Trump enters the stage

Roger Stone, one time political advisor to Mr.Trump predicts that Mueller will soon indict one of Trump’s sons for lying to the FBI.

Trumpism is most probably not an accidental oddity, and its apparent resilience is proof posotove2 of the cover within it silently operates.

It is hidden, because it represents an ideological struggle, whose features are represented as some kind of. partisan political struggle, featuring the well rehearsed rhetoric inhabited by the usual demonatrations reserved by most presidents as election bait.

The great society, the fight of.poverty, new deal, etc are cliches all promoting the reactions of negative projections of Capital protecting itself.

Capital , would rather destroy everything rather then allow its dismemberment. The whole ideological thorn brought about the limiting thresholds to its ideological premise, as when certain economic downturns were perceived as critical to its very survival, were interpreted as opportunities for drastic revision. The Great Depression brought about a world war, since the debacle of a serious social manifesto failed to clear up the economic uncertainties that t WW1, brought about, which again was for the most part, became an outburst testing the limits of 19th century progressive thinking related to the way society was to be defined in terms of Marx.

The theory still holds but the bargaining chips multiplied to a level of value as yet not seen in modern history.

The difference between then and now in economic process and how it translates into politics is the new fascism, which cam no longer hide its ambiguous description of living up to any rational approximation of Democracy. The term should be Capital democratic oligarchy, and the need to universallise it, reveals not the wish to improve the standards of living of the world population as a whole, but to assure a world wide audience consisting a viable market for those in control. of manipulation.

I am as certain of this now, as never before, and using this means to signify relations with the former Soviets and most other world entities should be , or could be appreciated in this ambiguous light.

The fear is great that some vulnerability will flare up to upset the apple.cart leading to an unforseen chaos, can be inferred from the confusing confusing rhetoric abounding in unexpected revisions of clever tounge twisting.

Its all around, and so obvious with the Heroic John McCain’s passing, who was almost demonized within his own party, while his passing indicates a sigh of relief of not having to deal with an honest politician.

He certainly was not a vainglory self
Glorifying manipulato , he will be remembered and sorely missed.

Filthy fascists still trying to destroy Trump.

“Trumpism” is DECENCY.

But the more lives are restored, the greater the horror of the left.

That horde of genocidal pedophile perjurors and their pathetic slaves in the electorate is making global civil war almost inevitable.

If they would have been able to simply respect the fact that their Hitler lost… but apparently the scum is too depraved.

I consider people that don’t step up to stop the Democrat machine of evil all war criminals.

It would seem logical to come to that conclusion , since the world of appearances operates in a world of reversals.

But what of overcoming such a deception?

The only way would be collusive sandwitching of a neo Kantism morphed by pragmatic modes of utility posed as news. But then both parties serve the ‘deep state’ to some
extent.

News as a propaganda machine.It is simple enough, for those who understand mass psychology and the intent of empire building ,where nothing is left off the table as off limits.

Ideologically defined moments such as those proceeding the burning of the Reichtag are very ripe now but in a narrower and more fatalistic sense.

It may come down dramatically, or in a way diminutive with a common sense approach.

But somethin’ is a’coming. A diffusion reacting a very unsorted con-fusion.

Media lies and the faked news spins

https://www.newsweek.com/white-farmer-killed-every-five-days-south-africa-authorities-do-nothing-851470

published March 19, 2018

https://www.newsweek.com/white-nationalists-trump-south-african-farmers-1087549

published August 23, 2018

So for those who do not understand how the media deception works, Newsweek already covered the white farmers situation in South Africa story that Donald Trump is currently investigating to help white South African farmers, but twisting it to seem like A) a conspiracy, and B) horrible white supremacy

Fucking fake fucking news! The goddamn lying sacs of manipulative scum!

I think I’ll add more media lies and fake news next to continue my creative contributions.

Wendy will comment later time permitting.

But for now: Russia is sending battleship to Syria as U.S. is suspected to strike there.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdeQCI7_7rI[/youtube]
This video discusses CNN’s fake news that is picked up by many other media outlets so they are all pushing their anti-Trump narrative, but CNN is simultaneously running a CNN only reports on the facts first initiative ad campaign. LOLZ! :laughing: =D>

The above interesting only from the point if view, that the media , as a viral apparatus, will react , as will all apparati, with the notion , that attack be handled within its own terms of understanding its signals. At this point it does not even matter who the protagonist, but points to a general malaise to the underscored and historic declaration by Marshall Mcluhen, that the media is the message.
IT’s beyond the point where clarifying be more meaningful.

