WH Trump Resisters

[KeithE]

Hope the author comes forward (he/she/they should - **** their jobs, go public and resign).

A group of cabinet members are part of that resistance (according to the article).

Of course in response Trump just called this “fake news” from the totally “discredited NYTimes” who "did not get a single vote in the election", and threw out some supposedly new article about his success economically (which I have not been able to find yet).

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

Also for your consideration:

.
And the author suggests many people are part of the “Resistance”. So many on this list (an inside-the-WH “cabal”) may be in on this corralling of Trump.


The Op-Ed author is no left-winger and the “resisters” are probably all WH republicans.

And yesterday’s news:

which supports the Op-Ed author about the chaotic nature of the Trump White House.

[Jim]

[Sandy]

Woodward's books, including the one on Bush, have all been factually correct, heavily documented, and generally unchallengeable. There's always lots of conservative whining and shrieking when it comes to truth being exposed about one of their faves. Find something Woodward wrote that wasn't factually correct. Then you can whine and shriek. And I have yet to find a conservative whiner about the New York Times or The Washington Post who can point to any factual errors that they publish.

It's a credibility issue. To whine about Woodward and the Times, but believe what comes out of the repugnant liar-in-chief in the White House is laughable. You've been deceived by Trump for so long, you can't recognize a true statement when you read it.

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[Jim]

I saw a TV interview with Woodward. He admitted he had only what he called irrefutable hearsay (my term) but had no actual corroboration for his “facts.” He, of course, would have had no access to the White House or to the president, no matter what he says. Part of the interview included Woodward saying as much (Trump didn't answer his phone call) as if Trump should have given him the time of day. Maybe Woodward will find another Deep Throat.

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

Everyone seems to be guessing who the author was. The article itself speaks of a group of “resistors”. The author may be just one person who volunteered to write for the group. Many including Pence, Coats, Pompeo, and many more have denied being the author but they may be “resistors”. Woodward also speaks of many people trying to limit damage from this president.

[Sandy]

[Jim]

This bit of subterfuge seems to be a possible use of Amendment 25. I think the dems tried this on Reagan (senile), too, but he shot them down. The “progressives” (new definition of the Democrat Party) are losing on the SCOTUS nominee and see a big bust in the mid-terms, so anything goes at this point. I've watched the Kavanaugh hearing and saw the mendacity toward and inability to cope with the nominee, who virtually recited all cases brought up. The screaming protesters interrupted constantly and had to be thrown out. George Soros probably hired them all but to no avail, most of them seeming to be women dressed for an afternoon pot-party. Probably good pay and a handy bail bondsman. The primary subject for discussion was abortion and a bit about gun-control—the usual. The anger of the dem senators came through quite well but the nominee was as calm as could be possible. As Clarence Thomas would say, they tried for a lynching and got nowhere. Reminiscent of the Thomas hearing, when Anita Hill was brought in to do what would be called today a "Me, too" on Thomas, whom she had followed around back in the day and was rejected by him.

[Sandy]

[Jim]

[Sandy]

[Jim]

[Sandy]

[Jim]

[Jim]

[Sandy]

[Jim]

[Sandy]

[Jim]

S: No, that is not the case. They have not disclosed any sources but they have verified all of them. They have clearly stated that the information they published was verified before it ever was published. It is an op-ed piece, not a news story, so all the Times has to do is verify who wrote the story, and have them sign all the legal paperwork before publishing it. The credibility belongs to the authors, though the newspaper that published it is standing behind the fact that those words are the author's words.

I've watched several Woodward interviews, and about the only person in the White House he didn't talk to directly was the orange hair himself. Of course, the sources in something like this will be anonymous. We'd never have found out what a crook Nixon was without them. Free speech is a guaranteed right, and the courts have decided, from a long time back, that responsibility and anonymity are equally balancing elements without which speech is not free. If your words are true, and that can be verified, you can speak anonymously and be protected from retaliation, especially when the retaliation comes from a crooked snake in the grass criminal operative like the orange haired president. You, of all people, shouldn't have a problem with "verified anonymous sources," since that is a trademark of the extremist right wing media. Woodward is probably one of the best at getting to the truth without compromising someone's identity and protecting them from retaliation.

I can see why this might be a confusing issue for Jim. He seems to have ignored the fact that once the book "Unfit for Command" was written, all kinds of facts and evidence came forward to prove that the author, Jerome Corsi, really had only one anonymous source. Kerry never bothered with who that might be because the book was so full of provable lies, and because so many of those who served with him came forward to provide personal testimony of his character and service, that it made the "anonymous source" superfluous. And that author, Jerome Corsi, is a discredited hack who has to hang around and wordsmith for nut case extremist right wingers. He's virtually not even on the same literary planet as a powerhouse like Woodward. You don't like Woodward because he writes the truth about orange hair, and it makes him look bad. But that's not Woodward's fault. He just dug up the truth and put it out there for people to see.

Jim: If you actually believe that wordy swamp, you are to be pitied. Take some aspirin and a nap. Until there's proof for any of the NYT or Woodward slime, it remains an obvious attempt to accomplish some political objective. As for Kerry, winning three or four Purple Hearts involving just a half-day of lost duty was a little much, especially since at least one of his horrible wounds was accidentally self-inflicted. But they got him sent home after four months so he could throw his medals “over the wall.” His goose was cooked that memorable day in California when he said the guys too dumb to make it in school went to the Middle East. Stick with the “progressives” but be glad Hillary lost since she promised us 500,000 Syrian Muslims.

[Sandy]

[Jim]