http://Embed from Getty Images
September 10, 2018
The New York Times isn’t even pretending to not have a political agenda anymore. Printing an anonymous scathing editorial denigrating the president is not journalism, it’s partisan politics.
In spite of Trump being a duly elected president the mainstream media and the anti Trump faction of the country have been actively attempting to destroy his presidency.
Shockingly, thanks to the work of a few conservative reporters and Republican lawmakers, such as Devin Nunes, and Jim Jordan, we have already learned that the movement to stop Trump has extended into the highest echelons of government , including top officials at the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Now we have learned that the “resistance” has even infiltrated the realm of Trump’s White House. Under the guise of protecting our country from Trump, the writer claims, that he/she and other unelected officials are working to subvert parts of the president’s agenda.
Claims of a deep state, which is often ridiculed by the media, just became a lot more credible.
Claims Made in the Editorial
This op-ed is so clearly written by someone with a personal animus towards the president. Trump is referred to as amoral, and is blamed for the incivility in our discourse. Clearly, Trump is not the typical focused- group politician, and occasionally speaks in a manner that some find offensive. However, throughout the history of the United States there has always been rancor between political rivals.
Trump is also accused of lacking any real conservative convictions. This is in spite of the fact that, other than trade, he has been governing in line with the conservative agenda, such as tax reductions, deregulation, and filling the courts with conservative jurists.
The writer does admit that “Many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous”. The historic tax reform and the extensive deregulation implemented by the Trump administration is considered by many to be the reason for the jump-start of the economy. However, the writer gives Trump no credit for these accomplishments, claiming that these these actions occurred “in spite of the president.”
This Anti-Trump “official” was apparently out of the country during the presidential campaign. Trump ran on a platform that included tax reductions, regulatory reform, and nominating conservative jurists. Clearly, the conservative actions taken by the Trump administration that have benefited our country were always a part of Trump’s agenda.
Trump is described as mercurial and prone to engage in “repetitive rants”. Even those who have never been on Twitter are aware of the fact that the president is not above engaging in impulsive petty attacks on a foe. It’s hard to miss hearing about his occasional wince-inducing tweet, because it’s usually headlining news. However, this behavior has been occurring long before Trump ever took office.
Trump is also accused of making “half- baked” decisions that have to be “walked back”. Someone without personal animus for the president would probably characterize this as consulting with, and then listening to his advisors. No one voted for Trump because they believed that he was a policy wonk.
This editorial is filled with vague accusations. The only specific claim against Trump involves Russia. According to the writer Trump did not want to impose sanctions on Russia. They happened because “his national security team knew better.”
Many among the “resistance” would like nothing more than for evidence to be discovered tying Trump to Russian collusion. It’s interesting that the writer makes it a point of expressing that Trump was dismayed over taking retaliatory measures against Russia.
To be clear, whether Trump was reluctant or not, the sanctions, and other retaliatory measures against Russia, could not have been implemented without Trump’s approval.
The writer evokes John McCain to denigrate Trump, claiming that Trump may “fear such honorable men”. This statement speaks volumes about the personal disdain this person has for the president, and the biased lens through which they are evaluating him, and his actions.
Channeling Maxine Watters, it is also claimed that there were “early whispers of invoking the 25th amendment”. Vice President Mike Pence has adamantly denied that any such discussions have ever taken place among cabinet officials.
In addition, dozens of top White House officials have adamantly denied writing this op-ed; along with rebuking the characterization of the situation in the White House. Pence has even offered to take a lie detector test.
The most egregious claim made in this Anti- Trump screed is that the writer, and the other “quiet resistance within the administration” are “choosing to put country first”. There is nothing noble about the claims of undermining and subverting the will of a duly elected president. Further if the writer, and other members of the ‘quiet resistance’ truly believed that they are protecting the country from a Trump presidency, writing this anonymous public attack against the president runs counter to their purported noble agenda.
A “Senior Administration Official”
The writer of this op-ed is described by the New York Times as a “senior administration official”. According to an article by a New York Times reporter, who does not know the identity of the op-ed writer, ‘the universe of possible senior administration officials probably numbers in the hundreds, at a minimum.” The fact that “senior” is in the title is not that relevant. The reporter adds, “sourcing descriptions are a matter of negotiation between a journalist and source; and “senior” could have been tacked on to “help a reporter convey gravitas”, and to “ feed the ego of a government employee”.
Perhaps this senior official was part of the “resistance” even before the election, and was hoping that Hillary Clinton would be the next president. It is a fact that there are numerous anti- Trump Obama holdovers working throughout the government. Even though the writer claims to be a conservative, this does not rule out that this editorial had political motivations. Numerous Republicans have expressed vehement disdain for the president from the time he first announced his candidacy, and have never supported him.
Rather than penning a self-serving memorial to bolster the writer’s Anti- Trump bona -fides, a more noble action from this “senior administration official” would be to disclose their identity, and render a resignation. There is nothing commendable about undermining a legitimately elected president.
Rush Limbaugh had an interesting theory. He believes that this anti- Trump piece was probably not written by one person, but is based on a composite of individuals. Unfortunately, publishing an anonymous op-ed allows the Times to dodge questions, and hide behind this cloak of secrecy in the name of protecting a source, making it impossible for the Trump administration to adequately challenge its veracity. A Quinnipiac poll released Monday shows that 55% believe the allegations made in this column.
With the midterm elections less than two months away this editorial is well-timed, if the intention is to inflict political harm to the president. There is little doubt that if Democrats gain control of the the House, they will vote to impeach the president, in an attempt to overturn the American voters. The publication by the Times of this Never- Trump screed is just one more piece of evidence that the media is aiding and abetting these efforts.