Republicans in Congress have come back early from vacation, to question Bruce Per, a Justice Department expert who prosecuted underworld digires in the eighties and nineties, to try to undermine this man.

On another front, White House Concil try to influence Trump to not fire his Attorney General, not pardon Manaford, who was deep into the Kiev connection in influence peddling and money laundering, in addition to guaranteeing access to Trump for their efforts to influence public opinion prior to the election .

Again, I am unbiased , and still feel that the internal political collusion is still on, (at least media ways).

Politically, the grand standing promises of the wall, the North American and Mexican Nafta cancellations are being renegotiated China economic boycotts, the North Korean debacle , do not look very promising either.

Meanwhile the Florida and Arizona congressional elections held today do not show a good form for the Republicans either.

For critiques who brand this forum as being anti -Trump, hold on, and see how the premise in this coincides with what will happen, at least until after Congressional elections on the hole.

To show how this charge-counter charge works , I shall include an anecdote about John Podesta, whose brother admitted to various dinner parties, where high government officials were present, and the menus included ‘spirit cooking’ , containing various delicacies made of such things as pigs blood, human sperm and other bodily fluids. It was Podesta, remember whose e-mails were pirated by Russian interested groups, and now the fact that Trump was informed is contested now. Pizza gate and other goodies, even if tenuous, don’t bode well for that vamp, as well.

What the heck is going on in upper achelons defies anything heard heretofore.

My gut level is, that this whole political arena is so conflated , that maybe the Russian connection is externalizations of something’s extremely wrong politically and my guess is, that the upper echelons are ALL corrupt, and perhaps they are manufacturing this whole 3 ring circus as a diversion , a diversion approved and condoned by Russia, so as to prevent the emergence of a new unaffordable and fatalistic cold war with quite prone to end forebodingly catastrophic.

Sort of wish Arminius was still here , he pointed to this theory, or quite like it, but not on exact terms. I wish he could add something here from the German point of view.

That Soros was very supportive in helping the outcome of the Florida primary for governor presents the opposite, however.

Talking of opposites and reversals , the conclusion is tempting to make, that this conflation is deliberate and not at all unplanned .

The New World Order is a given and the kind of bait used gives the clue .

The reversals are as above geared on many levels some psychologically passed as reverse psychology, philosophocally, reversed from an implication of neo Kantian through a backward look from a pragmatic utalitarianism, where the intent is covered by even a more subtle approach toward/from Heidegger.

But the nature of the new world order is intended not as a.socially beneficial bit programmed for a reinforced Capital , ism, again reversely.

Quite a show: another probable scenario. But highly likely.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnTMTHZoI7Q[/youtube]
A South African Boer thanking Trump for tweeting correctly about the violence against whites in South Africa even though the fake news said it was a white supremacist conspiracy hoax.

Wendy, it is true , it is nowadays very difficult to tell truth from fake, but one side can not fight fake with truth, when truth itself is labeled fake.

If fake fights fake, to make another counter charge of fake, will be amusing at best who are really trying to keep score. The bottom line is beginning to be felt , is an uncaring and dismissive attitude by the public , who are beginning to think that its business as usual. The polls matter, but the public’s attitude by the time the Congressional elections come around may predictably account for this , and they may stay away.

Another day a comedian put it aptly: That if tomorrow news media would announce that Trump was filling all White House abandoned positions with Russians, people would yawn, and say things like , maybe we will really be able to clean the swamp now, those Russians are very good at politics.

Trump threatens to exit WTO on account of no viable agreements with China, who complained to the body for the tariffs . He also said he moat probably will fire Director of Justice Department after the elections .

He claims the WTO is partial to China and in lawsuits, they usually win.
He claims the whole world is taking advantage of the U.S., and that is the cause of US economic decline part ulaeily vis. China trade. The deadline with forging an agreement with Mexico and Canada song look that hot either , with deadlines coming soon.

Mueller is predicted to drop something huge today , a reliable prediction says, because it is urgent that he finish his business.

This , a response to Trump quote that the Mueller investigation is illegal. I think , had Trump been a trained lawyer, these blunders could have been avoided.

The same sources are seeing anfrantox Trump, with walls closing in on him , furiously with anger . lashing out. He came out the day before with another doozie, telling everyone that ofnje impeached, violent riots will occur on the streets.

