asks the people who work for him what they think about their colleagues, which can be not only be uncomfortable but confusing to Trump: Rival staffers shoot at each other and Trump is left not knowing who to believe.

Officials describe an increasingly conspiracy-minded president:

• "When he was super frustrated about the leaks, he would rail about the 'snakes' in the White House," said a source who has discussed administration leakers with the president.
• "Especially early on, when we would be in Roosevelt Room meetings, he would sit down at the table, and get to talking, then turn around to see who was sitting along the walls behind him."
• "One day, after one of those meetings, he said, 'Everything that just happened is going to leak. I don’t know any of those people in the room.' ... He was very paranoid about this."

The Times Op-Ed reinforces everything Trump instinctively believes:

• That a "Deep State" exists. It's trying to undermine him and — in the case of Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department, in Trump’s mind — is trying to overthrow his presidency.
• The Bob Woodward book, Trump believes, exposes that leakers are everywhere — and gunning for him. 

Be smart: "People talk about the loyalists leaving," the source close to Trump tells us. "What it really means is [that there'll be] fewer and fewer people who Trump knows who they really are. So imagine how paranoid you must be if that is your view of the world."

 

 

 

You're not paranoid when they really ARE out to get you.

 

[snafu]

This ope-ed piece...wow.  There are so many things wrong about it, but just off the top of my head:

--Presuming it is true, the fact that someone in the administration thinks that they are above normal governmental functioning and chain of command is just numbing.  That's as far from checks and balances as the government gets.  Whether the President is a whack-job or not, this alleged cabal should be rooted out and shown the door.

--I wonder what this person's background is.  There's no indication as to whether this individual was a holdover from a prior regime or not.  This person "outed" his resistance and consequently shot his scheme in the foot yet wanted to remain anonymous.  Seems like he's trying to protect a pension more than tying to save the people.  Why end the effort now?

--The Times had to take the "extraordinary" measure of (a) publishing an anonymous op ed piece, and (b) explaining its decision in a preamble to the piece.  Please -- that's CYA at its finest.

--The author is a sniveling coward.

--The Times is disingenuous, at best.

--I'm being polite.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, snafu said:

 

--Presuming it is true, the fact that someone in the administration thinks that they are above normal governmental functioning and chain of command is just numbing.  That's as far from checks and balances as the government gets.  Whether the President is a whack-job or not, this alleged cabal should be rooted out and shown the door.

 

 

Exactly, if we assume that this person is real, he's acting above his pay grade and against the will of the voters. So either we have a media outlet making outright fabrications or an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat that is in dire need of squashing.

 

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

If you believe it..kind of a conundrum there no?

 

No.  If true, it confirms the "deep state."  If false, the NYT is actively trying to undermine the sitting administration, and are themselves acting as part of the "deep state."

 

 

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

No.  If true, it confirms the "deep state."  If false, the NYT is actively trying to undermine the sitting administration, and are themselves acting as part of the "deep state."

 

 

okay, good points.

 

So to my earlier comments..can it really be Trump is playing 4D chess and planted this for the exact reasons you stated above?

 

Cause when an avowed anti Trump person like me says"this kinda confirms what Trump has been saying""  ..umm..nah, Trump ain't that smart is he?

[TH3]

The tears of conservatives  Trump snowflakes gushing today.....triggered much?....your struggle is real!!

[GG]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

What is there to refute. Just cause you say something does not make it so. Dumb argument. I say Trump is racist..prove me wrong!

and...please show direct causality between these stories( i confess I do not know these pieces) and American deaths on the battlefield.

 

And this conversation has gone off the rails..again my point was I think the Times fugged up here..I have said it many times and I think it hurts their  credibility.

 

What kind of proof for the direct causality are you looking for?    A spy's obituary in NYT or WaPo?

 

Or can you do a simple logical progression that when a leading newspaper unveils previously secret anti-terror mechanisms, discusses possible military plans in the Syrian war theater, or discloses names of operatives, it will lead to more lost lives?

 

NYT didn't win many fans when its Judith Miller's reporting was used in the run up to the Iraq War.  Since then, they've done a 180 nad have actively undermined much of US intelligence work.  Now they're helping sabotage a duly elected President.

[snafu]

10 minutes ago, baskin said:

The tears of conservatives  Trump snowflakes gushing today.....triggered much?....your struggle is real!!

 

I'm no Trump snowflake and all this piece tells me is that it is a good thing there's no "style points" in running the executive branch.

 

I don't like the fact that (if true) there are people in government who feel that they can act apart from government. The results of the administration speak for themselves.  I guess I'm a Constitutional snowflake. 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Having said that, i found the second theory in the piece interesting. I agree with the author, no one knows how to steer and manipulate the press better than Trump..could this just be troll used to prove Trump's point on the MSM? Did Trump plant this thing on purpose? I think publishing this was the absolute wrong decision by theTimes, and as I said in the other thread it does go a long way towards proving Trump's point. I need @Deranged Rhino to weigh in here!?

