Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"
if this is pure fiction then there is no violation of national security.trump's response indicates he does believe national security has been violated, giving validity to the op/ed.
and from sanders:
"The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States. 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."
that clearly indicates the WH believes the op/ed was written by someone inside the administration.
no sorry. they are clearly hedging and covering both sides because they don't know anything yet.
That's where the smart money would bet. Either that or a low-level Oblubber holdover throwing a temper tantrum. Not like the NYT is going to vet a source.
Since the writer says he's a Trump appointee - that's out.
I think it's a real person. Even a tiny newspaper in BFE isn't going to make up a bombshell like that. Too many repercussions.
That said - it could be some low-level paper pusher. We have no idea.
Was it good for the country to publish that op ed? I don't necessarily think so.
If an article or editorial does not have an identity, be it an alias or even a "written by the staff of [department of this publication]", I would lean more towards being a chance of fake news.
the Times has the identity, and chosen not to publish it at that person's request. It's completely different than getting a blind item.
If an article or editorial does not have an identity, be it an alias or even a "written by the staff of [department of this publication]", I would lean more towards being a chance of fake news.
the Times has the identity, and chosen not to publish it at that person's request. It's completely different than getting a blind item.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp
It does, the NYT isn't naming the author.
The NYT used to have a lot more journalistic integrity than it does now. It is a publication that shows disdain for the president every single day, making kind of hard to really trust them without a name behind the article.
i think it's a safe assumption that it's NOT woodward for the fact that the op/ed stole the focus from his book yesterday.
No--it's not Woodward, but I don't think the Op Ed stole the focus. I think the author nailed it down and complemented Woodward's book, giving it even more credibility.
"Lodestar" is absolutely a clue, but it doesn't necessarily point to Pence. Might be someone in his circle, though. I was leaning toward a woman initially, but after a careful re-reading, I believe the writer is male. Beyond that, I have no idea. Too many plausible possibilities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