Personally, I think he is pretty fair dealing with the Chinese on trade, but his background may male him unsuitable. Well let’s see if the predictions are on the money or not.

Papadapoulis accepted plea deal and indicated that both Sessions and Trump agreed to meet Putin to accept Russian help to the elections : through turning over as evidence.

POLITICS
Rudy Giuliani On White House Blocking Release Of Full Mueller Report: ‘I’m Sure We Will’
In an interview, the Trump attorney also said that his team was preparing a lengthy report rebutting special counsel Robert Mueller’s expected findings.
By Dominique Mosbergen
09/03/2018 11:03 AM ET
Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City and Trump attorney, says the White House will likely try to block the full
Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City and Trump attorney, says the White House will likely try to block the full public release of Robert Mueller’s expected final Russia report. (Regis Duvignau / Reuters)
Rudy Giuliani says the White House would likely attempt to block a full public release of Robert Mueller’s anticipated final report about the Russia investigation ― bolstering long-held fears that the special counsel’s ultimate findings may never see the light of day.

Giuliani’s startling admission was tucked inside an expansive New Yorker profile of the former New York City mayor and Trump attorney, published online Monday.

Giuliani, who like the president has repeatedly described the Russia probe as a “witch hunt,” told journalist Jeffrey Toobin that Trump’s original legal team had struck a deal with Mueller about his expected final report that would allow the White House to “object to the public disclosure of information that might be covered by executive privilege.”

“I asked Giuliani if he thought the White House would raise objections,” wrote Toobin in the profile.

“I’m sure we will,” Giuliana responded, noting that it would be the president who “would make the final call.”

Giuliani, whom Trump hired in April amid a change in the president’s legal representation in the special counsel probe, said that his team was preparing a lengthy report which they planned to release at the same time as Mueller’s to “refute its expected findings.”

As Vox explained in an earlier article, Mueller is only required by law to deliver a final report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who will ultimately decide whether to release any or all of Mueller’s findings to Congress or the public.

Victoria Nourse, a Georgetown law professor, told Vox that Trump could also “order” Rosenstein not to release it.

“But,” she added, “that’s a bit like firing Mueller, as many Republicans have warned — it just ups the case for impeachment because the president appears to be hiding something.”

Whatever the White House’s reaction ends up being to Mueller’s ultimate findings, the assessment is expected to trigger contentious political bickering as Rosenstein is pressured from different sides to release ― or suppress ― the information.

“It’ll be a moment that polarizes the country, exposing just how divided the country is about this investigation and who’s on the other side,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich told The Washington Post in June.

BEFORE YOU GO
Dominique Mosbergen
Senior Reporter, HuffPost
Suggest a correction by emailing us.
RELATED TOPICS
White House Robert Mueller Rudy Giuliani Rod Rosenstein Jeffrey Toobin

I thought the above was expressive of works under way to minimize damage even if, everything derogatory comes out.

Listening to a part of testimonies and testimonials , the basic one liner can be expressed as further proof of switching various issues , and again the clear cut message is that ’ if we can’t clear up this mess, how in the world do you think you can? Kamala Harris was as erudite as Lindsey Graham, and proofs of honesty seemed like a calculated effort to reduce cynicism to the order of at least a marginal pitch as politically correct efforts to establish somewhat credible boundaries.the circle needs to be closed, at least to the point of allowable exatness, where the margin of error may safely held to be on neutral ground.

That divisive politics and policies are extra directed at situational , and only some issues laden with partisanship, became conflicting. and defensively posed; making public announcements and private beliefs a calculus of expected opinion shaping.

This defensiveness , supported by emotionally laden strategizing plays well , when folded into an expected. neutralization, kind of like averaging out the expected affect/effect of a carefully crafted product.

This is in line with the inversion, or introjective reduction from some kind of parity through a workable use of it.

But will it really work? The expectations and the results may provide a clearer picture.

At heart, is, whether if elected, will the basic motive be successfully shown to be grounded in justice , or,/ either based on executive over reach, capacity, and possible breach.

The level of lack of social realism also comes into play, when there are discernable limits, as to the variable indexes of trustworthiness, value judgements and credibility coming into play. How long before the optical clarity will result in a general public myopia , or awareness of it being not part of the solution rather then the problem in itself? Will the circle of doubt generally accept a legal definition of what overstepped common sense implies, and wade into untested territories of general neuroasthenia?