 

 

 I can't say it's impossible, look at Sun Tzu's writing on doomed spies - then look at what Michael Cohen did to Lanny Davis and by extension the Trump Tower narrative. I can't prove that Cohen was a doomed spy sent behind enemy lines, but the outcome sure does seem like it was by design. Cohen fed Lanny Davis a bunch of barium meals, Davis happily regurgitated it all to the press for weeks while Cohen was recording hours and hours of conversations with reporters (and one with Trump). Then Cohen recanted his account forcing Davis to do a mea culpa. 

 

Far fetched? Maybe. But the results are tough to dismiss.  

 

Not to be repetitive, but it's important: we are in a world wide (dis)information war in which we are all combatants. The battle is being fought for our minds, as well as the geopolitical philosophy of the global community. It wouldn't shock me to learn it was planted by Trump's team, but I need to see how it plays out a bit more first. I lean more towards the notion that the FISA declassification is imminent (can confirm), it's going to be devastating to the narrative pushed by many (especially the New York Times and their ilk) and they're trying to throw everything they can at the fan hoping for a distraction. 

 

I expected the FISA declass to happen today before/while 45 is traveling, now I'm thinking it's going to happen Friday to make sure they have a choke hold on the news cycle over the weekend. We'll find out soon enough. 

 

But as Tom keeps saying, what this article really does is prove the deep state is real and has supporters in the MSM. That's progress for the world wide awakening that's going on right now. Sounds cheesy, but it's reality. 

[3rdnlng]

39 minutes ago, baskin said:

The tears of conservatives  Trump snowflakes gushing today.....triggered much?....your struggle is real!!

I laugh at you libs, and I'm not even addressing your !@#$ed up ideas. Your lack of originality time and time again makes me laugh out loud at you. Seriously, you couldn't come up with another moniker than snowflake? You had to steal our description of you guys as pussies?

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

This ope-ed piece...wow.  There are so many things wrong about it, but just off the top of my head:

--Presuming it is true, the fact that someone in the administration thinks that they are above normal governmental functioning and chain of command is just numbing.  That's as far from checks and balances as the government gets.  Whether the President is a whack-job or not, this alleged cabal should be rooted out and shown the door.

--I wonder what this person's background is.  There's no indication as to whether this individual was a holdover from a prior regime or not.  This person "outed" his resistance and consequently shot his scheme in the foot yet wanted to remain anonymous.  Seems like he's trying to protect a pension more than tying to save the people.  Why end the effort now?

--The Times had to take the "extraordinary" measure of (a) publishing an anonymous op ed piece, and (b) explaining its decision in a preamble to the piece.  Please -- that's CYA at its finest.

--The author is a sniveling coward.

--The Times is disingenuous, at best.

--I'm being polite.

 

 

He's a dysfunctional adult, what are they suppose to do? 

[OCinBuffalo]

8 hours ago, ALF said:

New York Times Aiming for 10 Million Subscribers as Profits Rise

The Times managed to add more than 100,000 subscribers during the first quarter and profits are growing.

The newspaper tallied an operating profit of $34.1 million, an increase of 22 percent, compared to the same quarter last year, on total revenue of $413.9 million, a 3.6 percent increase. 

 

https://wwd.com/business-news/media/new-york-times-profits-subscriptions-rise-in-q1-1202664521/

 

I was just curious after hearing Trump keep saying the failing NY Times

Simple: without him the NY Times would be dead already. He is the only subject that they write about, and, they are literally operating the National Enquirer business model in doing so. The more salacious, the more likely they are to get a buy.

 

When Trump leaves, so does their golden goose. 

 

That's the theory. I don't buy it. Actually, the Mueller investigation is their golden goose. As soon as it concludes, we'll see how the NYT does. 

6 hours ago, ALF said:

The anonymous source would need to go into the witness protection program from the extreme Trump supporters if identity became known.

 

The country is growing further apart over Trump, forget any bipartisan cooperation.

You're fooling yourself. 4Chan /pol/ will find out, and dox, this guy in a week. "We" are already working on it. That's if he even exists. I would not be surprised at all if we find out that the real "source" for this story is an ex-Obama official, who knows the basic operations of the WH enough to create credibility. 

 

That's the thinking and that's why 4Chan has fired up the "ion cannon"(a totally fake thing, that was really about getting dumb 14-year-olds to become "hackers": to download it, so that we could use their computers for DDoS.) I bet it will still work, even after all this time.

 

Either way, this is literally throwing the gauntlet at the feet of Anonymous. These people are going to be really, really sorry they did that. "Poke the bear"? Not close: Try shooting a .22 at the battleship.

 

EDIT: It is near impossible to get Anons to all work together, not screw with each other, and move on the same thing. You have to be as deranged as Scientology to make that happen. Yet, here we are. The NYT has done the near impossible. Great Job Guys!