An again is it the case of unproven effective anesthetic, mitigating all doubt of variable SET differences , which have driven some heavy hitters mad? Can that be overcome ? Probably , given the right cues, and management.

For that to happen , they will need a hero or an exemplary act.

Who in today’s geopolitical climate is up for that?

Constitutional crisis?
This Is a Constitutional Crisis
A cowardly coup from within the administration threatens to enflame the president’s paranoia and further endanger American security.

DAVID FRUM
4:54 PM ET

YURI GRIPAS / REUTERS
Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment is a constitutional mechanism. Mass resignations followed by voluntary testimony to congressional committees are a constitutional mechanism. Overt defiance of presidential authority by the president’s own appointees—now that’s a constitutional crisis.

If the president’s closest advisers believe that he is morally and intellectually unfit for his high office, they have a duty to do their utmost to remove him from it, by the lawful means at hand. That duty may be risky to their careers in government or afterward. But on their first day at work, they swore an oath to defend the Constitution—and there were no “riskiness” exemptions in the text of that oath.

Make your inbox more interesting.

Each weekday evening, get an overview of the day’s biggest news, along with fascinating ideas, images, and people.

Email Address (required)
Enter your email
Sign Up
The soft coup against Trump

On Wednesday, though, a “senior official in the Trump administration” published an anonymous op-ed in The New York Times, writing:

Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them.

The author of the anonymous op-ed is hoping to vindicate the reputation of like-minded senior Trump staffers. See, we only look complicit! Actually, we’re the real heroes of the story.

But what the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil. He or she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president’s willfulness.

MORE BY DAVID FRUM
Congressional Republicans Are the Real Authors of the Anonymous Op-Ed
PETER BEINART
A Judge Who Can’t Be Vetted Shouldn’t Be Confirmed
GARRETT EPPS
The Key Lesson of Ayanna Pressley’s Victory
PETER BEINART
Taking a Blowtorch to Debate
ALEX WAGNER
What happens the next time a staffer seeks to dissuade the president from, say, purging the Justice Department to shut down the Mueller investigation? The author of the Times op-ed has explicitly told the president that those who offer such advice do not have the president’s best interests at heart, and are, in fact, actively subverting his best interests as he understands them on behalf of ideas of their own.

He’ll grow more defiant, more reckless, more anti-constitutional, and more dangerous.

The inadvisable president

And those who do not quit or are not fired in the next few days will have to work even more assiduously to prove themselves loyal, obedient, and on the team. Things will be worse after this piece. They will be worse because of this piece.

The new Bob Woodward book set the bad precedent. The high official who thought the president so addled that he would not remember the paper he snatched off his desk? Those who thought the president stupid, ignorant, beholden to Russia—and then exited the administration to return to their comfortable, lucrative occupations? Who substituted deep-background gripe sessions with a reporter for offering detailed proof of presidential unfitness, or worse, before the House or Senate? Yes, better than the robotic servility of the public record. But only slightly.

The most extraordianary quotes from Bob Woodward’s book

What would be better?

Speak in your own name. Resign in a way that will count. Present the evidence that will justify an invocation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or an impeachment, or at the very least, the first necessary step toward either outcome, a Democratic Congress after the November elections.

Your service in government is valuable. Thank you for it. But it is not so indispensable that it can compensate for the continuing tenure of a president you believe to be amoral, untruthful, irrational, anti-democratic, unpatriotic, and dangerous. Previous generations of Americans have sacrificed fortunes, health, and lives to serve the country. You are asked only to tell the truth aloud and with your name attached.

DAVID FRUM is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic. In 2001 and 2002, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.
MOST POPULAR
1 This Is a Constitutional Crisis
2 We’re Watching an Antidemocratic Coup Unfold
3 Congressional Republicans Are the Real Authors of the Anonymous Op-Ed
4 How Well-Intentioned White Families Can Perpetuate Racism
5 A Judge Who Can’t Be Vetted Shouldn’t Be Confirmed
6 Woodward’s Account of Trump’s Mock Interview With Prosecutors Isn’t Pretty
7 It’s Time for the Press to Stop Complaining—And to Start Fighting Back
8 Why Does the School Day End Two Hours Before the Workday?
9 A Plane Quarantine in New York Started Out Like a Sci-Fi Nightmare
10 The Atlantic Politics & Policy Daily: The Calls Are Coming From Inside the House
VIDEOS
The Absurdity of America’s Front Lawns
EMILY BUDER
‘Man-Killing Jobs’ and Environmental Racism
EMILY BUDER
How ‘LOL’ Changed the Way We Talk
KASIA CIEPLAK-MAYR VON BALDEGG
The Logo Design Revolution
EMILY BUDER
Copyright © 2018 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.

Is this merely a partisan move? Or something more real?

Here is a new development , which is very surprising in view of the above:

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Politics
Opinions
Sports
Local
National
World
Business
Tech
Lifestyle
Entertainment
Video
Photography
Washington Post Live
Live Chats
Real Estate
Cars
Jobs
WP BrandConnect
Classifieds
Partners
washingtonpost.com
© 1996-2017 The Washington Post
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Submissions and Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices

Politics

‘The sleeper cells have awoken’: Trump and aides shaken by ‘resistance’ op-ed
By Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey

September 5, 2018 at 8:20 PM

Senior officials in the Trump administration have been working from within to frustrate parts of the president’s agenda to protect the country from his worst inclinations, an anonymous Trump official wrote in a column published by the New York Times on Sept. 5. (Reuters)
President Trump and his aides reacted with indignation Wednesday to an unsigned opinion column from a senior official blasting the president’s “amorality” and launched a frantic hunt for the author, who claims to be part of a secret “resistance” inside the government protecting the nation from its commander in chief.

The extraordinary column, published anonymously in the New York Times, surfaced one day after the first excerpts emerged from Bob Woodward’s new book, in which Trump’s top advisers painted a devastating portrait of the president and described a “crazytown” atmosphere inside the White House.

Taken together, they landed like a thunder clap, portraying Trump as a danger to the country that elected him and feeding the president’s paranoia about whom around him he can trust.

Trump reacted to the column with “volcanic” anger and was “absolutely livid” over what he considered a treasonous act of disloyalty and told confidants he suspects the official works on national security issues or in the Justice Department, according to two people familiar with his private discussions.

Trump questioned on Twitter whether the official was a “phony source,” and wrote that if “the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!”

President Trump pauses to listen a question from a reporter regarding The New York Times’ anonymous op-ed after a meeting with sheriffs at the White House Wednesday. (Calla Kessler/The Washington Post)
In a column titled, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” the person whom the Times identifies only as a “senior official” describes Trump’s leadership style as “impetuous” and accuses him of acting recklessly “in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”

Related: [Top appointees are ‘thwarting’ Trump, says ‘senior official’ in New York Times opinion piece]

The official writes that Cabinet members witnessed enough instability by their boss that there were “early whispers” of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office but decided instead to avoid a constitutional crisis and work within the administration to contain him.

“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,” the official writes.

The column, which published midafternoon Wednesday, sent tremors through the West Wing and launched a frantic guessing game. Startled aides canceled meetings and huddled behind closed doors to strategize a response. Aides were analyzing language patterns to try to discern the author’s identity or at a minimum the part of the administration where the author works.

“The problem for the president is it could be so many people,” said one administration official, who like many others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. “You can’t rule it down to one person. Everyone is trying, but it’s impossible.”

The phrase “The sleeper cells have awoken” circulated on text messages among aides and outside allies.

President Trump holds a meeting with Republican House and Senate leadership in the Roosevelt Room at the White House Wednesday. (LEAH MILLIS/Reuters)
“It’s like the horror movies when everyone realizes the call is coming from inside the house,” said one former White House official in close contact with former co-workers.

The stark and anonymous warning was a breathtaking event without precedent in modern presidential history.

“For somebody within the belly of the White House to be saying there are a group of us running a resistance, making sure the president of the United States doesn’t do irrational and dangerous things, it is a mind-boggling moment,” historian Douglas Brinkley said.

The column added to the evolving narrative of Trump’s presidency, based on daily news reporting and books like Woodward’s that rely on candid accounts of anonymous admin­istration officials.

“This is what all of us have understood to be the situation from Day One,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters. He added, “That’s why I think all of us encourage the good people around the president to stay.”

Related: [President Trump slams ‘gutless’ New York Times ‘resistance’ op-ed]

Trump was the first to speak for the administration and lashed out at the Times for its decision to publish the column.

“The failing New York Times has an anonymous editorial — can you believe it? — anonymous, meaning gutless, a gutless editorial,” Trump told reporters during an event with sheriffs in the East Room of the White House.