Edited September 6, 2018 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

8 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

You're fooling yourself. 4Chan /pol/ will find out, and dox, this guy in a week. "We" are already working on it. That's if he even exists. I would not be surprised at all if we find out that the real "source" for this story is an ex-Obama official, who knows the basic operations of the WH enough to create credibility. 

 

That's the thinking and that's why 4Chan has fired up the "ion cannon"(a totally fake thing, that was really about getting dumb 14-year-olds to become "hackers": to download it, so that we could use their computers for DDoS.) I bet it will still work, even after all this time.

 

My favorite theory so far is that it's Pence. That's the theory that my Hollywood friends have glommed on to. They see it as the perfect way to get rid of both Pence and Trump: Pence betrayed Trump, Trump sacks Pence removing the threat of a President Religious Terminator succeeding Trump, then the "resistance" impeaches Trump and the post-midterm democratic Speaker of the House Pelosi takes over as POTUS. 

 

... This has been explained to me twice just this morning.  

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

My favorite theory so far is that it's Pence. That's the theory that my Hollywood friends have glommed on to. They see it as the perfect way to get rid of both Pence and Trump: Pence betrayed Trump, Trump sacks Pence removing the threat of a President Religious Terminator succeeding Trump, then the "resistance" impeaches Trump and the post-midterm democratic Speaker of the House Pelosi takes over as POTUS. 

 

... This has been explained to me twice just this morning.  

 

Holy crapmuffins. I think you can pretty much guarantee this country would burn to the ground if that happened

 

[OCinBuffalo]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

 

It's obvious Trump and his supporters are now panicking, I totally understand.

Yeah, I guess you are going to have to find a new definition for the word: panic. I am not seeing panic. Quite the opposite. Determination.

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

My favorite theory so far is that it's Pence. That's the theory that my Hollywood friends have glommed on to. They see it as the perfect way to get rid of both Pence and Trump: Pence betrayed Trump, Trump sacks Pence removing the threat of a President Religious Terminator succeeding Trump, then the "resistance" impeaches Trump and the post-midterm democratic Speaker of the House Pelosi takes over as POTUS. 

 

... This has been explained to me twice just this morning.  

Wishful idiocy. Destroyed in a single phrase: Pence is poised in political perfection. Alliterative, even.  Right now, Pence will get to claim all of Trump's results, and none of the baggage. Hell, he can even run on keeping Trump's policies, but without the tweets. (A political master stroke, which he can always change, and revert back to tweeting, because "look at how nasty the left is".)

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[outsidethebox]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

okay, good points.

 

So to my earlier comments..can it really be Trump is playing 4D chess and planted this for the exact reasons you stated above?

 

Cause when an avowed anti Trump person like me says"this kinda confirms what Trump has been saying""  ..umm..nah, Trump ain't that smart is he?

He's smarter than you and the rest of the wack jobs on the left.

Edited September 6, 2018 by westside

[OCinBuffalo]

3 hours ago, PearlHowardman said:

 

This is what I'm talking about.

This is also the elephant in the room that nobody seems to be getting, yet.

 

WHY in the Sam Hell would anyone want to lend gallons of credibility to Trump's ongoing "Deep State" theory? That's exactly what this anonymous source(s) does. Trump says that there are bad guys intent on running their own agenda, and country be damned. Sounds like a conspiracy theory/difficult to prove. 

 

Then, some benighted fool comes out and literally says: I, and purported others, am going to run my own agenda? 

 

You just gave Trump full license to level the entire bureaucracy. WHY WOULD YOU give him the very thing he wants the most? A chance to remake ALL of existing government his way?

 

Either we are dealing with people who, if you jumped off their ego and onto their IQ, you die, OR, this is yet another put-up job by this Administration.

 

The left is right when they call Trump a con-man in that: he is constantly conning them, which is often the best thing for the country.

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Otherwise stated as:

"Damn it, everybody who works in the admin is going to be treated to nonstop harassment by Anonymous until they get the answer, and that sucks for us."

 

Also, Sanders sorta doxxed them with this. I wouldn't want to be within 100 yards of that phone line. Actually, I fully expect the NYT PBX to be compromised by at least Sunday. They can expect porn audio voice mails and Shadilay. 

[Koko78]

28 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

My favorite theory so far is that it's Pence. That's the theory that my Hollywood friends have glommed on to. They see it as the perfect way to get rid of both Pence and Trump: Pence betrayed Trump, Trump sacks Pence removing the threat of a President Religious Terminator succeeding Trump, then the "resistance" impeaches Trump and the post-midterm democratic Speaker of the House Pelosi takes over as POTUS. 

 

... This has been explained to me twice just this morning.  

 

Uh, how do they think that Trump can fire Pence? Seriously, do these morons not read the !@#$ing Constitution?

[plenzmd1]

11 minutes ago, westside said:

He's smarter than you and the rest of the wack jobs on the left.

Okay... that’s a brilliant retort! 

[outsidethebox]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

Okay... that’s a brilliant retort! 

You think hes2an idiot, yet he's a billionaire and the president. What's to argue?