The president went on to brag about his popularity, although nearly all public polls show that more Americans disapprove of his job performance than approve of it. “Our poll numbers are great, and guess what? Nobody’s going to come even close to beating me in 2020,” Trump said, as the sheriffs assembled behind him burst into applause.

The president later tweeted a single word alleging a possible crime: “TREASON?”

In the Times column, the official writes about the late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) in heroic terms, describing him as “a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.”

This invocation angered Trump, who in his private talks with advisers and friends expressed particular dismay because he has long viewed McCain as a personal enemy, according to people familiar with the president’s thinking. The column reignited Trump’s frustration with last week’s remembrances of McCain and the widespread adulation of his life.

The president was already feeling especially vulnerable — and a deep “sense of paranoia,” in the words of one confidant — after his devastating portrayal in Woodward’s book. He was upset that so many in his orbit seemed to have spoken with the veteran Washington Post investigative journalist, and he had begun peppering staffers with questions about who Woodward’s sources were.

Trump already felt that he had a dwindling circle of people whom he could trust, a senior administration official said. According to one Trump friend, he fretted after Wednesday’s op-ed that he could trust only his children.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also denounced the opinion column in a ferociously worded statement that channeled her boss’s rage and echoed some of his favorite attacks on the media.

Her statement began by invoking Trump’s 2016 election victory and noting, “None of them voted for a gutless, anonymous source to the failing New York Times.” Sanders went on to demand that the paper apologize for what she called the “pathetic, reckless, and selfish op-ed,” and urged the anonymous author to leave the White House.

“The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States,” she said in her 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.”

Related: [The Fix: Another hostage in the White House comes forward]

There were immediate calls from Trump critics for the author to step forward and share more information with the public, including perhaps testifying before Congress, about Trump’s fitness for office.

Both inside the White House and in Trump’s broader orbit, aides and confidants scrambled to identify the anonymous official, windmilling in all directions; within just hours of publication, they privately offered up roughly a dozen different theories and suggested traitors.

One aide, for example, suggested a staffer seeking glory and secretly hoping to get caught, while another mused that the official was likely a low-level staffer in a peripheral agency. Others wondered aloud just what constituted a “senior official in the Trump administration.”

A spokeswoman for the Times said she was unable to provide any additional clarity on how the newspaper defines a senior administration official.

Times editorial page editor James Bennet declined to provide further information about the writer’s position or identity but said the newspaper received the column before news about Woodward’s book broke Tuesday. He said the newspaper “would not have been able to publish” the column if it had not granted anonymity to its author.

“We thought it was an important perspective to get out,” Bennet said. “Our preference is not to publish anonymously and we seldom do it. The question is, do we think the piece was important enough to make an exception? We feel strongly that it was.”

Related: [All the speculation that’s fit to tweet: Who wrote that anonymous Times op-ed?]

The outing of the op-ed’s author is virtually inevitable, according to forensic linguists, who work in both academia and private industry, figuring out the authors of anonymous texts in lawsuits, plagiarism cases and historical puzzles.

“We take the questioned document and compare it to known exemplars,” said Robert Leonard, a linguist at Hofstra University who is often retained by defendants and prosecutors in criminal cases involving threats, plagiarism and libel.

But although many people immediately launched into amateur forensic investigations after publication of the Times piece, Leonard cautioned that “a problem with public people is that a lot of their published work is edited, so it’s like mixing fingerprints or DNA. You don’t always know who the real author is.”

Brinkley, the historian, said the most analogous example of disloyalty and advisers disregarding the president’s wishes was in Richard Nixon’s final year as president. He explained that Nixon would “bark crazy orders” to aides that they intentionally disregarded.

“You’d have to go back to Hans Christian Andersen, ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes,’ to see this syndrome where the president’s reality happens to be so different from his own senior advisers,” Brinkley said.

Paul Farhi and Marc Fisher contributed to this report.

8.7k Comments
Philip Rucker is the White House Bureau Chief for The Washington Post. He previously has covered Congress, the Obama White House, and the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns. Rucker also is a Political Analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. He joined The Post in 2005 as a local news reporter.

Ashley Parker is a White House reporter for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2017, after 11 years at the New York Times, where she covered the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns and Congress, among other things.

Josh Dawsey is a White House reporter for The Washington Post. He joined the paper in 2017. He previously covered the White House for Politico, and New York City Hall and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for the Wall Street Journal.

Help and Contact Us
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Print Products Terms of Sale
Digital Products Terms of Sale
Submissions and Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices
© 1996-2018 The Washington Post

Photo edited by Slate. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.
JURISPRUDENCE
I Wrote Some of the Stolen Memos That Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate About
He should be impeached, not elevated.
By Lisa Graves
Sep. 7, 2018 3:43 PM
Much of Washington has spent the week focusing on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. After the revelations of his confirmation hearings, the better question is whether he should be impeached from the federal judiciary.

Advertisement

I do not raise that question lightly, but I am certain it must be raised.

Newly released emails show that while he was working to move through President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in the early 2000s, Kavanaugh received confidential memos, letters, and talking points of Democratic staffers stolen by GOP Senate aide Manuel Miranda. That includes research and talking points Miranda stole from the Senate server after I had written them for the Senate Judiciary Committee as the chief counsel for nominations for the minority.

Receiving those memos and letters alone is not an impeachable offense.

No, Kavanaugh should be removed because he was repeatedly asked under oath as part of his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings for his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit about whether he had received such information from Miranda, and each time he falsely denied it.

Advertisement

For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”

In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents.

Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats. Some of those emails went so far as to warn Kavanaugh not to distribute the Democratic talking points he was being given. If these were documents shared from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of normal business, as Kavanaugh claimed to have believed in his most recent testimony, why would they be labeled “not [for] distribution”? And why would we share our precise strategy to fight controversial Republican nominations with the Republicans we were fighting?

Advertisement

Another email chain included the subject line “spying.” It’s hard to imagine a more definitive clue than that. Another said “Senator Leahy’s staff has distributed a confidential letter to Dem Counsel” and then described for Kavanaugh that precise confidential information we had gathered about a nominee Kavanaugh was boosting. Again, it is illogical to think that we would have just given Miranda this “confidential” information for him to use against us. But this is precisely what Judge Kavanaugh suggested in his testimony on Wednesday. He is not that naïve.

In the hearing this week, Sen. Leahy also noted that the previously hidden emails showed that Miranda asked to meet Kavanaugh in person to give him “paper” files with “useful info to map out [Sens. Joe] Biden and [Dianne] Feinstein, and others.” The promised information included “Biden-speak.” Again, this would not have been a normal information exchange.

In response to Leahy’s questions this week, Kavanaugh made the outlandish claim that it was typical for him to be told what Democrats planned to ask at these combative hearings over controversial nominees, and that this was in fact the “coin of the realm.” As a Democrat who worked on those questions, I can say definitively that it was not typical at all. Kavanaugh knows this full well.

At the time, Kavanaugh was working with Miranda and outside groups to try to force these nominees through the Senate over Democratic objections, and it would have been suicide to give them our research, talking points, strategies, or confidential letters. The GOP senators, their staff, the White House, and outside groups were working intensively to undermine the work of Democratic senators to block the most extreme of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Advertisement

The Leahy talking points given to Kavanaugh were from my in-depth research into why the Senate had compelling historical precedent for examining Miguel Estrada’s Department of Justice records, which the White House counsel’s office was refusing to surrender. Other confidential materials Miranda shared with Kavanaugh related to investigations Democrats were pursuing over how Judge Priscilla Owen had handled an abortion case involving parental consent and about the overlap between her funders and groups with business before the courts of Texas. We would never have provided that information—key to our strategy to try to block what we considered extremist judicial nominations—to Miranda or to the White House.

During his testimony, Kavanaugh conflated these adversarial proceedings with ones in which Democrats might have cooperated with the other side, like the Patriot Act and airline liability. But these weren’t hearings on some bill where senators would share their concerns across the aisle to try to get a bipartisan fix on problems in a piece of legislation. These were oppositional proceedings in committee and on the floor over controversial judicial nominees. Kavanaugh knew this just as intimately as I did—our sides fought over those nominations intensely.

It was also an area where Kavanaugh’s judicial nominations alliance had taken a scorched-earth approach, attacking Democrats ruthlessly. The White House’s closest allies went so far as to call Leahy and other Democrats on the committee “anti-Catholic,” even running attack ads.

Perhaps Kavanaugh was so blinded by his quest to get the most controversial Bush nominees confirmed in 2003 that he did not have any concerns about the bounty of secret memos and letters he was receiving—the full extent of which is not known because so many documents are still secret.

Advertisement

But, surely, reasonable questions about what he had been party to would have been considered after the story of the theft exploded in the news, Miranda was forced to resign, and the U.S. Senate sergeant-at-arms began a bipartisan investigation into the files stolen from the Senate?

As of November 2003, when the sergeant-at-arms seized the Judiciary Committee’s servers, Kavanaugh would have been on notice that any of the letters, talking points, or research described as being from Democrats that were provided to him by Miranda were suspect and probably stolen from the Senate’s server.

But he did nothing. He did not come forward to the Senate to provide information about the confidential documents Miranda had given him, which were clearly from the Democrats.

Kavanaugh also apparently did nothing when the Senate referred the case to the U.S. attorney’s office for criminal prosecution. (Miranda was never prosecuted.)

Advertisement

Eventually, though, Kavanaugh went even further to help cover up the details of the theft.

During the hearings on his nomination to the D.C. Circuit a few months after the Miranda news broke, Kavanaugh actively hid his own involvement, lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee by stating unequivocally that he not only knew nothing of the episode, but also never even received any stolen material.

Even if Kavanaugh could claim that he didn’t have any hint at the time he received the emails that these documents were of suspect provenance—which I personally find implausible—there is no reasonable way for him to assert honestly that he had no idea what they were after the revelation of the theft. Any reasonable person would have realized they had been stolen, and certainly someone as smart as Kavanaugh would have too.

But he lied.

Advertisement

Under oath.

And he did so repeatedly.

Significantly, he did so even though a few years earlier he had helped spearhead the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for perjury in a private civil case. Back then Kavanaugh took lying under oath so seriously that he was determined to do everything he could to help remove a president from office.

Now we know that he procured his own confirmation to the federal bench by committing the same offense. And he did so not in a private case but in the midst of public hearings for a position of trust, for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.

Advertisement

His actions were dishonorable and dishonest.

This week, as part of his efforts to be elevated to the highest court in the land, he has calmly continued to deceive, falsely claiming that it would have been perfectly normal for him to receive secret Democratic letters, talking points, and other materials. And if this absurd notion were somehow true, it would not even be consistent with what he testified to 12 and 14 years ago. Back then, he didn’t state it would have been normal for him to receive secret Democratic strategy materials.

Instead, he explicitly and repeatedly went out of his way to say he never had access to any such materials. These objectively false statements were offered under oath to convince the committee of something that was untrue. It was clearly intentional, with Kavanaugh going so far as to correct Sen. Kennedy when the senator described the document situation accurately.

That’s why—without even getting into other reasonable objections to his nomination—he should not be confirmed.

Advertisement

In fact, by his own standard, he should clearly be impeached.

Lisa Graves is the co-founder of Documented, which investigates corporate influence on democracy. She is the former chief counsel for nominations for the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice.

Read more of Slate’s coverage of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
Kavanaugh’s Refusal to Recuse Himself From Mueller’s Cases Tells You Everything You Need to Know
Brett Kavanaugh Is Cherry-Picking the Cases He Says Count as Precedent
Brett Kavanaugh Shows You Don’t Have to Be a Sexual Harasser to Perpetuate a System of Abuse
The Documents Cory Booker Released Don’t Matter. His “I Am Spartacus” Moment Did.

FOLLOW SLATE
SLATE ONIPADIPHONEANDROIDKINDLE
REPRINTSADVERTISE WITH US
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
PITCH GUIDELINES
WORK WITH US
USER AGREEMENT
PRIVACY POLICY
COMMENTING
FEEDBACK
CORRECTIONS
Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company.
All contents © 2018 The Slate Group LLC. All rights reserved.

Of he gets nominated then the great doubt will be accelerated to an unimaginable level of anomalous testimony, giving rise to the charge of legal dishonesty.

Even of the article is false, clarofocatio, and not another whitewash is called for.

Strategy:

Consensus of all opinions considered :

Trump is not the cause but the symptom of public insecurity and dissatisfaction. Trump cleverly using this opportunity, to either further his cause or the Republic’s or both.

This is another anomalie, which criss crosses an already overwrought de-analysis , the deconstruction of complexity into the simplest formula.

For this , he will be forgiven, if policy dictates rules of governance.
ublic

Don’t worry the elites are already banning all Trumpets from the social media and social media is all kids know. When the president is removed by the elites no body will even know that someone disagreed.

Americans are racists, the elites know this very right. Make America Great Again is racist. America is only one out of 300 equal nations and we are all normal not great.

Greatness is unfair if you think about it very well.